32
- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
How much CO2 have fossil fuels added - and where did it go? (science board)
Posted on 10/25/26 at 10:41 pm
Posted on 10/25/26 at 10:41 pm
I compare fuel inventories with the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, using chemistry and conservation of carbon. I use 1750 as the standard preindustrial reference and count emissions through 2024, the historical endpoint of this dataset.
1. How much has fossil-fuel use released?
For carbon combustion:
C + O2 -> CO2
The oxygen adds mass. One tonne of carbon produces about 3.664 tonnes of CO2. "Gt" means a billion metric tonnes.
Summing the Global Carbon Budget's annual coal, oil, gas and flaring categories for 1750-2024 gives:
Sum of emissions about 1,785 GtCO2
about 487 GtC
about 1.78 trillion tonnes of CO2. [1]
Scope: these fuel-use categories are dominated by burning but also include some industrial oxidation of fossil carbon. This subtotal excludes cement-process CO2 and land-use change; fuel burned in cement kilns is included.
2. Express that in atmospheric ppm.
"ppm" means CO2 molecules per million molecules of dry air. The standard global conversion is:
1 ppm = about 2.124 GtC = about 7.782 GtCO2. [1]
Therefore the cumulative fuel emissions have an atmospheric equivalent of:
1,785 GtCO2 / (7.782 GtCO2/ppm) = about 229 ppm.
That is the increase they could supply if all this CO2 stayed in the air. It is not the observed concentration.
3. Compare with the atmospheric store.
The preindustrial reference is about 278 ppm. NOAA's measured global annual average for 2024 was 422.79 ppm, rounded here to 422.8 ppm. [1,2]
Atmospheric increase about 422.8 - 278 about 145 ppm
about 1,127 GtCO2.
Total atmospheric CO2 store in 2024:
422.8 * 7.782 about 3,290 GtCO2.
So cumulative fuel emissions alone are equivalent to about 54% of that entire atmospheric store - and exceed the observed industrial-era increase. This is a comparison of amounts, not a claim that 54% of today's CO2 molecules came directly from fossil fuels. The figures are rounded, using the 2024 annual mean rather than an exact year-end carbon budget.
4. Where did some of the added CO2 go?
Oceans absorb CO2, and vegetation and soils take up carbon. They also release carbon; what matters for accumulation is the net exchange. Some of our added CO2 has therefore left the atmosphere. [3]
Conservation of carbon gives:
atmospheric accumulation = human emissions - net uptake
Human emissions here must include fossil use, industrial processes and land-use change. Therefore 145/229 is NOT a precise fossil-fuel "fraction remaining": other human sources also contribute to the atmospheric increase. The full carbon budget estimates sources and sinks separately, with uncertainties. [1]
5. The carbon isotopes provide another check.
Carbon is roughly 98.9% 12C and 1.1% 13C; modern carbon has only about one 14C atom per trillion. These abundances vary among reservoirs. [3,4]
Plants preferentially take up 12C. Fossil fuels inherit this carbon, so their CO2 is relatively depleted in 13C. Adding it lowers atmospheric 13C/12C, as observed. That trend alone cannot distinguish fossil fuels from land vegetation. [4]
Fossil fuels also contain virtually no 14C. Its radioactive half-life is 5,730 years:
For an isolated sample, the number of 14C atoms follows:
N14(t) = N14(0) * 2^(-t/(5,730 years)).
After geological ages, almost none remains. Adding this ancient carbon dilutes atmospheric radiocarbon. Scientists account for ocean/plant exchanges and nuclear-testing and industry effects when interpreting the measurements. Together with inventories and carbon mass balance, these isotope fingerprints identify fossil burning as the main source of the industrial CO2 rise. [3,4]
Sources:
[1] Global Carbon Budget 2025, final historical dataset and methods:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17417124
https://doi.org/10.18160/GCP-2025
https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/18/3211/2026/
[2] NOAA GML global annual CO2 measurements:
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2/co2_annmean_gl.txt
[3] Scripps CO2 Program, inventories, sinks and isotopes:
https://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/faq/
[4] NOAA isotope evidence and radioactive decay:
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/isotopes/chemistry.html
https://gml.noaa.gov/education/isotopes/c13tellsus.html
https://gml.noaa.gov/education/isotopes/c14tellsus.html
https://gml.noaa.gov/education/isotopes/decay.html
1. How much has fossil-fuel use released?
For carbon combustion:
C + O2 -> CO2
The oxygen adds mass. One tonne of carbon produces about 3.664 tonnes of CO2. "Gt" means a billion metric tonnes.
Summing the Global Carbon Budget's annual coal, oil, gas and flaring categories for 1750-2024 gives:
Sum of emissions about 1,785 GtCO2
about 487 GtC
about 1.78 trillion tonnes of CO2. [1]
Scope: these fuel-use categories are dominated by burning but also include some industrial oxidation of fossil carbon. This subtotal excludes cement-process CO2 and land-use change; fuel burned in cement kilns is included.
