PreprintPDF Available

The impact of human CO2 on atmospheric CO2

Authors:
Preprints and early-stage research may not have been peer reviewed yet.

Abstract

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.
The impact of human CO2 on atmospheric CO2
Edwin X Berry
Ed Berry, LLC, Bigfork, Montana 59911, USA
ed@edberry.com
Submitted September 26, 2021
Revised version received Oct 30
Published December 14, 2021
https://doi.org/10.53234/scc202112/212
LINK to published paper:
The impact of human CO2 on atmospheric CO2 - SCC (klimarealistene.com)
Link to website discussion:
The Impact of human CO2 on atmospheric CO2 - edberry.com
Abstract
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 14CO2 e-time, derived from δ14C data, is 10.0 years, making the 12CO2 e-time less
than 10 years. The IPCC says the 12CO2 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, δ14C returned to its original balance level of zero even
as 12CO2 increased, which suggests a natural source dominates the 12CO2 increase.
Contents
1. Introduction
1.1 Definitions
1.2 The IPCC basic assumption
1.3. The IPCC ice-core assumption
1.4 Isotope data show CO2 increase is natural
2. Method
2.1 The data
This paper uses these data,
IPCC’s natural carbon cycle data (IPCC, 2013, pp. 470-486)
δ14C data (Turnbull et al., 2017)
14C data (Turnbull et al., 2017)
12C data before 1960 (Etheridge et al., 1996; Jaworowski, 2007)
12C data after 1960 (Keeling et al., 2001)
Human carbon emissions data (Gilfillan et al., 2020)
2.2 The basics
2.3 The physics carbon cycle model
2.4 Data contradict IPCC’s basic assumption
2.5 The Bern model
3. Carbon data review
3.1 IPCC’s carbon cycle data
3.2 IPCC’s natural carbon cycle
3.3 IPCC’s human carbon cycle
4. Physics model
4.1 Physics model for one reservoir
4.2 Physics model properties
4.3 Physics carbon-cycle model
4.4 RC Network analogy
4.5 Method of calculation
5. Physics model results
5.1 The physics human carbon cycle
5.2 Values at IPCC’s extreme error bounds
5.3 Physics model carbon cycle pulse decay
5.4 The physics model vs the Bern model
6. Discussion
6.1 δ14C data show the CO2 increase is natural
6.2 How nature may have increased its CO2 level
6.3 COVID-19 CO2 data suggest the increase is natural
6.4 The physics model will help future research
Conclusions
IPCC’s basic climate change assumption is natural CO2 stayed constant after 1750 as
human CO2 causes all (or dominates) the increase in atmospheric CO2.
To support its basic assumption, the IPCC claims “The removal of human-emitted
CO2from the atmosphere by natural processes will take a few hundred thousand years
(high confidence).” But the human-carbon e-time must equal the natural-carbon e-time
because human and natural CO2 molecules are identical.
The 14CO2 e-time, derived from δ14C data, is 10.0 years, making the 12CO2 e-time less
than 10 years. The IPCC says the 12CO2 e-time is about 4 years and IPCC’s carbon cycle
uses 3.5 years.
After the bomb tests, δ14C returned to its original balance level of zero even
as 12CO2 increased. This suggests the added 12CO2 came from a natural source.
The physics model calculates, deductively, the consequences of IPCC’s natural carbon
cycle data. The physics model first replicates IPCC’s natural carbon cycle. Then, using
the same IPCC data, it calculates that 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 further calculates if human CO2 emissions had stopped at the end of
2020, the human CO2 level of 33 ppmv would fall to 10 ppmv by 2100.
The IPCC argues the absence of ice-core data that might show the natural CO2 level
was greater than 280 ppmv before 1750 supports its basic assumption. But the
physics model shows IPCC’s basic assumption, and therefore IPCC’s ice-core
assumption, contradict IPCC’s natural carbon cycle data.
Data and Calculations Availability
References
Andrews, D.E. 2020: Correcting an Error in Some Interpretations of
Atmospheric 14C Data, Earth Sciences, 9(4), pp. 126-129,
https://doi:10.11648/j.earth.20200904.12. http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/j/e
arth
Ballantyne, A.P., Alden, C.B., Miller, J.B., Tans, P.P., and White, J.W.C. 2012: Increase in
observed net carbon dioxide uptake by land and oceans during the past 50
years, Nature 488, pp. 70-73.
doi:10.1038/nature11299. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature11299
Beck, E. 2007: 180 years of atmospheric CO2 gas analysis by chemical
methods. Energy & Environment. Volume 18, No. 2. https://21sci-
tech.com/Subscriptions/Spring%202008%20ONLINE/CO2_chemical.pdf https://doi.org/
10.1260/095830507780682147
Berry, E.X. 2019: Human CO2 emissions have little effect on
atmospheric CO2. International Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences. Volume 3,
Issue 1, June, pp 13-
26. http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/journal/paperinfo?journalid=298&doi=10.1
1648/j.ijaos.20190301.13
Berry, E.X. 1967: Cloud droplet growth by collection. J. Atmos. Sci. 24, 688-701.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1967)024<0688:CDGBC>2.0.CO;2
Berry, E.X. 1969: A mathematical framework for cloud models. J. Atmos. Sci. 26, 109-
111. https://moam.info/a-mathematical-framework-for-cloud-models-
edberrycom_59a6a1c81723dd0c40321bda.html
Berry, E. X and Reinhardt, R.L. 1974a: An analysis of cloud drop growth by collection.
Part I. Double distributions. J. Atmos. Sci., 31, 1814
1824. https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/31/7/1520-
0469_1974_031_1814_aaocdg_2_0_co_2.xml
Berry, E. X and Reinhardt, R.L. 1974b: An analysis of cloud drop growth by collection.
Part II. Single initial distributions. J. Atmos. Sci., 31, 1825
1831. https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/31/7/1520-
0469_1974_031_1825_aaocdg_2_0_co_2.xml
Berry, E. X and Reinhardt, R.L. 1974c: An analysis of cloud drop growth by collection.
Part III. Accretion and self-collection. J. Atmos. Sci., 31, 2118
2126. https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/31/8/1520-
0469_1974_031_2118_aaocdg_2_0_co_2.xml
Berry, E. X and Reinhardt, R.L. 1974d: An analysis of cloud drop growth by collection.
Part IV. A new parameterization. J. Atmos. Sci., 31, 2127
2135. https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/31/8/1520-
0469_1974_031_2127_aaocdg_2_0_co_2.xml
Caillon, N., Severinghaus, J.P., Jouzel. J., Barnola, J., Kang, J., and Lipenkov, V.Y.,
2003: Timing of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature changes across
Termination III. Science, Vol. 299, No.
5613. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1078758
Courtney, R.S. 2008: Limits to existing quantitative understanding of past, present and
future changes to atmospheric CO2 concentration. International Conference on Climate
Change, New York. https://www.heartland.org/multimedia/videos/richard-courtney-
iccc1. https://edberry.com/blog/climate/climate-physics/limits-to-carbon-dioxide-
concentation/
Courtney, R.S. 2019: Public email communication to global-warming-
realists@googlegroups.com, 21 November
2019. https://edberry.com/blog/climate/climate-physics/preprint3/
Essenhigh, R.E. 2009: Potential dependence of global warming on the residence time
(RT) in the atmosphere of anthropogenically sourced CO2. Energy Fuel 23, pp. 2773-
2784. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef800581r
Etheridge, D.M., Steele, L.P., Langenfelds, R.L., Francey, R.J., Barnola, J.-M., and Morgan,
V.I. 1996: Natural and anthropogenic changes in atmospheric CO2 over the last 1000
years from air in Antarctic ice and firn. Journal of Geophysical Research. 101:4115-
4128. https://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/law/law_CO2.tx
t
Fischer, H., Wahlen, M., Smith, J., Mastroianni, D., and Deck, B., 1999: Ice core records of
atmospheric co2 around the last three glacial terminations. Science, Vol. 283, No.
5408. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.283.5408.1712
Gilfillan D., Marland, G., Boden, T., and Andres, R. 2020: Global, Regional, and National
Fossil-Fuel CO2 Emissions: 1751-2017. CDIAC-FF, Research Institute for Environment,
Energy, and Economics, Appalachian State University. doi:10.15485/1712447.
https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/view/doi:10.15485/1712447
Global Monitoring Laboratory. 2020a: Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide: Monthly
Average Mauna Loa CO2. Earth Systems Research
Laboratories. https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
Global Monitoring Laboratory. 2020b: Can we see a change in the CO2 record because
of COVID-19?Earth Systems Research
Laboratories. https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/covid2.html
Gruber, N., Clement, D., Carter, B., Feely, R., van Heuven S., Hoppema, M., Ishii, M., Key,
R., Kozyr, A., Lauvset, S., Lo Monaco, C., et al. 2019: The oceanic sink for
anthropogenic CO2 from 1994 to 2007. Science, 15. March (363) pg.
1193. https://www.sciencemagazinedigital.org/sciencemagazine/15_march_2019_Mai
n/MobilePagedArticle.action?articleId=1472451#articleId1472451
Happer, W., and van Wijngaarden, W.A. 2020: Physics Rate Equations. Princeton U.
Princeton, NJ, USA. (Unpublished Work)
Harde, H. 2017: Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO2 residence time in the
atmosphere. Global and Planetary Change. 152, 19-
26. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921818116304787
Harde, H. 2019: What Humans Contribute to Atmospheric CO2: Comparison of Carbon
Cycle Models with Observations. International Journal of Earth Sciences. Vol. 8, No. 3,
pp. 139-
159. http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/journal/paperinfo?journalid=161&doi=10.
11648/j.earth.20190803.13
Harde, H. and Salby, M. L. 2021: What Controls the Atmosphere CO2 Level? Science of
Climate Change, Vol. 1, No. 1, August 2021, pp. 54-
69. https://doi.org/10.53234/scc202111/28. https://scc.klimarealistene.com/produkt/
what-controls-the-atmospheric-CO2-level/
Hua, Q., Barbetti, M., and Rakowski, A.Z. 2013: Atmospheric radiocarbon for the period
19502010. Radiocarbon. Vol 55, pp. 20592072. Table
S2c. https://doi.org/10.2458/azu_js_rc.v55i2.16177
Humlum, O., Stordahl, K., and Solheim, J.E. 2013: The phase relation between
atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures. Global and Planetary Change, 100, pp 51-
69. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921818112001658
IPCC, 2013: Ciais, P., Sabine, C., Bala, G., Bopp, L., Brovkin, V., Canadell, J., Chhabra, A.,
DeFries, R., Galloway, J., Heimann, M., Jones, C., Le Quéré, C., Myneni, R.B., Piao, S., and
Thornton, P. 2013: Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles. In: Climate Change
2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., Qin,
D., Plattner, G.-K., Tignor, M., Allen, S.K. Boschung, J., Nauels, A., Xia, Y., Bex, V., and
Midgley, P.M. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New
York, NY,
USA.https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter06_FINAL.pd
f
IPCC. 2007: Climate Change 2007 The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working
Group 1 to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Annex 1: Glossary:
Lifetime. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg1-annexes-1.pdf
Jaworowski, Z. 2007: CO2: The greatest scientific scandal of our time. 21st CENTURY
Science & Technology. https://21sci-tech.com/Articles%202007/20_1-
2_CO2_Scandal.pdf
Joos, F. 2002: Parameters for tuning a simple carbon cycle
model. UNFCCC. https://unfccc.int/resource/brazil/carbon.html
Joos, F., Roth, R., Fuglestvedt, J.S., Peters, G.P., Enting, I.G., von Bloh, W., Brovkin, V.,
Burke, E.J., Eby, M., Edwards, N.R., et al. 2013: Carbon dioxide and climate impulse
response functions for the computation of greenhouse gas metrics: a multi-model
analysis. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 13, 2793-2825. doi:10.5194/acpd-12-19799-
2012, https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/13/2793/2013/acp-13-2793-2013.pdf
Keeling, C.D., Piper, S.C., Bacastow, R.B., Wahlen, M., Whorf, T.P., Heimann, M., and
Meijer, H.A. 2001: Exchanges of atmospheric CO2 and 13CO2 with the terrestrial
biosphere and oceans from 1978 to 2000. I. Global aspects, SIO Reference Series, No.
01-06, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, San Diego. 88
pages. https://scrippsCO2.ucsd.edu/data/atmospheric_CO2/primary_mlo_CO2_record.ht
ml
Kohler, P., Hauck, J., Volker, C., Wolf-Gladrow, D.A., Butzin, M., Halpern, J.B., Rice, K., and
Zeebe, R.E. 2017: Comment on ‘Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO2 residence time
in the atmosphere’ by H. Harde. Global and Planetary Change.
