"Pretty darn close. When burned in a modern furnace, there isn't anything left but the mineral content. And that is generally less than one percent."
Generally less than 1%? Are you sure about your numbers? Wyoming coals have 9-15% ash content,
smtc.uwyo.edu
Illinois Coal #6 has 19% ash:
fpl.fs.fed.us
And what is the ash content of goals burning in China and Russia? And I am not talking about up to 50% moisture content that likely is included in your raw mining number.
Again, the data for carbon emissions are collected from UN reports on fuel usage, so I would be very careful to question their data. Therefore, my number, 3-4% of human contribution relative to currently assumed natural CO2 flux, stands. I am not saying that this is a negligible number, but it is quite short of producing prehistorical levels of 6000ppm.
"By the mid-1800s, coal production was exceeding 100 million tons a year. And that was about the time the LIA was ending"
So, LIA was already "ending", and temperatures started to decline before humans started to add 0.03% of C to global natural carbon flux? Please, give me a break...
Me: "what is the ground of your belief that the oceans are still sinking the carbon dioxide?"
You: "What is the basis of your belief that it isn't?"
I asked first. I mentioned Takahashi, which implies the 35-years of research and mapping of oceans with sources and sinks of CO2, based on measurements in differences in partial CO2 pressure and diffusion across "stagnant layer". Please answer my question first. Before I proceed with writing another dissertation about caveats of estimating average of a product of several rapidly fluctuating fields, I need to know your take on this matter.
- Ali
|