2. Express that in atmospheric ppm.
"ppm" means CO2 molecules per million molecules of dry air. The standard global conversion is:
1 ppm = about 2.124 GtC = about 7.782 GtCO2. [1]
Therefore the cumulative fuel emissions have an atmospheric equivalent of:
1,785 GtCO2 / (7.782 GtCO2/ppm) = about 229 ppm.
That is the increase they could supply if all this CO2 stayed in the air. It is not the observed concentration.
3. Compare with the atmospheric store.
The preindustrial reference is about 278 ppm. NOAA's measured global annual average for 2024 was 422.79 ppm, rounded here to 422.8 ppm. [1,2]
Atmospheric increase about 422.8 - 278 about 145 ppm
about 1,127 GtCO2.
Total atmospheric CO2 store in 2024:
422.8 * 7.782 about 3,290 GtCO2.
So cumulative fuel emissions alone are equivalent to about 54% of that entire atmospheric store - and exceed the observed industrial-era increase. This is a comparison of amounts, not a claim that 54% of today's CO2 molecules came directly from fossil fuels. The figures are rounded, using the 2024 annual mean rather than an exact year-end carbon budget.
4. Where did some of the added CO2 go?
Oceans absorb CO2, and vegetation and soils take up carbon. They also release carbon; what matters for accumulation is the net exchange. Some of our added CO2 has therefore left the atmosphere. [3]
Conservation of carbon gives:
atmospheric accumulation = human emissions - net uptake
Human emissions here must include fossil use, industrial processes and land-use change. Therefore 145/229 is NOT a precise fossil-fuel "fraction remaining": other human sources also contribute to the atmospheric increase. The full carbon budget estimates sources and sinks separately, with uncertainties. [1]
5. The carbon isotopes provide another check.
Carbon is roughly 98.9% 12C and 1.1% 13C; modern carbon has only about one 14C atom per trillion. These abundances vary among reservoirs. [3,4]
Plants preferentially take up 12C. Fossil fuels inherit this carbon, so their CO2 is relatively depleted in 13C. Adding it lowers atmospheric 13C/12C, as observed. That trend alone cannot distinguish fossil fuels from land vegetation. [4]
Fossil fuels also contain virtually no 14C. Its radioactive half-life is 5,730 years:
For an isolated sample, the number of 14C atoms follows:
N14(t) = N14(0) * 2^(-t/(5,730 years)).
After geological ages, almost none remains. Adding this ancient carbon dilutes atmospheric radiocarbon. Scientists account for ocean/plant exchanges and nuclear-testing and industry effects when interpreting the measurements. Together with inventories and carbon mass balance, these isotope fingerprints identify fossil burning as the main source of the industrial CO2 rise. [3,4]
Sources:
[1] Global Carbon Budget 2025, final historical dataset and methods:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17417124
https://doi.org/10.18160/GCP-2025
https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/18/3211/2026/
[2] NOAA GML global annual CO2 measurements:
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2/co2_annmean_gl.txt
[3] Scripps CO2 Program, inventories, sinks and isotopes:
https://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/faq/
[4] NOAA isotope evidence and radioactive decay:
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/isotopes/chemistry.html
https://gml.noaa.gov/education/isotopes/c13tellsus.html
https://gml.noaa.gov/education/isotopes/c14tellsus.html
https://gml.noaa.gov/education/isotopes/decay.html
Posted on 10/25/26 at 10:45 pm to SpidermanTUba
‘Bout tree-fiddy.
Posted on 10/25/26 at 10:47 pm to SpidermanTUba
Go away, manbearpig.
Posted on 10/25/26 at 10:51 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
SpidermanTUba
how much money do we need to give to central governments for you to be quiet again?
Posted on 10/25/26 at 10:52 pm to SpidermanTUba
You're on fire today 
Posted on 10/25/26 at 10:52 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
I compare fuel inventories with the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, using chemistry and conservation of carbon. I use 1750 as the standard preindustrial reference and count emissions through 2024, the historical endpoint of this dataset.
Posted on 10/25/26 at 10:52 pm to SpidermanTUba
What's the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere?
It's .0452%
Go to bed.
It's .0452%
Go to bed.
Posted on 10/25/26 at 10:57 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
Therefore 145/229 is NOT a precise fossil-fuel "fraction remaining": other human sources also contribute to the atmospheric increase
That’s because it’s 220, 221... whatever it takes.
Posted on 10/25/26 at 11:01 pm to SpidermanTUba
get a life
Posted on 10/25/26 at 11:09 pm to SpidermanTUba
To people who are scared and paranoid over the combustion of fossil fuels:
None of the catastrophic predictions that have been made for decades and decades has happened and the so-called scientific “consensus” regarding our impending doom is a LIE.