2017. https://www.soest.hawaii.edu/oceanography/faculty/zeebe_files/Publications/K
oehlerGPC17.pdf
Kouwenberg, L.L.R. 2004: Application of Conifer Needles in the Reconstruction of
Holocene CO2 Levels. Ph.D. Thesis. Univ. Utrecht,
Netherlands. https://dspace.library.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/1874/243/full.pdf
Kouwenberg, L., Wagner, R., Kürschner, W., and Visscher, H. 2005a:
Atmospheric CO2 fluctuations during the last millennium reconstructed by stomatal
frequency analysis of Tsuga heterophylla needles. Geology, 33 (1): 33
36. https://doi.org/10.1130/G20941.1
Kouwenberg, L., Wagner, R., Kürschner, W., and Visscher, H. 2005b: CO2 fluctuations
during the last millennium reconstructed by stomatal frequency
analysis. https://plantstomata.wordpress.com/2019/03/18/CO2-fluctuations-during-
the-last-millenium-reconstructed-by-stomatal-frequency-analysis/
Kuo, C., Lindberg, C., and Thomson, D. 1990: Coherence established between
atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature. Nature 1990, 343, 709
714. https://www.nature.com/articles/343709a0
MacRae, A. 2008: CO2 is not the primary cause of global warming: the future cannot
cause the past. Icecap. http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2vsTMacRae.pdf )
Munshi, J. 2015a: Responsiveness of Atmospheric CO2 to Anthropogenic Emissions: A
Note (August 21, 2015). Available at
SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2642639 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2642639
Munshi, J. 2015b: Decadal Fossil Fuel Emissions and Decadal Warming: A
Note (September 19, 2015). Available at
SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2662870 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2662870
Quirk, T. 2009: Sources and sinks of CO2. Energy & Environment. Volume: 20 Issue: 1,
pp. 105-121. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1260/095830509787689123
Quirk, T. and Asten, M. 2022: Atmospheric CO2 source analysis. Melbourne, Victoria,
Australia. (Preprint to be submitted) https://edberry.com/blog/climate/climate-
physics/preprint-atmospheric-co2-source-analysis/
Revelle, R., and Suess, H. 1957: CO2 exchange between atmosphere and ocean and the
question of an increase of atmospheric CO2 during past decades. Tellus. 9: 18-
27. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1957.tb01849.x
Rorsch, A., Courtney, R.S., and Thoenes, D. 2005: The Interaction of Climate Change and
the CO2 Cycle. Energy & Environment. Volume 16, No
2. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1260/0958305053749589
Salby, M.L. 2012: Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate. Cambridge University Press.
666 pp. https://www.amazon.com/Physics-Atmosphere-Climate-Murry-
Salby/dp/0521767180/ref=mt_hardcover?_encoding=UTF8&me=.
Salby, M.L. 2013: CO2 follows the Integral of Temperature,
video. http://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/agw-hypothesis/murry-salby-CO2-
follows-integral-of-temperature/.
Salby, M.L. and Harde, H. 2021: Control of Atmospheric CO2: Part I: Relation of Carbon
14 to the Removal of CO2. Science of Climate Change, 1, no.2.
