AGW catastrophism CO2 Emissions Omniclimate

Atmospheric CO2 and Human Emissions

A look at some of the numbers behind human activities and CO2 reveals that World Primary Energy Production has a .98948 correlation with yearly Mauna Loa atmospheric CO2 content averages.

In the period 1980-2005 though, the former has increased 60% while the latter only 12%.

If we limit ourselves to Petroleum, Gas and Coal, the correlation goes down slightly (to .98201). PGC Energy Production has increased 53% between 1980 and 2005.

Assuming the Mauna Loa data truly reflect an increasing CO2 trend, there are strong indications that atmospheric CO2 go up indeed with human energy production, but the planet is more than capable to cushion any effect.

Probably, there is not enough oil in the ground to cause any doubling of CO2, and even if we burned all the coal we’d be hard pressed to increase our CO2-generation energy production to a value 320% higher than 1980’s, that would cause an expected net effect of seeing a 50% increase in atmospheric CO2 compared to 1980, to around 500ppmv.


CO2 (1980-2005) (Jan-Dec average) :
338.6825, 339.9266667, 341.1266667, 342.775, 344.42, 345.8983333, 347.1483333, 348.9266667, 351.4816667, 352.9025, 354.1816667, 355.5875, 356.37, 357.0333333, 358.8791667, 360.8725, 362.6375, 363.7591667, 366.6225, 368.3058333, 369.4716667, 371.0116667, 373.0925, 375.6366667, 377.3808333, 379.66

Primary energy production:
287.594, 282.653, 281.182, 283.819, 299.787, 307.259, 316.977, 324.427, 337.041, 343.975, 349.833, 347.044, 347.575, 349.360, 355.578, 363.933, 373.240, 381.485, 385.035, 385.994, 396.263, 403.192, 406.941, 422.692, 444.452, 460.139

Petroleum/Gas/Coal Primary Energy Production:
259.179, 252.764, 249.670, 249.820, 262.870, 267.712, 276.010, 282.035, 292.315, 298.313, 303.140, 298.944, 299.229, 299.031, 304.451, 310.613, 318.467, 326.550, 329.688, 329.184, 338.182, 345.235, 348.298, 363.533, 382.939, 396.854

0 replies on “Atmospheric CO2 and Human Emissions”

thank you Roads

I am not sure I follow your line of thought. One may as well expect that an increase in CO2 availability would bring about a larger absorption than usual. I am not sure the whole process is understood in any of its details, so I’d stick to observations.

Concerning the rates of increase of Mauna Loa CO2 and Primary Energy Production, both first derivatives show large variations (up to 4 times larger than the minimal value) and their correlation is quite weak (0.41). Correlation between CO2 1st der and absolute P.E.P. is just 0.39

The global CO2 level in any year is not proportional to the energy production in that year, and no one is saying that.

Rather it reflects the natural CO2 level plus the added anthropogenic CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels, accumulated over time (primarily since the start of the industrial revolution), less that amount which is resorbed back into the natural environment (by vegetation and dissolution into the oceans).

Since CO2 levels are indisputably rising, it is clear and obvious that the current resorption rate of CO2 does not any longer match the anthropogenic production rate of carbon dioxide.

It follows that it does not take an x% increase in primary energy production to cause an equivalent increase in CO2 levels – what it does take for CO2 levels to increase is for enough carbon to be burned over time, and for the CO2 to accumulate progressively within the atmosphere accordingly. The higher the primary energy production, the faster the levels will rise.

What would be more meaningful for you to do would be to plot the progressive increase in CO2 levels against primary energy production. Then you might be on to something. Especially if you extrapolate the curve into the future.

Leave a Reply - Lascia un commento

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.