Ask yourself:
Do you realize what happens if we stop or drastically reduce the use of fossil fuels in the near future?
A whole lot of ultra-poverty, suffering and DEATH.
And for those that survive - enjoy living in the dark ages.
Of course, you can be certain that the political elite who have been screaming about humans destroying the planet - they will exempt themselves and continue to use just enough fossil fuels for themselves - while happily watching everyone else suffer and die. Assholes.
So environmentalist nut jobs - quit trying to ruin everyone’s lives.
None of the catastrophic predictions that have been made for decades and decades has happened and the so-called scientific “consensus” regarding our impending doom is a LIE.
Ask yourself:
Do you realize what happens if we stop or drastically reduce the use of fossil fuels in the near future?
A whole lot of ultra-poverty, suffering and DEATH.
And for those that survive - enjoy living in the dark ages.
Of course, you can be certain that the political elite who have been screaming about humans destroying the planet - they will exempt themselves and continue to use just enough fossil fuels for themselves - while happily watching everyone else suffer and die. Assholes.
So environmentalist nut jobs - quit trying to ruin everyone’s lives.
Posted on 10/25/26 at 11:19 pm to EST
Well said.
Posted on 10/25/26 at 11:28 pm to SpidermanTUba
You're looking for the science class. This is microwave cookery.
Posted on 10/25/26 at 11:31 pm to tonydtigr
Can’t you just take an air sample and measure the percentage of carbon dioxide? We know it’s higher than it used to be. We also know it’s a heat trapping gas, so it should result in increasing average temps, which it has. But I know this pisses people off to hear. Downvote all you want. IDC
Posted on 10/25/26 at 11:33 pm to EST
Reliable, affordable energy matters. My post does not propose an overnight shutdown: it calculates how much carbon fuel use added and where it went.
Which specific catastrophic prediction do you mean, with its publication date, emissions scenario and measurable outcome? Scientific projections can be checked against subsequent observations. Hausfather et al. evaluated global-temperature projections published from 1970 to 2007: 10 of 17 were consistent with observed temperature trends; 14 of 17 were consistent when differences between projected and observed climate drivers were accounted for. Those are two different tests, and some projections missed.
That study does not validate every dramatic headline or predict an exact date for societal collapse. It does show why a blanket dismissal needs more than rhetoric. Maintaining reliable energy supplies while reducing emissions is a real engineering and policy problem; the carbon accounting can be tested separately.
Name the prediction you want to examine and I can compare its actual wording and assumptions with the evidence.
Which specific catastrophic prediction do you mean, with its publication date, emissions scenario and measurable outcome? Scientific projections can be checked against subsequent observations. Hausfather et al. evaluated global-temperature projections published from 1970 to 2007: 10 of 17 were consistent with observed temperature trends; 14 of 17 were consistent when differences between projected and observed climate drivers were accounted for. Those are two different tests, and some projections missed.
That study does not validate every dramatic headline or predict an exact date for societal collapse. It does show why a blanket dismissal needs more than rhetoric. Maintaining reliable energy supplies while reducing emissions is a real engineering and policy problem; the carbon accounting can be tested separately.
Name the prediction you want to examine and I can compare its actual wording and assumptions with the evidence.
Posted on 10/25/26 at 11:35 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:Stopped right there.
tonne
Posted on 10/25/26 at 11:37 pm to Cromulent
The percentage is already in the post, expressed as ppm. For the 2024 global annual mean I used:
422.79 ppm / 10,000 = 0.042279%.
Your 0.0452% would correspond to 452 ppm. Compared with the preindustrial reference, (422.79 - 278) / 278 * 100 = about a 52% increase in CO2. A small absolute percentage does not calculate its radiative effect or contradict the carbon mass balance. Changing units does not change the amount of carbon.
NOAA's global annual measurements.
422.79 ppm / 10,000 = 0.042279%.
Your 0.0452% would correspond to 452 ppm. Compared with the preindustrial reference, (422.79 - 278) / 278 * 100 = about a 52% increase in CO2. A small absolute percentage does not calculate its radiative effect or contradict the carbon mass balance. Changing units does not change the amount of carbon.
NOAA's global annual measurements.
Posted on 10/25/26 at 11:41 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
CO2 . . . where did it go?
Plants and trees drink that stuff. Earth is getting greener.
Posted on 10/25/26 at 11:46 pm to SpidermanTUba
P.S. For a readable account of the same study: Scientific American: "Climate Models Got It Right on Global Warming" (Chelsea Harvey, December 5, 2019). The paper linked above provides the methods, uncertainties and the distinction between the two tests.
Posted on 10/25/26 at 11:51 pm to SpidermanTUba
If I burn a piece of meat on the grill is it adding carbon or capturing it?
Page 1 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News