Figure 1 - uploaded by Hermann Harde
Content may be subject to copyright.
Emissions of CO2 from the surface to the atmosphere (Red Arrows) and absorption of CO2 by the surface (Blue Arrows).

Emissions of CO2 from the surface to the atmosphere (Red Arrows) and absorption of CO2 by the surface (Blue Arrows).

Source publication
Article
Full-text available
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assumes that the inclining atmospheric CO2 concentration over recent years was almost exclusively determined by anthropogenic emissions, and this increase is made responsible for the rising temperature over the Industrial Era. Due to the far reaching consequences of this assertion, in this contribution...

Contexts in source publication

Context 1
... a simple flux consideration we get the average turnover or residence time τ R it takes to completely exchange the water in the pool. Under steady state conditions for f in = f out then the total amount of water in the pool m W is exchanged within In the same way as for the pool we can consider the balance for atmospheric CO 2 with a total emission rate e T (t) of CO 2 from the surface to the atmosphere, and reversely a total absorption rate a T (t) of the extraneous reservoirs ( Figure 1). Generally the influx can be split into natural emissions with a rate e N (t) and an additional anthropogenic emission rate e A (t), which on its part results from fossil fuel emissions and land use changes. ...
Context 2
... calculation with human emissions included and using the modulated air temperature anomaly ∆T(t) at Hawaii (NOAA [26]) is shown in Figure 10 A detailed analysis of the Mauna Loa curve (Salby [7,10,11]) and independent cross-correlation investigations of thermally induced emission (Humlum et al. [28]) indicate that the actual absorption time of 3-4 yr, as derived from (9) and based on the IPCC's own estimates, may even be significantly shorter, as short as only 8-12 months, this at least over the vegetation growths' periods on land and in oceans, but also in areas such as the North Atlantic with cold downwelling waters. Under such conditions, in the same way as the residence time is getting shorter, the total emission rate gets larger (generally the most uncertain parameter of the guessed rates). ...
Context 3
... for a more conservative assessment and in agreement with the IPCC's estimates (AR5 [1], Chap.6- Fig. 6.1) we further emanate from conditions as derived from the simulations of Figures 8 and 10 with τ R0 = 3 yr. ...
Context 4
... dramatic consequences when applying the Bern Model to the total emissions are illustrated in Figure 11. This would result in an exploding atmospheric CO 2 concentration (Green Line) up to levels found 500 Mio. ...
Context 5
... Loa B-M: e_N+e_A B-M: e_A -0.18 ppm/yr Figure 11. Simulation of the CO2 concentration based on the Bern Model assuming the total emissions (Green). ...
Context 6
... this relation it is also inferred that the average natural contribution <dC N /dt> has been to remove CO 2 from the atmosphere, this with the same wrong conclusion as Cawley that the long term trend of rising CO 2 could not be explained by natural causes. This argument is disproved with Figures 8 and 10. The fact that the environment has acted as a net sink throughout the Industrial Era is a consequence of a dynamic absorption rate, which is only controlled by the total CO 2 concentration C = C N + C A . ...
Context 7
... of that was absorbed by the oceans, in which carbon today vastly exceeds that in the atmosphere. According to the IPCC, even in modern times the oceans account for 40% of overall absorption of CO 2 (AR5 [1], Fig.6.1). In relation to other sinks, their absorption of CO 2 is clearly not limited (see Appendix A). ...
Context 8
... strongly the biological pump (see Appendix A) and photosynthesis on land is also controlled by temperature, is only incompletely known, but obviously they are also varying slightly exponentially with temperature (Lee [34]). Figure 12 displays a scatter plot supporting the close correlation of the atmospheric CO 2 concentration with the landocean temperature anomaly (GISS [9]). The latter is controlled by more than 60% by the solar influence and less than 40% by CO 2 as greenhouse gas feedback (Harde [36,37]). ...
Context 9
... contrast to that we could demonstrate that conform with the rising temperature over the Industrial Era and in conformity with all physical legalities the overwhelming fraction of the observed CO 2 increase has to be explained by native impacts. Such simulations reproduce almost every detail of the observed atmospheric CO 2 increase (see Figures 8 and 10). And from observations of natural emissions it can be seen that they are increasing slightly exponential with temperature (Takahashi et al. [32]; Lee [34]). ...
Context 10
... reduced photosynthesis, CO 2 in surface water then remains below equilibrium with the atmosphere, reflecting efficient removal through downward transport by the biological pump. It is noteworthy that these strong seasonal variations of CO 2 in surface water are manifest in the record of atmospheric CO 2 (see Figures 9 and 10). ...
Context 11
... apparent absorption time is therefore longer than the actual absorption time, which must even be shorter than a decade. Integration of (37) or (34) exactly reproduces a pure exponential decay in Figure 13 with an e-folding time τ 14 =15 yr. ...

