The
Scripps Institution of Oceanography has publically
available data
from 10 CO2 monitoring stations around the globe. The
locations
of these stations can be seen in the map pictured in Fig 1.2.
All but one of these stations are located in very
isolated
parts of the world. The purpose of isolating the monitoring stations from civilization is to avoid
contamination
from industry, cars, volcanoes, and smog. The satellite
photograph of the Asian Brown Cloud (Fig 1.2) shows how
contaminants or pollution can collect in certain parts of the world's
atmosphere. In time the air will mix evenly with the rest of
the globe. Putting a measuring device in the middle of the
ocean or in a remote place like Alaska will avoid sampling these pockets because the air will have plenty of time to mix.
The following is
a
list of the CO2 monitoring stations. Descriptions
of methods used and their data are freely available to the
public:
Before
1958 the readings, shown by black dots, were all over the place.
They vary by as much as 250 ppm in a single year. Yet the
readings after 1958, shown by the red line (Fig 2.2), follow a very
smooth and very predictable curve. The post 1958 CO2 growth
rate is at minimum 0.30 ppm (1964)
and at maximum 2.95 ppm (1998)
per year. The pre-1958 CO2 readings (black dots) seem to make
much larger jumps of 250 ppm.
The CO2 levels post 1958 have always gone up from one year to
the next. This is not the case pre-1958 where CO2 levels
frequently switch directions from increasing to decreasing.
So why are the pre-1958 CO2 readings so different than post
1958 CO2 readings? Well the answer lies in the
devices used to take the measurements. The glass tube on the
left is what was used pre-1958. The IR gas analyzer (Fig 3.2)
and sampling tower (Fig. 3.3) on the right are what was used post 1958.
The ancient measuring device on the left (Fig 3.1) has a few problems
People exhale CO2 and this device is right next to you.
Pumping the bulb does not guarantee all of the original air
will be flushed out of the sampling container.
Pumping the bulb encourages backflow from the cylinder
which is pretty close to the samplers armpit if not his mouth.
Is not a whole lot of volume to work with.
Has a whole host of calibration problems.
The CO2 measuring device on the right (Fig 3.2) doesn't have any of
these
problems. Air samples at Mauna Loa are collected continuously
from air intakes at the top of four 7-m towers and one 27-m tower.
Who is consistent? Who
is inconsistent?
Highly irregular
pre-1958 readings shown by black dots
The line
graph on the above right (Fig. 4.2) shows the data from the monitoring
stations discussed above (Fig 1.1). As you can see the data
is very consistent. It does not vary from station to station.
And other than a slow upward trend, it does not vary a whole
lot from year to year. This characteristic is not only shown
by our current readings but it can be seen in the ice cores as well.
The ice
core data is shown by the green line in figure 4.1.
Yet Jaworowski says the green line is wrong and the highly
eratic black dots
are correct.
München and Hamburg (Germany),
Innsbruck (Austria), London, Dieppe (France), Kopenhagen, Vienna and
Paris (France), Washington (USA).
Some simple math behind the
earths CO2 content and fluctuations
A 250 ppm increase in CO2 withing one year would require an extra 532.5
Gt (billion tons) of CO2 emitted. Keep in mind this must be
ontop
of what nature and mankind are already emitting as a yearly average.
In order for this to be caused by nature then this CO2 would
either have to come from volcanoes (which
only emit 0.2 Gts/yr) or a massive yearly shift in plant and
animal life. Volcanoes can't come close to emitting this much
CO2. Global meat production only emitted 0.229
Gt tonnes of CO2 in 2001. According to NASA the forests in
the United States,
Europe and Russia soak up only 0.7
Gt of carbon a year. Given how small these numbers
are it would be difficult to figure out how a 250 ppm shift in CO2 is
possible. The IPCC estimates that if you burned every plant
on the planet you would only release 500
billion tons of CO2.1
*CO2 emissions from livestock were derived without
considering landuse changes. If somebody has a
better way of calculating a natural increase in animal growth please
e-mail me.
** Graph was created with microsoft Excel
Callendar, G.S., On the amount of carbon dioxide
in the atmosphere. Tellus, 1958. 10: p. 243-248.
If you would like to
contact us, suggest a topic to be covered, contribute a relevant
commentary,
or be part of this effort on a more permanent basis, please email: