Joe Bastardi: Has CO2 been falling during the shutdown?

Weather or Not looks at Whether or not co2 has been falling during the shutdown
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
April 25, 2020 10:05 pm

The title does say “Air pollution and CO2 ” implying the two are NOT the same thing.

Bryan A
Reply to  Greg
April 25, 2020 10:39 pm

Good of you to recognize the difference
CO2 isn’t a pollutant if it were, your exhalation would make you a Gross Polluter

William B. Grubel
Reply to  Greg
April 25, 2020 10:44 pm

As it happens, they are not. What’s your point?

Reply to  William B. Grubel
April 25, 2020 11:06 pm

My point is that at 0:38 Joe starts going into a rant after reading the title of the Scienc and Environment article and exclaiming NONSENSE !

What he should have said is THANK YOU, at last an article which recognises CO2 is not a pollutant.
He could then have gone on to explain why they were correct, if he wanted to talk about that.

I’m constantly railing against those calling CO2 “pollution” or “toxic” ( yes Mr non-white president that means you ). I frequently email the Guardian editor and demand they correct their articles when they make such stupid claims.

I do not complain when people get it right and pretend they got it wrong so that I can rant about it.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Greg
April 26, 2020 4:58 am

Agreed. It seems, Greg, that your propensity to rant is utterly independent of external influence.

Reply to  Greg
April 26, 2020 5:01 am

In the headline, they ARE saying that CO2 is a harmful agent…by definition…a pollutant.

As Scripps’ data demonstrates, the CO2 levels continue to rise consistent with oceanic outgassing and counter to the proposition that the Mona Loa CO2 rising trend is anthropogenic.

The world’s biggest thermometers, the oceans, show a VERY LINEAR rising trend over the last 100-150 years as attested to by EVERY tide gauge trend on earth going back that far.

The Mona Loa trend line follows the ocean warming that has been ongoing for at least 150 years predating significant anthropogenic CO2 trends by at least 100 years.

Over that period, there is strong evidence that atmospheric temperature trends have been “noisy” going up (early 20th century) and down (60’s thru 70’s) and up (80’s thru 2000) then paused. But the climatic (30 year) atmospheric trend has not driven the oceanic trend…like a bugs velocity doesn’t affect a car’s velocity as much as the car’s velocity affects the bug’s velocity upon fatal impact with the windshield. The earth is a water world with an atmosphere…not an atmospheric world with some water.

The atmospheric CO2 trend follows the tide gauge trend rates (subsidence subtracted out) and the tide gauge trend rates ARE DRIVEN BY OCEAN TEMPERATURES…that is not a disputed fact. At high resolution, the atmospheric CO2 levels are not following the very recent Anthropgenic trend…because, according to Occam’s razor, 150 year oceanic CO2 outgassing trend utterly swamps the itty bitty anthropogenic contribution to the CO2 equation.

Translation: Cutting anthropogenic CO2 emissions will not significantly reduce atmospheric CO2 levels so long as the 150+ year ocean warming trend continues apace.

Reply to  DocSiders
April 26, 2020 5:37 am

It’s Mauna Loa.

Reply to  DocSiders
April 26, 2020 6:41 am

The headline does not say or imply that co2 is a pollutant. If they wanted to bunch the two together they should have said air pollution including co2 fall

Reply to  DocSiders
April 26, 2020 8:06 am

DocSiders – April 26, 2020 at 5:01 am

As Scripps’ data demonstrates, the CO2 levels continue to rise consistent with oceanic outgassing and counter to the proposition that the Mona Loa CO2 rising trend is anthropogenic.

DocSiders, your above comment proves, without any doubt, ….. “that great minds think alike”.

And it is good to know that you and I are included in that “select” group.

Reply to  DocSiders
April 26, 2020 10:18 am


The solubility of CO2 in seawater changes with about 16 ppmv/ºC around the average 15ºC of the sea surface temperature.
That means that the temperature increase since the LIA is good for some 13 ppmv CO2 increase.
The rest of the about 120 ppmv increase since about 1850 is surely from the twice as high human emissions. That fits all known observations:

Reply to  DocSiders
April 26, 2020 10:42 am

It’s also the Sierra … not the Sierras … now that we’re getting pet peeves off our chest. The Sierra Nevada

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  DocSiders
April 26, 2020 11:21 am

Are you assuming that the volume of ocean that is outgassing is equal to the volume of atmosphere that is receiving the CO2?

Also, it seems that an implicit assumption is that the deep ocean water that is upwelling has a constant amount of dissolved CO2. Can that be demonstrated? There has been concern expressed that the coastal areas are experiencing lower pH than in the past, implying more dissolved CO2.

Reply to  DocSiders
April 26, 2020 11:50 am

Clyde Spencer,

The carbon mass in the ocean surface and the atmosphere is not far from each other:
about 830 PgC in the current atmosphere and about 1000 PgC in the ocean surface.

Moreover, the ocean surface follows the atmosphere at about 10% of the change.
While a 100% CO2 change in the atmosphere gives a 100% CO2 (pure, as gas) change in the ocean surface (per Henry’s law), pure CO2 is only 1% of all dissolved inorganic carbon in the ocean waters.
Due to buffer reactions a lot of dissolved CO2 reacts to bicarbonates and carbonates and hydrogen ions. The latter push the equilibrium reactions back to pure CO2 and the net result is about 10 times more CO2 that is dissolved in seawater than in fresh water, but 10 times less than expected from the increase in the atmosphere. That is the Revelle/buffer factor…

Indeed the deep oceans have a lot more dissolved CO2 than the surface, as they are formed near the poles where they absorb a lot of CO2 die to the cold temperatures. When there is upwelling and the temperature gets higher, a lot of CO2 will be released. The CO2 content of the deep oceans is quite constant: even if all human CO2 since the industrial revolution would be dissolved in the deep oceans, that would give not more than a 1% increase. Thus with the same upwelling at the same surface temperature, the same amount of CO2 would be released.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  DocSiders
April 26, 2020 9:18 pm

You remarked, “The solubility of CO2 in seawater changes with about 16 ppmv/ºC around the average 15ºC of the sea surface temperature.” I think that the use of the average sea surface temperature is inappropriate. The OCO-2 satellite maps clearly show that the bulk of the CO2 outgassing occurs in the tropics, where the upper water temperatures are much higher than 15ºC. Clearly, the cold polar waters are better able to dissolve atmospheric CO2 than the rest of the world’s oceans; the mid-latitude waters, closer to the 15ºC average, are probably close to neutral. So, to do your outgassing calculations, you should use tropical water temperatures, and surface area. You should also consider that the oceans don’t effervesce, so the CO2 has to be leaving at the thin surface-film, which is even hotter than what is usually measured by ships or buoys. That is basically the same layer from which water molecules evaporate. Air temperatures will be a better measure of the amount of oversaturation of CO2 in the water, and therefore the increase in tropical air temperatures (Again, not the world average!) would be the appropriate metric for estimating the change over time. One needs to be careful in the use of averages to be sure that they are representative of the processes under consideration.

Reply to  DocSiders
April 27, 2020 1:10 am

Clyde Spencer,

It doesn’t make a difference for the atmospheric level if you take a single sample of seawater in a flask and measure the pCO2 above it at 15ºC or measure the dynamics of the total ocean area for an (area weighted) average temperature of 15ºC in equilibrium with the total atmosphere.

Indeed the tropic oceans are a huge source of CO2 with up to 750 μatm pCO2(aq) and the polar oceans are a huge sink at 150 μatm pCO2(aq), while the atmosphere is in between with 410 μatm pCO2(atm). μatm is about the same as ppmv (ppmv is in dry air, μatm is in total air at the sea surface).
It is the pCO2 difference which drives CO2 in or out the oceans. The amount of CO2 passing the atmosphere from the tropic oceans to the polar seas is estimated at about 40 GtC/year and that is recycled by sinking with the water fluxes into the deep oceans near the poles and returning many hundreds of years later near the equator.

What happens if the temperature of the total ocean surface increases with 1ºC?
That means that everywhere the pCO2(aq) increases with 16 μatm (or other values, depending of the start temperature).
Thus the pCO2(aq) in tropic waters increases from 750 to 766 μatm and thus the pCO2 difference between water and atmosphere increases from 340 to 356 μatm and the 40 GtC released in warmer waters increases from 40 GtC/year to 41.9 GtC/year.
The opposite happens in polar waters where the ΔpCO2 between atmosphere and water gets smaller, thus less CO2 is sinking into the deep oceans.
Result: more CO2 is released to the atmosphere.

