The_Barnacle wrote on Oct 20
th, 2019 at 9:41am:
Wow, I didn't realise that you were so stupid that I would have to spell it out for you
record rains in 2010 after bushfires and a long drought made for huge amounts of regrowth which made Australia (temporarily) a carbon sink
Yes petal I read that.
You do understand the difference 60% carbon uptake would make?
So if we take the net carbon flux at approximately 220Mt and reduce it by 60%, ( although how they arrived at that is not mentioned), that would make, in a normal year a 88Mt Carbon Sink. And for the 60% they actually used 2011.
The_Barnacle wrote on Oct 20
th, 2019 at 9:41am:
And that had a global impact. While atmospheric carbon dioxide still rose in 2011, it grew at a much lower rate – nearly 20% lower – than the average growth over the previous decade.
Almost 60% of the higher than normal carbon uptake that year, or 840 million tons, happened in Australia.
BTW - You do understand the difference between a carbon sink of about 220Mt and 560.4 Mt emissions. About 780Mt. How could Australia have both sets of figures? Surely it is either one or the other.
Figure 4
Carbon flux IAV for a TM5‐4DVAR GOSAT‐based inversion and a CASA‐GFED TM5 forward model run.
"Our results show a strong carbon uptake in Australia
from the end of 2010 to mid‐2012. This uptake coincided with record‐breaking rainfall and consequent soil moisture increase that lead to increased growth of vegetation as shown by the increased SIF and the observed peak in biomass burning emissions, as well as the large increased flux uptake shown in the inversion results."
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL065161So the graph shows CO2 flux (blue line) was falling throughout 2010.
I notice you still haven't referenced Australia's Chief Scientist.
Forum
Pages: 
