Common Climate Misconceptions: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

Understanding the carbon cycle is a key part of understanding the broader climate change issue. But a number of misconceptions floating around the blogosphere confuse basic concepts to argue that climate change is irrelevant because of the short residence time of carbon molecules in the atmosphere and the large overall carbon stock in the environment.

It turns out that while much of the “pulse” of extra CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere would be absorbed over the next century if emissions miraculously were to end today, about 20 percent of that CO2 would remain for at least tens of thousands of years.

The complex global carbon cycle process involves carbon absorption and release by the atmosphere, oceans, soils, and organic matter, and also emissions from anthropogenic fossil fuel combustion and land-use changes. The figure below shows the best estimate of annual carbon fluxes from main sources and sinks.

View larger image
Figure from Oak Ridge National Laboratories (Units in gigatons of carbon).

At first glance, it may seem that the narrow black arrows representing anthropogenic sources are relatively insignificant, making up only a few percent of the total carbon released to the atmosphere in any given year. To understand why anthropogenic emissions are of concern, it is important to think of the carbon cycle as a balance of sorts; every year around 230 gigatons of carbon dioxide are released to the atmosphere, and around 230 gigatons of carbon dioxide are absorbed by the world’s oceans and biosphere. This balance forms an equilibrium of sorts, with the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide remaining largely unchanged over time. However, anthropogenic emissions throw this process out of kilter, adding a new source of emissions unmatched by additional sinks.

The carbon dioxide record over the past 10,000 years demonstrates this situation: the modern period exhibits a large spike in atmospheric carbon dioxide coincident to the time humans started burning fossil fuels.

Atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the past 10,000 years. From the IPCC AR4 WG1 SPM.

Graphing emissions over the modern period against changes in atmospheric concentrations illustrates a clear relationship between emissions and increasing CO2 concentrations.

Via Wikipedia.

It is important to note that not all anthropogenic emissions are accumulating in the atmosphere. Indeed, about half of annual CO2 emissions are absorbed by the ocean and vegetation, and this percentage of absorption, called the airborne fraction, is currently the subject of vigorous debate over whether or not it is changing over time. Scientists can model the absorption of anthropogenic carbon by year for different sinks.

Image from the Global Carbon Project.

Determining the residence time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a rather complex problem. A common misconception arises from simply looking at the annual carbon flux and the atmospheric stock; after all, with 230 gigatons absorbed by the oceans and land every year, and a total atmospheric stock of 720 gigatons, one might expect the average molecule of CO2 to remain in the atmosphere for only three to four years.

Such an approach poorly frames the issue, however. It is not the residence time of an individual molecule that is relevant. What really matters is just how long it will take for the stock of anthropogenic carbon emissions that has accumulated in the atmosphere to be reabsorbed.

The simplest way to approximate the time it will take to reabsorb the anthropogenic flux is to calculate how long it would take for the atmosphere to revert to preindustrial levels of 280 parts per million if humans could cease emissions immediately. If the current net sink of around 4 gigatons of carbon per year remained constant over time, it would take about 50 years for the atmosphere to return to 280 ppm. However, there is no reason to think that these sinks would remain constant as emissions decrease. Indeed, it is more realistic to anticipate that the net sink would shrink in proportion to the decrease in emissions.

Scientists can approach this problem in a number of different ways. They can use models of carbon sink behavior based on their best knowledge of the physics of ocean carbon absorption and the biosphere. They can also use records of changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide during glacial periods in the distant past to estimate the time it takes for perturbations to settle out.

Using a combination of various methods, researchers have estimated that about 50 percent of the net anthropogenic pulse would be absorbed in the first 50 years, and about 70 percent in the first 100 years. Absorption by sinks slows dramatically after that, with an additional 10 percent or so being removed after 300 years and the remaining 20 percent lasting tens if not hundreds of thousands of years before being removed.

As University of Washington scientist David Archer explains, this “long tail” of absorption means that the mean lifetime of the pulse attributable to anthropogenic emissions is around 30,000 to 35,000 years.

Figure via Global Warming Art.

So while a good portion of warming attributable to carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions would be removed from the atmosphere in a few decades if emissions were somehow ceased immediately, about 10 percent will continue warming Earth for eons to come. This 10 percent is significant, because even a small increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases can have a large impact on things like ice sheets and sea level if it persists over the millennia.

Zeke Hausfather

Zeke Hausfather, a data scientist with extensive experience with clean technology interests in Silicon Valley, is currently a Senior Researcher with Berkeley Earth. He is a regular contributor to The Yale Forum (E-mail:, Twitter: @hausfath).
Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Common Climate Misconceptions: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

  1. John D. Swallow says:

    There are some obsessed with the supposed increase of 280 ppm to 392ppm of CO2 and I hope that this information will help you to sleep better at nights.
    This, I hope, will put this into some kind of a perspective that makes one understand just how insignificant this increase is.
    A part per million is like 1 drop of ink in a large
    kitchen sink.
    A large kitchen sink is about 13-14 gallons. There
    are 100 drops in one teaspoon, and 768 teaspoons
    per gallon.
    Some other things that are one part per million are…
    One drop in the fuel tank of a mid-sized car
    One inch in 16 miles
    About one minute in two years
    One car in a line of bumper-to-bumper traffic from
    Cleveland to San Francisco.
    One penny in $10,000.
    I know that you understand that these 112 additional ppm are spread out over this 16 miles in different one inch segments and wouldn’t it be a task to be told to sort out the 392 pennies from the number that it would take to make up $10,000.
    At 368 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth’s atmosphere– less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth’s current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished

    In 2007, McIntyre examined records across America. He found that between 1999 and 2007, the US equivalent of the Met Office had changed the way it adjusted old data.
    The result was to make the Thirties seem cooler, and the years since 1990 much warmer. Previously, the warmest year since records began in America had been 1934.–Russians-admit-DID-send-them.html#ixzz1UuTnjKgU

    It is also a fact that cold ocean water absorbs CO2 & warm water releases it; therefore, warming precedes increases in atmospheric CO2 by hundreds of years. No where is it mentioned in this article that CO2 constitutes a paltry .036% of the atmosphere and is 1 and 1/2 times heavier than air and these are important facts to be aware of.
    “It is interesting to note that, even though carbon dioxide is necessary for life on Earth to exist, there is precious little of it in Earth’s atmosphere. As of 2008, only 39 out of every 100,000 molecules of air were CO2, and it will take mankind’s CO2 emissions 5 more years to increase that number by 1, to 40.”

  2. Katie Collier says:

    Mr. Swallow,
    For someone bold enough to leave such a comment, you really don’t seem to have any grasp on climate science at all. The naturally existing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (and these make up as tiny a component as you indicate) contribute enough of a warming effect to increase global temperatures by 7 degrees celsius. The increase of 112ppm may seem small, but because of the way the greenhouse effect occurs, it has a devastating potential. The fact that CO2 constitutes 0.36% of the atmosphere is irrelevant – it still has the capacity to trap heat, and any excess WILL cause a temperature increase. Immediately. You have also ignored methane, water vapour, and nitrous oxide as greenhouse gases – and these are just as important, if not more, in understanding enhanced climate change. I beg of you, please actually learn how the greenhouse effect works. Then go and preach.

  3. Nick says:

    I know I’m about a year too late for this article. But what I wonder is whether or not activities such as concerted forest replanting would have a bigger effect on reducing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. My reasoning, as a non-scientist by the way, goes something like this:

    1. Preventing deforestation is a strategy as forests are efficient at absorbing atmospheric carbon dioxide

    2. However, old growth forests can be thought of as centralized systems where large trees dominate smaller one’s and are responsible for the majority of carbon absorption (is this true? I’m sure it’s more complex than this)

    3. Do young trees absorb more carbon dioxide as they grow than stable older trees? Do trees require increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide as they grow?

    4. Finally, would tipping the balance towards increasing CO2 absorbing foliage be a more realistic and better strategy for achieving atmospheric balance than relying on reductions to the 280ppm necessary to offset the more severe consequences of climate change?