Citations

... What is noticeable is that the more research explores the past, the more the anthropogenic thesis is weakened, as demonstrated by Davis (2017) and Harde (2019) by finding that changes in the atmospheric CO2 concentration did not cause changes in ancient climate temperature and climate change is not related to the carbon cycle, but rather to native impacts. Easterbrook (2016), in his evidence-based book brought data opposing CO2 emissions as the primary source of global warming, the thesis of which has been captured by politics and dubious computer modeling. ...
Preprint
Full-text available
Global warming has divided the scientific community worldwide with predominance for anthropogenic alarmism. This article aims to project a climate change scenario using a stochastic model of paleotemperature time series and compare it with the dominant thesis. The ARIMA model, an integrated autoregressive process of moving averages, popularly known as Box-Jenkins, was used for this purpose. The results showed that the estimates of the model parameters were below 1 degree Celsius for a scenario of 100 years which suggests a period of temperature reduction and a probable cooling, contrary to the prediction of the IPCC and the anthropogenic current of an increase in 1,50 degree to 2,0 degree Celsius by the end of this century. Thus, we hope with this study to contribute to the discussion by adding a statistical element of paleoclimate in counterpoint to the current consensus and to placing the debate in a long term historical dimension, in line with other research already present in the scientific literature.
... The annual changes in atmospheric concentrations show quite a lot of variability from year-toyear, which is not apparent from the annual anthropogenic emissions, and the airborne fraction actually varies quite a bit from year-to-year, as has been noted by others (e.g., refs. [74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82]). This suggests that natural variability actually plays quite a substantial role in atmospheric CO2 concentration trends. ...
... Moreover, if it were to transpire that all (or even most) of the recent increase in atmospheric CO2 were a natural phenomenon, then this would completely undermine the entire basis for claiming that society's CO2 emissions are causing "human-caused global warming". Therefore, whenever a researcher publishes an analysis suggesting that some or all of the recent increase could be natural in origin, such as the references cited above [76,[78][79][80][81][82] and also refs. [74,75,77,[83][84][85][86][87][88][89], their arguments are attacked with a particular vehemence, e.g., [90][91][92][93][94][95][96][97][98][99]. ...
... For this reason, several researchers have argued that some component of the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 since 1959 could be a result of a natural global warming trend (i.e., the opposite of the human-caused global warming theory), e.g., refs. [16,17,74,75,77,[79][80][81]85,113]. Importantly, this paradigm does not rule out a contribution from anthropogenic emissions in the recent increase-rather, anthropogenic emissions are treated as an additional source that needs to be taken into account. ...
Article
Full-text available
In order to assess the merits of national climate change mitigation policies, it is important to have a reasonable benchmark for how much human-caused global warming would occur over the coming century with "Business-As-Usual" (BAU) conditions. However, currently, policymakers are limited to making assessments by comparing the Global Climate Model (GCM) projections of future climate change under various different "scenarios", none of which are explicitly defined as BAU. Moreover, all of these estimates are ab initio computer model projections, and policymakers do not currently have equivalent empirically derived estimates for comparison. Therefore, estimates of the total future human-caused global warming from the three main greenhouse gases of concern (CO2, CH4, and N2O) up to 2100 are here derived for BAU conditions. A semi-empirical approach is used that allows direct comparisons between GCM-based estimates and empirically derived estimates. If the climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases implies a Transient Climate Response (TCR) of ≥ 2.5 °C or an Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) of ≥ 5.0 °C then the 2015 Paris Agreement's target of keeping human-caused global warming below 2.0 °C will have been broken by the middle of the century under BAU. However, for a TCR < 1.5 °C or ECS < 2.0 °C, the target would not be broken under BAU until the 22nd century or later. Therefore, the current Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) "likely" range estimates for TCR of 1.0 to 2.5 °C and ECS of 1.5 to 4.5 °C have not yet established if human-caused global warming is a 21st century problem.
... A broad consensus of both climate scientists and the public accepts that human activities such as burning fossil fuels are responsible for the worrisome increase in atmospheric CO 2 over the last century. Nonetheless a few continue to argue that the increase is "natural" and outside of human control [1][2][3][4]. While extensive rebuttals of these arguments have been made elsewhere [5,6], the common motivating factor for the maverick papers appears not to have been identified before now: all make the same mistake in interpreting 14 C data collected and presented by others. ...