But as CO2 in the atmosphere increases, the ΔpCO2 between atmosphere and water gets smaller in the tropics and higher near the poles and at 16 μatm extra in the atmosphere, the original (dis)equilibrium is re-established. That is at exact the same value as for a single seawater sample in a closed flask…

Reply to  DocSiders
April 27, 2020 4:38 am

Ferdinand Engelbeen – April 26, 2020 at 10:18 am

The rest of the about 120 ppmv increase since about 1850 is surely from the twice as high human emissions. That fits all known observations:

Population statistics do not justify the above claim, to wit:

Increases in World Population & Atmospheric CO2 by Decade
year — world popul. – % incr. — May CO2 ppm – % incr. — avg ppm increase/year
1940 – 2,300,000,000 est. ___ ____ 300 ppm est.
1950 – 2,556,000,053 – 11.1% ____ 310 ppm – 3.3% —— 1.0 ppm/year
[March 03, 1958 …… Mauna Loa — 315.71 ppm]
1960 – 3,039,451,023 – 18.9% ____ 320.03 ppm – 3.2% —— 1.0 ppm/year
1970 – 3,706,618,163 – 21.9% ____ 328.07 ppm – 2.5% —— 0.8 ppm/year
1980 – 4,453,831,714 – 20.1% ____ 341.48 ppm – 4.0% —– 1.3 ppm/year
1990 – 5,278,639,789 – 18.5% ____ 357.32 ppm – 4.6% —– 1.5 ppm/year
2000 – 6,082,966,429 – 15.2% ____ 371.58 ppm – 3.9% —– 1.4 ppm/year
2010 – 6,809,972,000 – 11.9% ____ 393.00 ppm – 5.7% —— 2.1 ppm/year
2019 – 7,714,576,923 – 11.7% ____ 414.66 ppm – 5.5% —— 2.1 ppm/year
Source CO2 ppm:

Reply to  DocSiders
May 4, 2020 2:16 pm

Technically, some tide gages show a drop in water level, probably because of tectonic plate subsidence.

(Which in locations like the Straits of Juan de Fuca and Georgia could be from tilting – there are both rise and fall in that region.
There may be very small factors as well, for example some people claim that the diked off areas of the Fraser River Delta, such as Richmond B.C., are rising very slowly after removal of the weight of water.
Another example is the Hawaiin islands, which are rising and subsiding.
And note islands appear and disappear from the hacking of strong storms, such as in the Carolina Outer Banks which are glorified sandbars, and coral atolls such as in the South Pacific.)

So the effect of earth adjustment internally is larger than the effect of ocean temperature. collates government tide gage data. Comparing locations like New Westminster BC and the northwest corner of the Olympic Peninsula may be interesting. (A challenge is finding a long data set, records are often sporadic.)

Reply to  Greg
April 27, 2020 5:14 pm

Did you know that even Oxygen can be a pollutant? It’s all about the concentration, above a certain limit everything becomes toxic.

Reply to  Max
April 28, 2020 8:49 am

even …… sex, ……. consensual or otherwise?????????????????

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Greg
April 26, 2020 9:03 am

Greg and others below: Classic “slip of the tongue” in appearing to distinguish CO2 from pollution. The real point here concerns CO2. A classic slip (Freudian, which post modern corruptuion of psychology has diluted and ‘refuted’) reveals inner thoughts mistakenly expressed. I.e. the speaker really believes CO2 is not a pollutant.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
April 26, 2020 10:41 am

Yes Joe knows that CO2 is not a pollutant and makes that very point in this weekends Saturday Summary video at

Joe was obviously focused on pointing out that the rate of CO2 increase in the atmosphere has not decreased while the levels of virtually all other gasses that are considered pollutants, have decreased.

Reply to  Greg
April 26, 2020 10:40 am

But but but … the EPA said I was “endangered” by Co2!! It HAS to be pollution … if it endangers me. The SCOTUS said so. And the EPA are all scientists … aren’t they? Does Mr. Bastardi not believe in science? All my favorite Democrat Rep’s. say Republicans don’t believe in science. So Mr. Bastardi is a Republican who hates science? And hates the SCOTUS? Wow. He sounds really deplorable /s.

John Shewchuk
Reply to  Kenji
April 26, 2020 3:05 pm

CO2 is a plant food, not a pollutant. Joe Bastardi is right. The SCOTUS did not say CO2 was a pollutant. Supreme Court (5/4) ruled that greenhouse gases qualified as pollutants and could be regulated IF the government determined they threatened the public. Obama told the EPA to do so, bypassing internal review processes. It was a political hit job. If CO2 was really a danger, then why do so many people freely exhale CO2 and are not punished? Why are plants allowed to eat CO2?

Reply to  John Shewchuk
April 28, 2020 9:34 am

John, did you miss the /s tag? That means sarcasm.

Reply to  Greg
April 26, 2020 11:38 am

You and Hitler make these distinctions. Not that I am calling you Hitler

April 25, 2020 10:07 pm

Henceforth I shall be calling this magical compound; “Oxygen Plus.”

Reply to  Rob_Dawg
April 26, 2020 7:59 am

Ever try substituting Oxygen Plus for oxygen in the air you breathe?

Mumbles McGuirck
Reply to  mcswell
April 26, 2020 8:14 am

How about Carbon-enhanced Oxygen?

David Chorley
Reply to  mcswell
April 27, 2020 9:08 am

you can sustain life breiefly by mouth to mouth resuscitation even though exhaled air contains 50,000ppm

April 25, 2020 10:07 pm

Why bother planting trees when “biomass” companies are chopping them down by the thousands every day to burn them instead of burning coal ( dead trees ).

Mike McMillan
Reply to  Greg
April 25, 2020 10:29 pm

Recycling !

Reply to  Mike McMillan
April 25, 2020 11:12 pm

I used to think biomass referred to methane from composting household waste. I did not realise it was euphemism for forest destruction.

I thought destroying native forest in USA to feed woodchips into DRAX powerstation in UK was an aberration. I did not realise it was a wholesale industry.

I thank Micheal Moore for shine a light on that one in his new film.

Of course, instead of campaigning to end this stupidity, greenies are trying to kill the messenger.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Greg
April 26, 2020 4:23 am

“I used to think biomass referred to methane from composting household waste. I did not realise it was euphemism for forest destruction. ”
Most woody biomass DOES NOT come from “forest destruction”- it’s a byproduct of FOREST MANAGEMENT. I’ve been a forester for 47 years so I know what I’m talking about AND YOU DON’T.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
April 26, 2020 4:59 am

Clear cutting is forest management? Think about what is being done in the Carpathian mountains and elsewhere outside the EU where there are weak environmental laws. All to meet the insatiable demand for wood chips inside the EU. And the secondary consequences like flooding .. If course blamed on climate change …

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
April 26, 2020 8:23 am

A Forester?
Anywhere near where wood is chipped to provide wood chips to Drax? Say, Alabama?
Or feed paper mills?
Or feed glued lumber, like wood chip plywood or MDF?

Industry prefers to harvest acres of trees for their wood products. Not, gather dead/dying/diseased trees or broken branches from a forest.

Using sophistry to pretend “Forest Management” is different than cutting acres of trees in one go, is pushing falsehoods.
“Management” means leaving seed trees for the next crop or having low paid workers come and plant seedlings.
The forests themselves are harvested and essentially destroyed as forests.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
April 26, 2020 2:06 pm

I don’t see a reply button after comments by MikeP and ATheoK.

Yes, clear cutting is ONE form of silviculture. Look it up in a forestry book- or stop by a forestry dept. at any major university. I’m not going to teach you forestry.

ATheoK said, “The forests themselves are harvested and essentially destroyed as forests.” Forests that are clearcut grow back- believe it or not. You don’t even need to seed them in- they’ll still grow back. Go stop by a forestry dept. in any major university. Both of you need to educate yourself instead of just believing any idiot comment on a blog.

If you don’t like trees being cut- then don’t live in a wood house with wood furniture and paper products.

Iain Reid
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
April 26, 2020 11:48 pm


the amount of fuel a power station such as Drax (approx 3,000 Mwatts) in the U.K. consumes is huge. That is only one such power plant, it seems America has dozens if not in the hundreds, how can they all be fuelled by forest management?
All the reports I’ve read about Drax say that forests are being chopped to make the fuel pellets. Is that forest management?
And please do not shout, it’s not necessary in a discussion.

Romeo R
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
April 28, 2020 1:47 pm

I must say that I do agree with you. I grew up in Vancouver, Washington and while in Jr High and High School believed the drivel pumped out by the ‘environmentalists’ in regards to how destructive clearcutting was. I remember being able to identify 1st, 2nd, 3rd and even 4th growth forests because back in those days, they would replant the clear-cuts after they were done. I remember going hunting, fishing and camping with my dad in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest up around Swift Reservoir, Mt Saint Helens and Mt. Adams all the way down to the Big Lava Beds area, Wind River drainage and down to the Columbia River Gorge. Those clear-cuts were ugly and always made my heart hurt (I was an emotional leftist then without a brain but with a huge heart) but those clear-cuts were great places to hunt for deer and elk.
I remember cheering when then President Clinton closed down the national forests to all logging. I thought finally the forests could heal, the salmon would return and the Spotted Owls and Marbled Murrelets would all make a huge rebound. Well, they haven’t and the hunting has also gotten a little worse. Why? Well, one of the reasons is less browse for large game due to fewer clear-cut areas. Many of the animals have moved to the private lands where feed is still available and the numbers overall are down, for the most part, in the national forests. Forest fires used to provide these open areas for browse but since we don’t allow that anymore, the clear-cuts took their place. Most, if not all of the clear-cuts from the 90’s are now all covered with very dense 20+ year old trees that, if you’ve ever seen these forests, are so dense that no light reaches the forest floor and nothing for the most part grows down there.
Now mind you, this ban was only placed on National Forest and State lands. Privately held lands were still allowed to clear-cut but had to abide by the new rules put in place like buffer zones for water drainages and other regulations. However, I don’t know if this has changed and clearcutting is once again allowed on state and national forest lands.
Another thing I do remember happening from the closure of the forests was the destruction of an entire industry. Many of my friends parents lost jobs and many small towns dried up and turned to little cesspools of filth and economic depravity. Drug use soared and to this day many of those towns are plagued with drug and alcohol abuse problems.
I’m not saying that we should clear-cut willy-nilly without any regard for the environment. What I am saying is that clearcutting has its place with all types of forestry management tools and when done right, does less damage than a forest fire would and still supports life right after the trees are cut. I’m all for logging in a sensible way that uses as much of the tree as possible. In the past, branches and tops of trees were cut from the trunk, placed in huge piles and burned. I’m not sure if that still happens but it seemed very wasteful at the time. Using it instead for Biomass or for pulp for paper or even fertilizer or woodchips for playgrounds seemed a better usage idea to me but I’m no expert. What I do know is that we shouldn’t vilify an entire industry simply because of a perception one gets from a picture or article written against the practice. Everything should be looked at as a whole or as a system and realize that there are benefits to clearcutting or selective harvesting or whatever method you want to look at. Wood is a renewable resource and should be treated as such.
Now, outside the USA, I’m not sure what, if any, regulations are in place and unfortunately, we see the destruction that unregulated and uncontrolled forestry can do. However, we shouldn’t confuse the two as being one and the same.
These are just my thoughts on the subject from a very high level.

Reply to  Greg
April 26, 2020 7:59 am

That’s because AGW isn’t about saving the planet, it’s about getting the “right” people in charge.

Reply to  Mike McMillan
April 25, 2020 11:13 pm

used to think biomass referred to methane from composting household waste. I did not realise it was euphemism for forest destruction.

I thought destroying native forest in USA to feed woodchips into DRAX powerstation in UK was an aberration. I did not realise it was a wholesale industry.

I thank Micheal Moore for shine a light on that one in his new film.

Of course, instead of campaigning to end this stupidity, greenies are trying to ki11 the messenger.

Bryan A
Reply to  Greg
April 25, 2020 10:42 pm

Destruction of the Carbon Sink

Bryan A
Reply to  Greg
April 25, 2020 10:43 pm

Leave them in the ground

Dr. Bob
Reply to  Bryan A
April 26, 2020 6:59 am

Harvesting forests is part of sustainable forest management. I have no problem harvesting a forest responsibly under FSM (See for an example, one of many).

Without forest management, wildfires will take care of the excess fuel in the forest naturally, but with consequences. So we should use our forests responsibly. Young trees are less susceptible to pathogens such as pine bark beetles. And Old Growth forests are in balance with CO2, neither absorbing or releasing the gas.

There are lots of good things that come from forests and the waste/trimmings can be recycled into fuel of various kinds keeping the forest debris to a minimum.

Bryan A
Reply to  Dr. Bob
April 26, 2020 8:25 am

You are correct Dr Bob, forests do need to be cleaned from time to time, AND their waste/trimmings can be recycled into fuel … which takes a large amount of fossil fuel to transport from the forest to the processing plant, and a large amount of fossil fuel to transform the waste into pelletized fuel, and a large amount of fossil fuel to transport said pellets from the processing plant to where that fuel is needed so it can be transformed into heat energy.
Gotta love biomass generation for saving the use of fossil fuels /sarc

Dr. Bob
Reply to  Bryan A
April 30, 2020 6:15 am

Actually, it takes little fossil fuel relatively speaking to harvest forest waste. The Life Cycle Assessment assigns on 2 g CO2e/MJ of fuel used. This is 2% of the total saved or even less under some designs. Fossil fuels have about 100 g CO2e emissions per MJ energy content (CARB data). Harvesting forests waste (not whole trees as in the Michael Moore video) and converting it into drop-in hydrocarbon diesel, jet and naphtha fuels can cut CO2 emissions to negative 100 gCO2e/MJ generating significant RINs and LCFS credits making the project economically viable.

Doug Danhoff
Reply to  Greg
April 26, 2020 7:53 am

Or to make toilet paper😂

Reply to  Greg
April 26, 2020 10:46 am

But like the noble savages who preceded us on this continent … they’re using “the whole tree” for biomass … nothing goes to waste … like all those leftover isotopes from your evil nuclear power! like all those deplorable Republicans like to do … waste … because they’re deplorable. Orange Man Bad. Orange Man Bad. Babalouie! /s.

Reply to  Greg
April 26, 2020 1:49 pm

And what about acres of trees being cut down for solar panels?

Pavel Kalenda
April 25, 2020 10:30 pm
a happy little debunker
April 25, 2020 10:31 pm

What we should be observing is a ‘slowdown’ of the increase in CO2.

Mathematically it should be quite easy to demonstrate (I leave that to better mathematicians)

That CO2 doesn’t appear slowing in it’s increase has a significant implication for the proponents of Man-Made Global Warming.
That implication being that there is little to no impact on global temperatures by man.

Rich Davis
Reply to  a happy little debunker
April 26, 2020 6:00 am

First of all, the article that Joe Bastardi was criticizing made the claim that CO2 was falling rapidly, which it clearly is not. So he’s absolutely correct.

But sure, like a Democrat politician whining about “cuts” in funding that are actually reductions in the rate of increase, your point about how we should expect CO2 measurements to change is correct. (A slowing in the rise of the trend line).

Demonstrating the effect would be a lot harder than opining about it. Removing the noisy effect of seasonality probably isn’t possible to do with low enough uncertainty that a statistically significant result can be shown.

My guess is that a partial reduction of emissions over a period of 6-8 weeks would not be expected to fall outside the error bars. It’s not as if the seasonal effect is exactly the same each year. So whatever method used to remove the seasonality would be subject to uncertainty.

If you cut ~40% of ~8-wks of emissions that have historically resulted in a 2 ppm/yr rise in CO2, that’s a 6.2% decrease in annual emissions that could represent 0.12 ppm. Go look at the raw numbers and you’ll see that they routinely fluctuate by far more than that. And 40% is most like a gross exaggeration. Let’s hope that this experiment doesn’t go on long enough to get a statistically significant result.

Reply to  Rich Davis
April 26, 2020 6:15 am

You explain and summarize this very well.

I agree with your hope that the experiment ends soon. It’s sad that there are those who want it to go on forever.

Flavio Capelli
Reply to  Rich Davis
April 26, 2020 7:59 am

My computations agree, there are large fluctuations of CO2 atmospheric level that will mask any possible reduction due to the economic slowdown.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Flavio Capelli
April 26, 2020 10:46 am

Yes, Mr. Capelli.

Dr. Murry Salby (author of textbooks about Atmospheric Chemistry and Atmospheric Physics and many other publications) agrees:

[36:34] Native Sources of CO2 = ~150 (96%) gigatons/yr — Human CO2 = ~ 5 (4%) gtons/yr

(i.e., Native = 2 orders of magnitude greater than Human)

[37:01] Native Sinks approximately* balance Native Sources (= net Native CO2)

*Approximately = even a small imbalance can overwhelm any human CO2.

(Source: Dr. Murry Salby, here: )

Reply to  Janice Moore
April 26, 2020 11:00 am

And even MORE important … Co2 = 0.04% of our atmosphere … hence the logical irrelevance of Co2 being the main and only driver of temperature … let alone anything else climatically.

PS … animals exhale Co2 too. Why don’t we kill more than just cows? Why don’t we slaughter every animal on the planet!? Because … Co2.

I’ve never understood why anyone gave an idiot like Al Gore the time of day.

Reply to  Janice Moore
April 26, 2020 12:35 pm

Dear Janice,

Hope you are well in these lockdown times..
As usual, I disagree with you about what Dr. Salby said…

Natural sinks indeed approximately balance natural sources and a small imbalance can overwhelm any human CO2.

Indeed “can”, but it doesn’t. Already 60 years not:

Thus while Dr. Salby makes a rightful remark, the observations show that his remark is not valid in the past 60 years and the huge natural fluxes are a net sink in balance…

Reply to  Janice Moore
April 26, 2020 1:49 pm

Natural sinks indeed approximately balance natural sources

Ferdinand, now that is a awful pretty graph, ……. but it looks to me like all you did was use “fuzzy math” to calculate your “GREEN” difference in sink rate …. so that when subtracted from your ESTIMATED “red” increase in atmosphere rate ……. it would mimic the “blue” yearly emissions.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
April 26, 2020 2:10 pm

Dear Ferdinand,

Dear, dear, Ferdinand.

Thank you for asking. I am well. I am glad to see that you are well (enough to comment on WUWT, at any rate). I hope you are enjoying spring (and some of the excellent chocolate) in your beautiful country.

You still disagree?? 😲 Shocked. Simply shocked. Heh.😉

I am going to forego responding and will just direct anyone interested in learning more about Dr. Salby’s (and Ferdinand Engelbeen’s 🙂 ) analysis to:

1) the above Hamburg, 2013 lecture (youtube video link above)

2) this WUWT thread:


3) this WUWT thread:

Take care, over there.🌷

Your WUWT ally for truth in science,


Reply to  Janice Moore
April 26, 2020 10:01 pm

Salby has been sacked twice from academic posts and had his appeal against the second termination summarily dismissed by a court. He was a conman.

US National Science Foundation: “We conclude that the Subject (Dr Salby) has engaged in a long-running course of deceptive conduct involving both his University and NSF. His conduct reflects a consistent willingness to violate rules and regulations, whether federal or local, for his personal benefit. This supports a finding that the Subject is not presently responsible, and we recommend that he be debarred for five years.”

Reply to  Janice Moore
April 27, 2020 1:20 am


I thought that the difference between two known values is also a known value? But I can be wrong…

Reply to  Janice Moore
April 27, 2020 1:38 am

Dear Janice,

Shutdown rules are very strict here, but more shops besides food and diy may open next week and some schools partly in May.

We take extremely care, as my wife has already lung problems (fibrosis, only half here lungs are working) and a defunct immune system, for which she receives immunoglobulin infuses every three weeks. As practically nobody has an immune response yet to the covid virus, that wouldn’t help her if she attracts the virus and fairly sure that would be fatal.
I only get to the shops for food, taking care for distance with others (quite well maintained in the shops here) and washing hands afterwards and for the rest I stay at home. At my age (and medical history: bypass operation, diabetes) the risk is very high too.

Reply to  Janice Moore
April 27, 2020 7:39 am

Ferdinand Engelbeen – April 27, 2020 at 1:20 am

I thought that the difference between two known values is also a known value? But I can be wrong…

Ferdinand, it is for darn sure that you are wrong with your inferred “proof” that you are claiming your “pretty graph” provides the explanation for atmospheric CO2 increases during the past 63 years.

The literal fact is, ……. you have no factual evidence of, or any access to said, to support the three (3) different data sets that you have plotted on your cited graph.

And here, Ferdinand, ….the following will explain a few of your “human attributed” CO2 increases that you have plotted as … “red” increase in atmosphere rate …… to wit:

1982 _ 5 _ 344.67 …. +1.66 El Niño __ 9 … 338.32 ….. El Chichón volcano
1992 _ 5 _ 359.55 …. +0.46 El Niño __ 9 … 352.93 ….. Pinatubo volcano
1998 _ 5 _ 369.49 …. +2.80 El Niño __ 9 … 364.01
2016 _ 5 _ 407.70 …. +3.76 El Niño __ 9 … 401.03

Flavio Capelli
Reply to  Janice Moore
April 27, 2020 9:14 am

I am sorry if I aggrieved my fellow commenters.
To clarify, I say nothing about carbon sources and sinks but I limited my analysis to the Maun Loa atmospheric CO2 time-series.

Reply to  Janice Moore
April 27, 2020 1:29 pm

Flavio Capelli – April 27, 2020 at 9:14 am

I am sorry if I aggrieved my fellow commenters.
To clarify, I say nothing about carbon sources and sinks but I limited my analysis to the Maun Loa atmospheric CO2 time-series.

“HA”, most any post will aggrieve someone. So join in and voice your opinion and learned knowledge.

There are several commenters on this forum that should limit their analysis to the Maun Loa CO2 data …… instead of creating their own ‘junk science’ data to explain and justify their beliefs/motives.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
April 27, 2020 7:26 pm

Dear Ferdinand,

I’m sorry I took so long to respond to your kind reply above. Today was a busy day of errands, etc. for me.

Glad to hear that you and your wife are doing well. Very sorry to hear that she has such a difficult time breathing. That must make her so weary. And I am so sorry that you walk through your day never quite forgetting that you live with serious health issues.

Life is so short, so fragile… . I write fervently (and sometimes, a bit too bluntly (*blush*)) about the topic of human CO2 emissions because I care deeply about preserving our liberty in the U.S. (and fossil fuel — as well as nuclear, of course — is vital to freedom, given the current state of technology). But, writing to you here reminds me to ask myself: why is liberty so important to me? Answer: because people, whose souls will live forever, thus, long outlasting all governments, are of priceless importance.

Thus, you, Ferdinand, are a treasure of great worth, to be cherished, not carelessly dismissed or coldly rebuked, regardless of your views. And I need to bear that in mind every time I comment (and I fall far short of that). And you, in your gracious reply, modeled what I should aspire to do. By taking the time to write to a layperson like me, you said, essentially, “you are important.” Oh, how my hurting heart needed to hear that… Thank you.

I will be praying for you and your wife. God knows exactly where you are and what you need.

Take care — I almost wrote “esteemed foe,” but, I’m going to change that to: friend.

Sincerely yours,

Janice of the U.S.A.

Reply to  Janice Moore
April 30, 2020 7:33 am

Loydo, Nice try. Like many of your remarks, they are the trademark of desperation. If you can’t play the ball, then invoke the ultimate distraction: Play the man. As to Salby (rather than to the substance of discussion), your smoke screen was long since discredited.

Keep it up. Increasingly, thinking bipeds aren’t listening to the snide but hollow rhetoric.

Reply to  Flavio Capelli
April 26, 2020 12:36 pm

My computations agree, there are large fluctuations of CO2 atmospheric level that will mask any possible reduction due to the economic slowdown.

Flavio Capelli, …. you are correct, there are several naturally occurring events that can cause minor to large fluctuations in atmospheric CO2, the three primary ones being El Ninos, La Ninas and volcanic eruptions which one can easily see their “signatures” in the ML data.

But nowhere in the ML data, all 63 years of it, can anyone detect an anthropogenic “signature”, … none, nada, zero, zilch.

Flavio C, here is some factual data for your consideration, to wit:

Maximum to Minimum yearly CO2 ppm data – 1979 to May 2019
Source: NOAA’s Mauna Loa Monthly Mean CO2 data base

1979 – 2019 YTD CO2 — “Max” ppm @ mid-May (5) … “Min” ppm @ end of Sept (9)

year mth “Max” _ yearly increase ____ mth “Min” ppm
1979 _ 6 _ 339.20 …. + ….. El Niño ___ 9 … 333.93
1980 _ 5 _ 341.47 …. +2.27 _________ 10 … 336.05
1981 _ 5 _ 343.01 …. +1.54 __________ 9 … 336.92
1982 _ 5 _ 344.67 …. +1.66 El Niño __ 9 … 338.32 El Chichón
1983 _ 5 _ 345.96 …. +1.29 _________ 9 … 340.17
1984 _ 5 _ 347.55 …. +1.59 __________ 9 … 341.35
1985 _ 5 _ 348.92 …. +1.37 _________ 10 … 343.08
1986 _ 5 _ 350.53 …. +1.61 _________ 10 … 344.47
1987 _ 5 _ 352.14 …. +1.61 __________ 9 … 346.52
1988 _ 5 _ 354.18 …. +2.04 __________ 9 … 349.03
1989 _ 5 _ 355.89 …. +1.71 La Nina __ 9 … 350.02
1990 _ 5 _ 357.29 …. +1.40 __________ 9 … 351.28
1991 _ 5 _ 359.09 …. +1.80 __________ 9 … 352.30
1992 _ 5 _ 359.55 …. +0.46 El Niño __ 9 … 352.93 Pinatubo
1993 _ 5 _ 360.19 …. +0.64 __________ 9 … 354.10
1994 _ 5 _ 361.68 …. +1.49 __________ 9 … 355.63
1995 _ 5 _ 363.77 …. +2.09 _________ 10 … 357.97
1996 _ 5 _ 365.16 …. +1.39 _________ 10 … 359.54
1997 _ 5 _ 366.69 …. +1.53 __________ 9 … 360.31
1998 _ 5 _ 369.49 …. +2.80 El Niño __ 9 … 364.01
1999 _ 4 _ 370.96 …. +1.47 La Nina ___ 9 … 364.94
2000 _ 4 _ 371.82 …. +0.86 La Nina ___ 9 … 366.91
2001 _ 5 _ 373.82 …. +2.00 __________ 9 … 368.16
2002 _ 5 _ 375.65 …. +1.83 _________ 10 … 370.51
2003 _ 5 _ 378.50 …. +2.85 _________ 10 … 373.10
2004 _ 5 _ 380.63 …. +2.13 __________ 9 … 374.11
2005 _ 5 _ 382.47 …. +1.84 __________ 9 … 376.66
2006 _ 5 _ 384.98 …. +2.51 __________ 9 … 378.92
2007 _ 5 _ 386.58 …. +1.60 __________ 9 … 380.90
2008 _ 5 _ 388.50 …. +1.92 La Nina _ 10 … 382.99
2009 _ 5 _ 390.19 …. +1.65 _________ 10 … 384.39
2010 _ 5 _ 393.04 …. +2.85 El Niño __ 9 … 386.83
2011 _ 5 _ 394.21 …. +1.17 La Nina _ 10 … 388.96
2012 _ 5 _ 396.78 …. +2.58 _________ 10 … 391.01
2013 _ 5 _ 399.76 …. +2.98 __________ 9 … 393.51
2014 _ 5 _ 401.88 …. +2.12 __________ 9 … 395.35
2015 _ 5 _ 403.94 …. +2.06 __________ 9 … 397.63
2016 _ 5 _ 407.70 …. +3.76 El Niño __ 9 … 401.03
2017 _ 5 _ 409.65 …. +1.95 __________ 9 … 403.38
2018 _ 5 _ 411.24 …. +1.59 __________9 … 405.51
2019 _ 5 _ 414.66 …. +3.42 __________9 … 408.50
La Nina – El Nino index:

Reply to  a happy little debunker
April 26, 2020 6:01 am

CO2 emissions from combustion of fossil fuels is only a small fraction of its flux. The theory of manmade warming concerns the accumulation of manmade CO2 over a long time. Natural variation over short time scales is much larger than any changes from manmade emissions.

Rich Davis
Reply to  a happy little debunker
April 26, 2020 7:08 am

That CO2 doesn’t appear slowing in it’s increase has a significant implication for the proponents of Man-Made Global Warming.
That implication being that there is little to no impact on global temperatures by man.

Minor point: human impacts are not limited to fossil fuel CO2 emissions. Don’t ignore land use such as cutting down forests for agriculture and “biofuels”.

Major point:
As much as I would like to believe that human CO2 emissions could not be a factor in “climate change” because they didn’t actually drive the observed rise in atmospheric CO2, it isn’t possible to make a logical case for that.

For the Bastardi hypothesis to be correct, the worldwide consumption of fossil fuels would need to be grossly overestimated and insignificant relative to 2 ppm/ year.

It has been widely reported that annual emissions from fossil fuels represent the equivalent of 4 ppm of the total atmosphere. The observed rise is only 2 ppm/yr. Where did the other 2 ppm go? It has to be going into the biosphere and being sequestered long-term.

Net ocean outgassing from rising sea surface temperatures would not change if human emissions suddenly stopped. The biosphere cannot respond differently to CO2 from natural or human sources.

If human-caused emissions are irrelevant to the rise in atmospheric CO2, the only way for the mass balance to, well, balance, is for human-caused emissions to be significantly smaller than has been estimated. Is it possible that we have overestimated the amount of fossil fuel consumption by a factor of 10 or 100? I seriously doubt it. Is it possible that we have underestimated the mass of the atmosphere by a factor of 10? Of course not. So it’s impossible that a 2 ppm/yr rise in atmospheric CO2 is driven by net ocean outgassing rather than by human emissions.

If anyone can show that this is wrong, please explain.

Reply to  Rich Davis
April 26, 2020 9:10 am

Volcanic sources of CO2 have been underestimated by an order of magnitude. Depending on the geology, an eruption can contain more or less CO2. Warmists have chosen to ignore data for the millions of volcanic seeps all over the world. Check out the Lake Nyos data, if you can still find it. The relevant study was Schmid et al., 2003. I can’t find it at all, now.
Here’s a quote from “Simulation of CO2 concentrations, temperature, and stratification in Lake Nyos for different degassing scenarios,” –Martin Schmid, Michel Halbwachs, Alfred Wüest, 28 June 2006: “The deep layer from 185 m to 208 m depth is fed by a deep water source of CO2‐rich saline water. The flow rate of this source has been quantified to 18 L s−1 of water with a temperature of 26°C and a total CO2 concentration of 420 mmol L−1 [Schmid et al., 2003].

Reply to  jorgekafkazar
April 26, 2020 10:44 am


Volcanic emissions were estimated by measurements around mount Etna, one of the most active volcanoes of the world. Based on these figures, the total amount emitted by volcanoes all over the world is around 1% of what human emit.

Even if it was 10 times more, there is no reason at all that volcanoes would emit increasing amounts of CO2 at the exact timing and the same magnitude as human emissions…

Underseas volcanoes don’t emit to the atmosphere as most CO2 is captured by the deep oceans, which are undersaturated for CO2…

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
April 26, 2020 11:33 am

You said, “… CO2 is captured by the deep oceans, which are undersaturated for CO2…” That is true as long as the water stays in the deep oceans. However, it upwells in the tropics and along many western continental coasts. Once it reaches the surface, it is no longer undersaturated. We know very little about the total amount of CO2 released in the deep oceans, and even less about how constant those releases are.

Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
April 26, 2020 12:55 pm


As there is a rather constant ratio between CO2 level and temperature over the past 800,000 years, it appears that the full oceans (deep + surface) get an equilibrium with the atmosphere over time, together with vegetation as the three main carbon reservoirs, the largest of which being the deep oceans.

Of course there is a rather large CO2 flux from the upwelling places where the warming waters from the deep oceans release a lot of CO2. That amount is again sinking near the poles where the cold polar waters take a lot of CO2 out of the atmosphere with them into the deep.
How much? That can be estimated from the “thinning” of the “human fingerprint”: human emissions are at about -24 per mil δ13C, the deep ocean cycle is at about -6.4 per mil average over the Holocene. With that in mind, one can calculate the total CO2 circulating from the deep oceans:
Which shows about 40 GtC/year circulating between deep oceans and atmosphere.
Independently, the fast(er) decay rate of the 14CO2 from the atomic bomb tests shows the same “thinning” from about 40 GtC/year deep ocean circulation, which makes that the decay rate of an excess 14CO2 amount is much faster than of an excess 12CO2 amount…
How variable is the deep ocean circulation? No idea, but it can’t be larger than human emissions, as all natural variability in the past 60 years was smaller than human emissions…

Rich Davis
Reply to  Rich Davis
April 26, 2020 12:50 pm

Several people have cited studies concluding that natural sources predominate over anthropogenic sources. This could be true if the natural sink is large enough, without contradicting my earlier conclusions.

If the split is 31:69 (anthropogenic:natural) as in the study cited by Allan Macrae, and the human emissions are correctly estimated to be sufficient for 4 ppm/yr, let x be the ppm/yr rate for natural outgassing. Then the ratio 69/31 = x/4 => x = 8.9
That is, the natural source would need to be 8.9 ppm/yr.

The total source would be 4 + 8.9 = 12.9 ppm/yr
But the measured change is only 2 ppm/yr
That means that the natural sink must be 12.9 – 2 = 10.9 ppm/yr
(This is the mass balance, not a theory or model)

Now if that is truly the case, then eliminating 40% of human emissions for a period of time should change the anthropogenic rate to (0.6)(4) = 2.4 ppm/yr while the natural source of 8.9 ppm/yr would not be affected by this change, nor would the natural sink of 10.9 ppm/yr be affected. (At least immediately, the sink is likely dynamic, increasing with higher CO2 concentration).

So that would require that there should be a net accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere of (2.4 + 8.9) – 10.9 = 0.4 ppm/yr instead of 2 ppm/yr.

