1/7》GCP emission data shows 185.58 ppmv of fossil carbon emissions from 1959-2021 (plus a poorly constrained amt of non-fossil "land use change emissions"). Only about 5.56 ppmv (3%) was CO2 released from limestone [CaCO3] as it's baked to make cement.
@Piyush__Tank @JessePeltan 2/7》It's estimated that, on average, as concrete weathers it absorbs roughly half as much CO2 as was released from the limestone when it was made. That halves the 3% (5.56 ppmv) figure to 1.5%. The process is akin to natural rock weathering: sealevel.info/feedbacks.html…
3/7》It's often claimed that cement manufacturing causes "up to 8%" of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, but that figure includes estimated emissions from the fossil fuels burned to heat the kilns, typically accounting about half the total (though it varies according to how the kilns are fired). cfdflowengineering.com/cfd-modeling-o…
4/7》Note, though, that as mankind added that 185.58 ppmv of CO2 to the air (plus "land use change emissions"), the amount of CO2 in the air increased by only (416.41-315.24)= about 101 ppmv.
That's because "Nature" (the net sum of natural fluxes) simultaneously removed about 84 ppmv.
In fact, nature is currently removing an average net sum of about 2.5 ppmv of CO2 from the air each year (plus whatever you estimate our "land use change emissions" to be).sealevel.info/co2.html
5/7》The higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere rise, the faster Nature removes CO2 from the air. For each 40-50 ppmv increase in the CO2 level, natural CO2 removals accelerate by about 1 ppmv/year.
This is one of the most important (albeit underappreciated) climate feedback mechanisms. It's really the combined effect of several feedbacks: 1. CO2 Fertilization Feedback (“greening”). 2. CO2 Absorption By Water Feedback. 3. CO2 Coccolithophore Feedback. 4. Rock Weathering Feedback. sealevel.info/AR6_WG1_Table_… sealevel.info/feedbacks.html…
6/7》The atmospheric CO2 level is currently rising ≈2.45 ppmv/year.
That means if CO2 emissions were to continue at their current rate indefinitely, the atmospheric CO2 concentration would plateau at only 422 + (2.45 × (45±5)) ≅ 530 ppmv (which is 26% of a doubling).
(That's added to the 50% of doubling [280→420 ppmv] seen since the preindustrial late Little Ice Age, which has, so far, given us an estimated approximately 1°C of warming.)sealevel.info/co2_2012-2022_…
7/7》If any of this surprises you, you might not be getting balanced, accurate info. I'm here to help:
That resource list has:
● accurate introductory climatology info
● in-depth science from BOTH skeptics & alarmists
● links to balanced debates between experts on BOTH sides
● info about climate impacts
● links to the best blogs on BOTH sides of the climate debatesealevel.info/learnmore.html…
1/5. Willard, why do you ask questions that were answered at links I just gave you—that you refused to read?
I linked to a 7-part tweetstorm about the discredited Shakun/Marcott/Pages2K/Hagelaars "wheelchair" graph, which goes back 22K years. It completely erased D-O event #1, every last trace of it.
2/5. That wheelchair graph also erased all but ¼℃ of D-O event #0, a/k/a the Younger Dryas termination, a/k/a the start of the Holocene.
3/5. It also shows the middle of the Dark Ages Cold Period as slightly warmer than the middle of the Medieval Warm Period.
1/6. From measurements of downwelling LW IR, 342 W/m² is a reasonable, approximate estimate of downwelling LW IR radiation averaged over the entire surface of the Earth.
It's essentially identical to MacCracken's 1985 estimate (which he called "only an approximation"):
(Note: the numbers are percentages.)
The quoted text excerpt is:
“The fluxes of energy within the atmosphere-surface system can be illustrated using an energy balance diagram. Although many measurements have been made at the surface and from satellites, there are still uncertainties of 10-20% in the values of some of the fluxes because of the difficulty of making representative global measurements. In some cases model calculations have been used to generate estimates. The values shown in the diagram in Figure 1.2 are derived from consideration of energy balances prepared by Gates (1979), Liou (1980), and MacCracken (1984), and are only an approximation.”
Source:
M. C. MacCracken and F. M. Luther (Ed.), "Projecting the Climatic Effects of Increasing Carbon Dioxide," United States Department of Energy, DOE/ER 0237, Dec. 1985.
Note that the main source of uncertainty is not that we cannot measure downwelling LW IR. Rather, it is "the difficulty of making representative global measurements." Actual downwelling LW IR fluxes vary wildly with time and location, so finding an accurate global average is problematic, to put it mildly.sealevel.info/MacCracken1985… researchgate.net/profile/Michae…
3/6. Here's the NCA4 version (with my notes about the "radiative imbalance" added). They show downwelling LW IR = 338 to 348 W/m², with a best estimate of 342: sealevel.info/NCA4_global_en…
@joelgombiner @RARohde 1/5》I agree. Without those ice sheets, there's no source for vast influxes of freshwater into the northern North Atlantic, to slow the AMOC.
There are a few key lessons to be learned from Dansgaard-Oeschger events (and D-O #0, a/k/a the Younger Dryas). sealevel.info/learnmore.html…
@joelgombiner @RARohde 2/5》Because D-O terminations had warming trends an order of magnitude faster than current warming, and because nearly all extant species survived those large, sharp warming events, we needn't worry that the current slight warming could cause extinctions. archive.is/aUi9R#selectio…
3/5》Because D-O events only occur during glaciations, and never during interglacials, we can say with confidence that warmer climates are more stable than colder climates.
That might be largely because without the great northern ice sheets, there's nothing which could pour vast quantities of freshwater into the northern North Atlantic, slowing the AMOC.
It's surely also because Planck Feedback is ∝ T⁴, so the warmer the climate gets, the stronger that negative (stabilizing) feedback is.
3/4. The best science shows manmade climate change is modest & benign, and CO2 emissions are beneficial, not harmful. The major harms from CO2 are all hypothetical, and mostly implausible. The major benefits are proven, measured, and very large.