... Essenhigh [1], Harde [2,3], and Berry [4] took the isotope ratio curve shown in Figure 1 to be the 14 C concentration curve, which is correctly shown in Figure 2. Essenhigh labels an axis " 14 C concentration" for a plot that is clearly of ∆ 14 C. Harde and Berry label their axes correctly but misinterpret the meaning and have asserted wrongly that ∆ 14 C is equivalent to concentration (personal communications). Looking at plots similar to Figure 1, the three authors erroneously concluded that after atmospheric nuclear testing ceased, the "pulse" of extra 14C introduced by the tests exponentially disappeared from the atmosphere with a time constant of approximately 16 years. ...
... The analysis predicts that ∆ 14 C ultimately will again go negative from the Suess effect, even as the 14 C concentration continues to rise. Note that the idea that 14 C is now being "pushed" from the oceans to make room for new anthropogenic 12 C is quite different from the idea that the overall increase in atmospheric CO 2 is due to ocean outgassing due to temperature increases from an unspecified cause [2,3]. In the latter hypothesis, a decrease in ocean carbon would be expected, which is not seen. ...
... Authors who support the USGCRP [1] and IPCC [2,3] include Archer et al. [4], Cawley [5], Kern and Leuenberger [6], and Kohler [7]. Authors who conclude human CO 2 increases atmospheric CO 2 as a percentage of its inflow include Revelle and Suess [8], Starr [9], Segalstad [10], Jaworoski [11,12], Beck [13], Rorsch, Courtney, and Thoenes [14], Courtney [15], Quirk [16], Essenhigh [17], Glassman [18], Salby [19][20][21][22], Humlum [23], Harde [24,25], and Berry [26,27]. ...
... Equation (12) shows the percentage of human-produced CO 2 in the atmosphere equals its percentage of its inflow, independent of e-time. Equations (9) and (10) support the key conclusions of Harde [24,25]: ...
Article
Full-text available
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agrees human CO 2 is only 5 percent and natural CO 2 is 95 percent of the CO 2 inflow into the atmosphere. The ratio of human to natural CO 2 in the atmosphere must equal the ratio of the inflows. Yet IPCC claims human CO 2 has caused all the rise in atmospheric CO 2 above 280 ppm, which is now 130 ppm or 32 percent of today's atmospheric CO 2. To cause the human 5 percent to become 32 percent in the atmosphere, the IPCC model treats human and natural CO 2 differently, which is impossible because the molecules are identical. IPCC's Bern model artificially traps human CO 2 in the atmosphere while it lets natural CO 2 flow freely out of the atmosphere. By contrast, a simple Physics Model treats all CO 2 molecules the same, as it should, and shows how CO 2 flows through the atmosphere and produces a balance level where outflow equals inflow. Thereafter, if inflow is constant, level remains constant. The Physics Model has only one hypothesis, that outflow is proportional to level. The Physics Model exactly replicates the 14C data from 1970 to 2014 with only two physical parameters: balance level and e-time. The 14C data trace how CO 2 flows out of the atmosphere. The Physics Model shows the 14 CO 2 e-time is a constant 16.5 years. Other data show e-time for 12CO 2 is about 4 to 5 years. IPCC claims human CO 2 reduces ocean buffer capacity. But that would increase e-time. The constant e-time proves IPCC's claim is false. IPCC argues that the human-caused reduction of 14C and 13C in the atmosphere prove human CO 2 causes all the increase in atmospheric CO 2. However, numbers show these isotope data support the Physics Model and reject the IPCC model. The Physics Model shows how inflows of human and natural CO 2 into the atmosphere set balance levels proportional to their inflows. Each balance level remains constant if its inflow remains constant. Continued constant CO 2 emissions do not add more CO 2 to the atmosphere. No CO 2 accumulates in the atmosphere. Present human CO 2 inflow produces a balance level of about 18 ppm. Present natural CO 2 inflow produces a balance level of about 392 ppm. Human CO 2 is insignificant to the increase of CO 2 in the atmosphere. Increased natural CO 2 inflow has increased the level of CO 2 in the atmosphere.
Preprint
Full-text available
A basic assumption of climate change made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is natural CO2 stayed constant after 1750 and human CO2 dominated the CO2 increase. IPCC's basic assumption requires human CO2 to stay in the atmosphere longer than natural CO2. But human CO2 and natural CO2 molecules are identical. So, human CO2 and natural CO2 must flow out of the atmosphere at the same rate, or e-time. The 14 CO2 e-time, derived from δ 14 C data, is 10.0 years, making the 12 CO2 e-time less than 10 years. The IPCC says the 12 CO2 e-time is about 4 years and IPCC's carbon cycle uses 3.5 years. A new physics carbon cycle model replicates IPCC's natural carbon cycle. Then, using IPCC's natural carbon cycle data, it calculates human carbon has added only 33 [24-48] ppmv to the atmosphere as of 2020, which means natural carbon has added 100 ppmv. The physics model calculates if human CO2 emissions had stopped at the end of 2020, the human CO2 level of 33 ppmv would fall to 10 ppmv in 2100. After the bomb tests, δ 14 C returned to its original balance level of zero even as 12 CO2 increased, which suggests a natural source dominates the 12 CO2 increase.