I see some sloppiness in my earlier argument in that I should not have taken 8/52 to account for 8 weeks out of the year. The change would be a step change in the rate down 40% of 4, which is to say that the net accumulation rate should have dropped immediately to (2 – ((0.4)(4)) = 0.4 ppm/yr.

The relevance of 8/52 would be in the absolute change expected in the measured CO2 concentration after removing the seasonal effect.

After 8 weeks at 2ppm/yr, the rise would have been 0.3 ppm. After 8 weeks at the new rate of 0.4 ppm/yr, the expected rise would only be 0.06 ppm. The difference that we would be trying to detect would be 0.24 ppm, (about 0.06% of the absolute concentration being measured). That is still much smaller than normal variation in the CO2 measurement.

If we totally stopped fossil fuel burning, then on the theory that our prior partition was 69% natural to 31% human-caused as calculated above, the rate of accumulation should go to:
(0 + 8.9 – 10.9) = -2 ppm/yr

8 weeks at -2 ppm/yr would result in a 0.3 ppm drop vs the 0.3 ppm rise that would have been the case previously. Thus there would be a 0.6 ppm change that we would be trying to detect. That would also be difficult to distinguish from normal variation in a short time period.

Bottom line, natural sinks can’t distinguish between CO2 molecules that were put into the atmosphere by fossil fuel burning from molecules put into the atmosphere by natural outgassing. All CO2 molecules must be acted on in the same way by natural sinks. Natural sources are independent of how much fossil fuel is being burned. So even if it is true that 69% of the past CO2 accumulation has come from natural sources, reducing anthropogenic sources must have a 1:1 reduction in accumulation.

Reply to  Rich Davis
April 26, 2020 1:20 pm

Rich Davis,

The study from Dr. Berry cited by Allan Macrae is simply wrong, as Dr. Berry used the residence time (about 5 years) as base for his calculations. The residence time has nothing to do with the time needed to remove an excess amount of CO2 above (dynamic) equilibrium out of the atmosphere (whatever the cause). That is the e-fold decay rate, which is about 50 years.
The first is about the throughput of CO2 through the atmosphere and influences the isotopic composition, but not the quantities in the atmosphere (if in balance). That is mainly (seasonal) temperatures dependent.
The second only depends of the extra CO2 pressure (pCO2) above the dynamic equilibrium for the current average ocean surface temperature, which is about 290 ppmv.
With the current 120 μatm (~ppmv) extra CO2 pressure (no matter the cause), some 2.25 ppmv CO2/years extra is pressed into (deep) oceans and vegetation (no matter the composition in the atmosphere).

As human emissions are about twice the net sink rate, that means that humans are the cause of near all increase in the atmosphere, with a small addition of the warming ocean surface since the LIA…

Rich Davis
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
April 26, 2020 1:50 pm

I won’t argue with you about that. My point is simply to demonstrate that regardless of how complex the various fluxes may be, reducing anthropogenic flux by any amount must reduce the net accumulation by the same amount. I presume you agree with that?

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
April 27, 2020 12:44 am

There is no way that the CO2 e folding time is 50 years. The amount of CO2 transfer into atmosphere is ~ 807 Gt/yr and the net CO2 in atmosphere is ~ 2936 Gt. That is a turnover ratio of 27% per year. Dr. Ed Berry has written the mathematical treatise on this very subject and he concludes that mankind has been responsible for a total net of 32 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere since 1750. That won’t do much warming.

Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
April 27, 2020 1:56 am

Rich David,

I disagree…

The point is that the extra sink is completely independent of natural in/out fluxes and human emissions. The extra sink is only a function of the extra CO2 pressure (pCO2) in the atmosphere above the (dynamic) equilibrium between ocean surface and atmosphere.
Almost all natural CO2 fluxes are temperature related: seasonal and between tropics and poles.
The removal of some extra CO2 is pressure related: any extra CO2 above equilibrium pushes more CO2 into the oceans and vegetation.
The first makes the huge CO2 fluxes with a residence time of ~5 years, but doesn’t change the CO2 level with one gram (as long as in equilibrium).
The second has a much slower e-fold time of around 50 years:
2.25 ppmv/year net sink rate with 120 ppmv extra in the atmosphere or ~53 years.
That rate is quite constant over the past 60 years and can be used to calculate the theoretical increase based on human emissions minus the theoretical sink rate:
Where the theoretical increase is within the natural (temperature induced) noise…

Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
April 27, 2020 2:12 am

Alan Tomalty,

Dr. Berry is wrong.
The turnover indeed is around 4/5 years (depending if you include or exclude the diurnal cycle in vegetation).
The turnover only shows how much CO2 is passing through the atmosphere and that has zero effect on the removal of some extra added CO2. That is mainly a temperature effect: seasonal and between tropics and poles.
The removal of any extra CO2, whatever the cause (volcanoes, humans), is a matter of difference between CO2 inputs and CO2 outputs and that difference is mainly pressure dependent: the more extra CO2 pressure in the atmosphere, the larger the difference between inputs and outputs and thus the uptake of CO2 in oceans and vegetation.

It is the same as the turnover of goods (and thus capital) in a factory and the gain (or loss) of the same factory at the end of the fiscal year. These also are largely unrelated…

Rich Davis
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
April 27, 2020 6:01 am

Ferdinand Engelbeen
You say that you disagree, but what you mention is basically the same as what I said. (Namely that the natural fluxes are independent of anthropogenic flux so that if the anthropogenic flux decreases, the rate of increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere must decrease by precisely the same amount.)

I did not suggest anything about how fast the natural sink will reduce CO2 concentration which I agree is based on the e-folding rate, not residence time. Nor did I dispute or even speculate on the mechanics of the various sinks and sources. (whether driven by partial pressure differences, etc.)

By analogy, if you slow down pouring beer into your glass, the rate that your glass fills will decrease by exactly the same amount. If there is also a small hole in your glass, the beer will slowly drain away. The rate of flow from the small hole (like the natural sink) is almost independent of the rate you pour in beer (anthropogenic source). Not completely so, because the more the glass is full, the greater the pressure and thus flow out of the hole.

I think that a beer analogy should resolve this. Beer is like CO2, there is nothing it cannot do.

Do you agree now?

Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
April 27, 2020 7:46 am

Rich Davis,


Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
April 27, 2020 10:14 am

Rich Davis says:
Beer is like CO2, there is nothing it cannot do.

Especially IPAs:

Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
April 29, 2020 4:42 pm

Ferdinand Engelbeen says:

“Dr. Berry is wrong.. The turnover only shows how much CO2 is passing through the atmosphere and that has zero effect on the removal of some extra added CO2.”

No, Mr. Engelbeen. It is you who is wrong. Dr. Berry shows that the balance which controls overall CO2 also controls any extra CO2 that is added. Therefore, the turnover (which you acknowledge is only “around 4/5 years”) applies also to human CO2. That is how fast human CO2 is removed from the atmosphere – because its turnover and removal are one in the same. And, as Dr. Berry shows, that fast removal makes the increase of CO2 from human emissions quite small.

Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
April 30, 2020 3:01 am


Dr. Berry is wrong.
The residence time has zero effect on the total quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere, as long as the inputs equal the outputs.
Over the past 60 years, natural inputs were always smaller than natural outputs, thus nature was a net sink for CO2, not a source and (near) the full increase since at least 1959 was all human.

Take the mass balance:
increase in the atmosphere = human emissions + natural emissions – natural sinks
For the last decade (GtC = ~2.13 ppmv in the current atmosphere):
4.5 GtC/year = 9 GtC/year + X – Y
X – Y = -4.5 GtC/year

With X = 100 GtC/year, Y = 104.5 GtC/year, residence time 830/104.5 = 7.9 years
With X = 200 GtC/year, Y = 204.5 GtC/year, residence time 830/204.5 = 4.1 years
With X = 500 GtC/year, Y = 504.5 GtC/year, residence time 830/504.5 = 1.6 years

The removal of some extra CO2 as mass (whatever the cause) is completely independent of the residence time, it only depends of the extra CO2 pressure (pCO2) in the atmosphere above the average seawater surface CO2 pressure, which is around 290 μatm (~ppmv) for the current average ocean surface temperature.

What does happen with the residence time is that about 25% of the original human emissions into the atmosphere, the CO2 molecules, are exchanged (not removed!) each year with CO2 molecules from other reservoirs. The residence time thus influences the isotopic ratio but not the quantities…

April 25, 2020 10:44 pm

I have started logging CO2 in the airflow at my place, which is in a direct airflow off the western shore of the Coral Sea. Currently showing 392 – 393 ppm which I recall is about “normal” for the time of day. Lowest is morning after sunrise when photosynthesis kicks in, around 380 ppm. Starts to go up mid-afternoon, highest is around 9pm (eg 3 hours after sundown) when it can reach 420 or more. I’ll have to run it for a few days, then compare it to a series I recorded about 5 years ago. So far, there appears to be no significant difference. (Difficult to keep it running full-time because the datalogger (Gaslab) is running on Windoze 10.)