https://doi.org/10.53234/scc202112/210
Segalstad, T.V. 1998: Carbon cycle modelling and the residence time of natural and
anthropogenic atmospheric CO2: on the construction of the Greenhouse Effect Global
Warming dogma. In: Bate, R. (Ed.): Global warming: the continuing debate. ESEF,
Cambridge, U.K. (ISBN 0952773422): 184-219. http://www.CO2web.info/ESEF3VO2.pdf
Siegenthaler, U. and Joos, F. 1992: Use of a simple model for studying oceanic tracer
distributions and the global carbon cycle. Tellus, 44B, 186-
207; https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1034/j.1600-0889.1992.t01-2-00003.x
Skrable, K., and French, C.G. 2022: World atmospheric CO2, its 14C specific activity,
anthropogenic-fossil component, non-fossil component, and emissions (1750
2018). Health Physics: February 2022 Volume 122 Issue 2 p 291-305. doi:
10.1097/HP.0000000000001485. https://journals.lww.com/health-
physics/Fulltext/2022/02000/World_Atmospheric_CO2,_Its_14C_Specific_Activity,.2.as
px
Starr, C. 1992: Atmospheric CO2 residence time and the carbon cycle. Science Direct,
18, 12, pp. 1297-
1310; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0360544293900178
Strassmann, K.M., Joos, F. 2018: The Bern Simple Climate Model (BernSCM) v1.0: an
extensible and fully documented open-source re-implementation of the Bern reduced-
form model for global carbon cycle-climate simulations. Geosci. Model Dev, 11, 1887-
1908. https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/11/1887/2018/
Stuiver, M. and Polach, H. 1977: Discussion: Reporting of 14C data. Radiocarbon, 19(3),
355-
363. extension://bfdogplmndidlpjfhoijckpakkdjkkil/pdf/viewer.html?file=http%3A%2F%2
Fwww.imprs-
gbgc.de%2Fuploads%2FRadiocarbonSchool%2FReading%2Fstuier_polach.pdf
Turnbull, J.C., Mikaloff Fletcher, S.E., Ansell, I., Brailsford, G.W., Moss, R.C., Norris, M.W.,
and Steinkamp, K. 2017: Sixty years of radiocarbon dioxide measurements at
Wellington, New Zealand: 19542014. Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, pp. 14771
14784. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-14771-2017
Van Langenhove, A. 1986: Isotope effects: definitions and consequences for
pharmacologic studies. J. Clinical Pharmacology. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1552-
4604.1986.tb03545.x
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this 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 we critically scrutinize different carbon cycle models and compare them with observations. We further contrast them with an alternative concept, which also includes temperature dependent natural emission and absorption with an uptake rate scaling proportional with the CO2 concentration. We show that this approach is in agreement with all observations, and under this premise not really human activities are responsible for the observed CO2 increase and the expected temperature rise in the atmosphere, but just opposite the temperature itself dominantly controls the CO2 increase. Therefore, not CO2 but primarily native impacts are responsible for any observed climate changes.
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.
Article
Full-text available
The Bern Simple Climate Model (BernSCM) is a free open-source re-implementation of a reduced-form carbon cycle–climate model which has been used widely in previous scientific work and IPCC assessments. BernSCM represents the carbon cycle and climate system with a small set of equations for the heat and carbon budget, the parametrization of major nonlinearities, and the substitution of complex component systems with impulse response functions (IRFs). The IRF approach allows cost-efficient yet accurate substitution of detailed parent models of climate system components with near-linear behavior. Illustrative simulations of scenarios from previous multimodel studies show that BernSCM is broadly representative of the range of the climate–carbon cycle response simulated by more complex and detailed models. Model code (in Fortran) was written from scratch with transparency and extensibility in mind, and is provided open source. BernSCM makes scientifically sound carbon cycle–climate modeling available for many applications. Supporting up to decadal time steps with high accuracy, it is suitable for studies with high computational load and for coupling with integrated assessment models (IAMs), for example. Further applications include climate risk assessment in a business, public, or educational context and the estimation of CO2 and climate benefits of emission mitigation options.
Article
Full-text available
We present 60 years of Δ¹⁴CO2 measurements from Wellington, New Zealand (41° S, 175° E). The record has been extended and fully revised. New measurements have been used to evaluate the existing record and to replace original measurements where warranted. This is the earliest direct atmospheric Δ¹⁴CO2 record and records the rise of the ¹⁴C bomb spike and the subsequent decline in Δ¹⁴CO2 as bomb ¹⁴C moved throughout the carbon cycle and increasing fossil fuel CO2 emissions further decreased atmospheric Δ¹⁴CO2. The initially large seasonal cycle in the 1960s reduces in amplitude and eventually reverses in phase, resulting in a small seasonal cycle of about 2 ‰ in the 2000s. The seasonal cycle at Wellington is dominated by the seasonality of cross-tropopause transport and differs slightly from that at Cape Grim, Australia, which is influenced by anthropogenic sources in winter. Δ¹⁴CO2 at Cape Grim and Wellington show very similar trends, with significant differences only during periods of known measurement uncertainty. In contrast, similar clean-air sites in the Northern Hemisphere show a higher and earlier bomb ¹⁴C peak, consistent with a 1.4-year interhemispheric exchange time. From the 1970s until the early 2000s, the Northern and Southern Hemisphere Δ¹⁴CO2 were quite similar, apparently due to the balance of ¹⁴C-free fossil fuel CO2 emissions in the north and ¹⁴C-depleted ocean upwelling in the south. The Southern Hemisphere sites have shown a consistent and marked elevation above the Northern Hemisphere sites since the early 2000s, which is most likely due to reduced upwelling of ¹⁴C-depleted and carbon-rich deep waters in the Southern Ocean, although an underestimate of fossil fuel CO2 emissions or changes in biospheric exchange are also possible explanations. This developing Δ¹⁴CO2 interhemispheric gradient is consistent with recent studies that indicate a reinvigorated Southern Ocean carbon sink since the mid-2000s and suggests that the upwelling of deep waters plays an important role in this change.