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Martin Clark
April 25, 2020 11:21 pm

If CO2 levels were photosynthesis-driven, I would have expected the levels to be lowest after the end of the day when photosynthesis is stopping. The fact that they are lowest in the morning and highest in the evening tells me that it’s temperature-driven, probably outgassing from bodies of water.

Carl Friis-Hansen
Reply to  Martin Clark
April 25, 2020 11:35 pm

Martin, could you link to the sensor from Gaslab you are using? Just in case I can help.

Reply to  Carl Friis-Hansen
April 26, 2020 1:34 am

Should have said high before sunrise, then drops to lowest in the morning. Photosynthesis here starts to reduce just after noon. Might be different elsewhere. There are sometimes spikes in summer late afternoons which I put down as “carbon pipe” outgassing. Nothing else can be doing it, unless it is a mangrove swamp phenomenon. This is a bubbling stinking mass of decay upwind, but I’m not game to check out the CO2 levels there with my portable datalogger as there aren’t any boardwalks and it is a crocodile habitat.
@Carl, I use a CM-0039 USB datalogger from This is in a stevenson screen at the side of the house which has the unmitigated airflow at least 60% of the time. Occasionally it picks up bushfire activity or burn-offs from Magnetic Island when the airflow is from that direction, also occasionally from the landward direction, but none of the coastal savanna has burnt in recent years. Passing traffic, me mowing grass doesn’t get picked up. The only thing that triggered an increase was a large stationary diesel truck idling about 4m away from the sensor.

Carl Friis-Hansen
Reply to  Martin Clark
April 26, 2020 2:42 am

I have read that others have used a simple Python script to read the data from this sensor on a serial (USB) port at 9600 baud.
Apparently one need to initiate each read with:
0xFE, 0x04, 0x00, 0x03, 0x00, 0x01, 0xD5, 0xC5

My idea is that you could dig up an old laptop, install any Linux distribution and install a small a Python or C program to acquire the data and eventually copy those over WiFi to your house.
I am willing to help with the program if you need it.

Reply to  Carl Friis-Hansen
April 26, 2020 4:47 am

Hi Carl,
That would be very useful, thanks. Clicking on my name should take you to my web page which has my email on it. Or just send to troppo19 at
I have an HP desktop running Linux Mint 19.2 that I put together when Windows was tending to crash with every update. With programming I have gone from PLAN1900 and Fortran on a ICL 1900 mainframe, MS Basic, early Visual Basic, Javascript, forgotten all of it, so it might be a good idea to try Python before I’m too old.
It seems to me that the Mauna Loa dominance on the matter of CO2 encourages a very simplistic understanding of the extraordinary perpetual motion machine that is the carbon cycle of this planet. Given the low cost and durability of these dataloggers, there is scope for exploring how the working of this machine varies from place to place. We had the OCO2 satellite, but that failed to confirm all the assumed bad people, shows a huge flux in the NH, but in the SH, basically nothing. So its hushed up to an extent. Hmmm my datalogger is currently reading just below 400 ppm and at 9 pm AEST it is usually at about 420.

Reply to  Martin Clark
April 26, 2020 4:31 am

Martin Clark,
As one whose honeymoon was spent at Arcadia while finishing a Science degree at Uni College of Townsville, there are a couple of reasons why I would like to chat privately with you. Email is sherro1 at optusnet dot com dot au. Would appreciate. Cheers Geoff S

Jim Ross
Reply to  Martin Clark
April 26, 2020 6:49 am


If you haven’t seen the following, you may find them interesting as a comparative dataset. The site is on the North Sea coast of England. They actually show live daily data (but you have to register to get access to the historical data):

More interesting is perhaps the long term trend shown in the following PhD Thesis:

See, in particular, Figure 3.3 on page 79. This figure (readings every 2 minutes) highlights the fact that the daily highs (at night) are highly variable, but the daytime lows reflect a remarkably consistent “limit” which matches the annual trend as seen at sites away from vegetation effects (e.g. Mauna Loa). It would appear that photosynthesis is able (on most days) to completely remove all local CO2 above the background level and the size of the increase at night makes little or no difference.

An example of daily data is shown in Figure 4.1 (page 111).

April 25, 2020 10:56 pm

If Ed Berry is correct in his paper, the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 is largely natural and human CO2 emissions play a minor part in the increase of CO2. Therefore, any human-caused downturn due to the Covid-19-driven economic lockdown will be too small to detect. Check Reference #47. 🙂
Regards, Allan

From the Abstract:
“Human emissions through 2019 have added only 31 ppm to atmospheric CO2 while nature has added 100 ppm.”

by Edwin X Berry, Ph.D., Physics

The scientific basis for the effect of human carbon dioxide on atmospheric carbon dioxide rests upon correctly calculating the human carbon cycle. This paper uses the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) carbon-cycle data and allows IPCC’s assumption that the CO2 level in 1750 was 280 ppm. It derives a framework to calculate carbon cycles. It makes minor corrections to IPCC’s time constants for the natural carbon cycle to make IPCC’s flows consistent with its levels. It shows IPCC’s human carbon cycle contains significant, obvious errors. It uses IPCC’s time constants for natural carbon to recalculate the human carbon cycle. The human and natural time constants must be the same because nature must treat human and natural carbon the same. The results show human emissions have added a negligible one percent to the carbon in the carbon cycle while nature has added 3 percent, likely due to natural warming since the Little Ice Age. Human emissions through 2019 have added only 31 ppm to atmospheric CO2 while nature has added 100 ppm. If human emissions were stopped in 2020, then by 2100 only 8 ppm of human CO2 would remain in the atmosphere.

April 26, 2020 1:28 am

Ed Berry’s blog post is not correct and neither is Joe. At 3:44 “now what might be causing it?”, “my hypothesis is that the oceans, they’re still warming and are still haven’t reached the equilibrium of getting the CO2 out of there”. “because its so warm CO2 is being released here”.

No Joe thats a fail, the ocean is not a net source its a net sink. Try another debunked myth.
Berry fails for the same reason: if the ocean is a CO2 sink and “the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 is largely natural”, 2 questions:
1. What is the source of this “natural” CO2 and
2. Where did the rest of ours go? Venus?

To be still trying to deny the extra CO2 is ours is ludicrous.

Reply to  Loydo
April 26, 2020 3:22 am

Data says , NO !

sorry you don’t have the mental faculties to comprehend data.

Poor Loy…

Let’s look at that little snippet of data compared pH at Flinders reef, measured over a much longer period.

comment image

Your little chart is such a short period , as to be totally meaningless.

DOH !!

Reply to  Loydo
April 26, 2020 3:41 am

Berry was not incorrect, neither is Jo

You have no evidence to that.

You just can’t handle the truth. It is you that is a monumental fail.

And if you really do “believe” (despite the lack of evidence) that humans are responsible for all the beneficial increase in atmospheric CO2, then you are stuck with it, because with China continuing to increase its emissions as well as funding hundreds of other coal fired power stations around the world, human emissions of CO2 will only increase.

And there is absolutely nothing that you and your fellow climate clueless comrades can do about it 🙂

Reply to  Loydo
April 26, 2020 5:05 am

Oceans in general are not a permanentely sink, there differences in location, temperature zones whatever.
F.e. the Baltic Sea is a permanent CO2 source You didn’t know that, I know, and a lot of other things you don’t know too. In so far….. 😀

Reply to  Krishna Gans
April 26, 2020 9:12 am

That’s very interesting.

In some place, liquid CO2 is coming out of some underwater vents.

Reply to  Scissor
April 26, 2020 10:02 am

I’m sure, nobody has an idea about the real amount of natural CO2 sources.

Reply to  Scissor
April 26, 2020 10:58 am


Even when natural sources are largely unknown, do you really believe that they simply started to increase at the same moment as human emissions and quadrupled between 1960 and today, as human emissions did?
Total emissions and increase:
Yearly emissions and increase:

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Scissor
April 26, 2020 11:47 am

You asked, “… do you really believe that they simply started to increase at the same moment as human emissions and quadrupled between 1960 and today, as human emissions did?” While the probability of the coincidence is low, I don’t think that there is evidence demonstrating that the natural background CO2 levels have been constant.

It is well known that, on geologic time-scales, volcanic activity is episodic and not constant. One can’t dismiss out of hand that submarine volcanic activity has been increasing in recent decades.