Article
Full-text available
Detrended correlation analysis of mean decadal fossil fuel emissions and mean decadal warming rates in the sample period 1850-2014 at lags of 0, 5, 10, and 15 years shows no evidence that the two series are causally related at a decadal frequency. Further tests at different lengths of the moving window also failed to detect a correlation between the two detrended time series. These findings are inconsistent with the claim that changes in fossil fuel emissions have a measurable effect on warming at a frequency response in the range of one or two decades.
Article
After 1750 and the onset of the industrial revolution, the anthropogenic fossil component and the non-fossil component in the total atmospheric CO2 concentration, C(t), began to increase. Despite the lack of knowledge of these two components, claims that all or most of the increase in C(t) since 1800 has been due to the anthropogenic fossil component have continued since they began in 1960 with "Keeling Curve: Increase in CO2 from burning fossil fuel." Data and plots of annual anthropogenic fossil CO2 emissions and concentrations, C(t), published by the Energy Information Administration, are expanded in this paper. Additions include annual mean values in 1750 through 2018 of the 14C specific activity, concentrations of the two components, and their changes from values in 1750. The specific activity of 14C in the atmosphere gets reduced by a dilution effect when fossil CO2, which is devoid of 14C, enters the atmosphere. We have used the results of this effect to quantify the two components. All results covering the period from 1750 through 2018 are listed in a table and plotted in figures. These results negate claims that the increase in C(t) since 1800 has been dominated by the increase of the anthropogenic fossil component. We determined that in 2018, atmospheric anthropogenic fossil CO2 represented 23% of the total emissions since 1750 with the remaining 77% in the exchange reservoirs. Our results show that the percentage of the total CO2 due to the use of fossil fuels from 1750 to 2018 increased from 0% in 1750 to 12% in 2018, much too low to be the cause of global warming.
Article
We quantify the oceanic sink for anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) over the period 1994 to 2007 by using observations from the global repeat hydrography program and contrasting them to observations from the 1990s. Using a linear regression–based method, we find a global increase in the anthropogenic CO 2 inventory of 34 ± 4 petagrams of carbon (Pg C) between 1994 and 2007. This is equivalent to an average uptake rate of 2.6 ± 0.3 Pg C year ⁻¹ and represents 31 ± 4% of the global anthropogenic CO 2 emissions over this period. Although this global ocean sink estimate is consistent with the expectation of the ocean uptake having increased in proportion to the rise in atmospheric CO 2 , substantial regional differences in storage rate are found, likely owing to climate variability–driven changes in ocean circulation.
Article
A statistically significant correlation between annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions and the annual rate of accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere over a 53-year sample period from 1959-2011 is likely to be spurious because it vanishes when the two series are detrended. The results do not indicate a measurable year to year effect of annual anthropogenic emissions on the annual rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.
Article
Climate scientists presume that the carbon cycle has come out of balance due to the increasing anthropogenic emissions from fossil fuel combustion and land use change. This is made responsible for the rapidly increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations over recent years, and it is estimated that the removal of the additional emissions from the atmosphere will take a few hundred thousand years. Since this goes along with an increasing greenhouse effect and a further global warming, a better understanding of the carbon cycle is of great importance for all future climate change predictions. We have critically scrutinized this cycle and present an alternative concept, for which the uptake of CO2 by natural sinks scales proportional with the CO2 concentration. In addition, we consider temperature dependent natural emission and absorption rates, by which the paleoclimatic CO2 variations and the actual CO2 growth rate can well be explained. The anthropogenic contribution to the actual CO2 concentration is found to be 4.3%, its fraction to the CO2 increase over the Industrial Era is 15% and the average residence time 4 years.