Reply to  Scissor
April 27, 2020 2:20 am

Clyde Spencer,

Natural levels have been quite constant in ratio with temperatures over the past 800,000 years, be it with a large delays between the two: from several hundreds to several thousands of years.
Over the past 10,000 years we have ice core measurements with a resolution of around 40 years, over the past 1,000 years with a resolution if 20 years, etc…

There is no evidence of a large influence of volcanoes over the past 800,000 years…

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Scissor
April 30, 2020 12:50 pm

You said, with respect to ice cores, “There is no evidence of a large influence of volcanoes over the past 800,000 years… ” I was speaking about submarine volcanic activity, which will not show up in ice cores.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Scissor
May 1, 2020 10:36 am

To further make the point about how little we know about what is going on in the depths of the ocean, I offer this:

Geologic evidence from Endeavor and other vent fields suggests that hydrothermal activity is part of a cycle that reshapes the seafloor over many thousands of years. Endeavor’s hydrothermal period may be winding down, to be replaced by a lava-spitting “magmatic phase” that can last tens of thousands of years, according to the study. When that happens, many of the newly mapped Endeavor structures may vanish — as did the older chimneys at Alarcón Rise, the researchers wrote.

Reply to  Scissor
May 1, 2020 10:51 am


Most CO2 emissions from undersea volcanoes are immediately absorbed by the deep oceans, under the enormous pressure and low temperatures of the deep oceans.
Because of the amounts, one need a lot of emissions from that source before it would be noticed in the CO2 release from deep ocean upwelling.
Even so, part of the release is recycled CO2 from the subduction of tectonic plates with carbonate deposits. That is part of the very slow cycle of carbonate deposits in the past and CO2/bicarbonate release from carbonate rock weathering and subduction volcanoes (like Mount Etna).

Part indeed is from deep magma volcanoes from “hot spots” like Iceland and Hawaii, but I have not the impression that these are more active now than in the past centuries…

Reply to  Loydo
April 26, 2020 6:11 am

One cannot say that the oceans are a source or sink without defining the time in question as the ocean is both a source and a sink.

Atmospheric CO2 concentration peaks in its annual cycle in May and this is largely from ocean degassing, the ocean acting as a source. People claim that the ocean is a net sink because atmospheric CO2 levels globally over decades are not increasing to the extent they would if all manmade emissions remained in the atmosphere.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Scissor
April 26, 2020 6:36 am

“One cannot say that the oceans are a source or sink without defining the time in question as the ocean is both a source and a sink.”

“Our reconstructed changes in the oceanic inven- tory of anthropogenic CO2 imply a continuing strong role of the ocean in the recent global carbon budget (Table 2). From 1994 to 2007, anthropogenic emissions added 110 ± 8 Pg C to the atmosphere (36), most of which stemmed from the burning of fossil fuels (94 ± 5 Pg C) (5). Of these emissions, 50 ± 1 Pg C (45%) remained in the atmosphere (37). Our uptake estimate of 34 ± 4 Pg C implies that the ocean accounts for the removal from the atmosphere of 31 ± 4% of the total anthropogenic CO2 emissions over this time period (Table 2). This anthropogenic CO2 uptake fraction does not differ from that for the period from preindustrial times up to 1994 (1).”

Reply to  Anthony Banton
April 26, 2020 9:07 am

That article appears to define the mass balance over this time period quite well.

Reply to  Scissor
April 26, 2020 7:35 am

The Carbon Dioxide System in the Baltic Sea
Observations from the period 1993-2009, indicate that the central Baltic Sea was a net source of atmospheric CO2 while Kattegat was a net sink.

Reply to  Krishna Gans
April 26, 2020 11:11 am


The Baltic is a closed sea with a lot of river discharges around it loaded with lots of organic debris. Especially the discharges by the increased output from paper works in the industrial period… You cant use that as typical for the open oceans.
If you look at the six permanent monitoring stations in the open oceans, it is clear that CO2 is entering the oceans: the pH gets lower, but DIC (total inorganic carbon) increases.
If CO2 was released from the oceans, DIC would decrease and the pH would increase…

Reply to  Loydo
April 26, 2020 6:45 am

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is fairly well known, and has been fairly well known for decades. The amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere by mankind is fairly well known. and has been fairly well known for decades. More CO2 has been released into the atmosphere than has stayed there. That “extra” CO2 has mostly been absorbed by the ocean. Yes there is a big annual cycle involving Earth’s flora, but the flora gives back most of what it takes every year (these numbers are all fairly well-known too). So Loydo is correct – the ocean has been a net sink for decades.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Loydo
April 26, 2020 11:40 am

Generally speaking, high latitude oceans tend to be sinks, whereas tropical oceans tend be be sources, as are upwelling zones such as off the western coasts of South America and North America.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
April 27, 2020 1:11 am

Nope, sink from north to south. See Fig.1 of the study linked above by Anthony Banton.

Reply to  Loydo
April 29, 2020 1:40 pm

Another badgering but hollow argument from a chronic troll.

Where human CO2 goes and from which of the huge carbon reservoirs natural CO2 comes are immaterial. Berry, Harde, and Salby have shown independently that human emissions are much too small to be the cause of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere.

Loydo claims that, because the ocean is an overall sink of CO2, it can’t be responsible for increasing CO2. This claim is a common myth. It’s shattered in Salby’s lecture at times 27:40 – 36:00.

Reply to  Val
April 29, 2020 11:57 pm

“Berry, Harde, and Salby have shown independently that human emissions are much too small to be the cause of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere.”

No they haven’t. They’ve been soundly debunked and sent to bed without any supper.

Lol, the ocean can’t be both a net source and a net sink simultaneously.

Reply to  Val
April 30, 2020 6:39 am


If you give a reference to Dr. Berry, you need to read the comments too…
Both Dr. Berry and Dr. Harde are complete wrong.
Both use the bath tube as an example of how the CO2 level in the atmosphere responds to the residence time, but residence time has zero effect on the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.

The formula for residence time is:
residence time = mass / throughput
or mass / input
or mass / output
As long as input = throughput = output, which is more or less the case, minus a few % of the fluxes.

What Dr. Berry and Dr. Harde have done is reversing the formula:
output = mass / residence time

You may do that if and only if all throughput fluxes are unidirectional from sources to sinks, which is not the case for the large seasonal CO2 fluxes.
The seasonal fluxes are half of the year from oceans to vegetation and the other half from vegetation to oceans, where the atmosphere is only a passing by station.
That doesn’t make any difference for the residence time, where the direction of the throughput is not important, but it is expremely important for the mass in the atmosphere: that is near independent of the huge seasonal fluxes, as these don’t give a change in mass and the fluxes themselves are not driven by the mass in the atmosphere, but by the temperature (thus growth) of vegetation and oceans.

Thus sorry, Both Dr. Berry and Dr. Harde are completely wrong on that point…

Dr. Salby’s explanation is pure nonsense: the conservation of mass simply shows that humans are the cause of the increase. All what Dr. Salby shows is that the variability of the net sink rate (not the source rate!) is caused by temperature fluctuations. That fluctuation is only +/- 1.5 ppmv around the 90+ ppmv CO2 trend since 1960 with about 180 ppmv human emissions over the same time span…

Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
April 30, 2020 1:12 pm

Ferdinand Engelbeen,

Sorry, but you are incorrect.

Unlike the hand waving arguments with which you proliferate this medium, Drs. Berry, Harde, and Salby have (through several independent analyses) used actual atmospheric measurements and concrete physics to determine the human contribution. Those analyses leave little daylight. They show unequivocally that human emissions are much too small to be the cause of increased CO2 in the atmosphere. Your insubstantial remarks, relentless that they are, make it clear that you don’t understand them.

Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
May 1, 2020 1:02 am


You only fool yourself, not anyone who knows what he/she is talking about. My working job was chemical engineering (and later chemical process automation), so I (still) know what a physical process does and what not.

If I see a process like what happens in the atmosphere where the CO2 increase over 60 years is average only half what humans emitted in the same time span, you need voodoo mathematics (like Dr. Salby) or some misinterpretation of what the residence time means (like Dr. Berry and Dr. Harde) to say that human emissions are not fully responsible for the increase.
Moreover, all “alternative” explanations fail one or more observations, while the human input fits them all:

“Concrete physics” is that less than human emissions (as mass, not the original CO2 molecules) show up in the atmosphere.
As no carbon can be destroyed or created from nothing, the total natural carbon cycle is more sink than source, whatever the height of that cycle (thus the residence time).

If you don’t understand the difference between the throughput (turnover) of goods (and thus capital) in a factory and the gain (or loss) of that same factory at the end of the fiscal year, then sorry, I can’t help you further…

In my opinion, skeptics shoot in their own foot by insisting a non-human cause of the CO2 increase. as the “consensus” on that point is rock solid. That is a lost battle and only destroys any credibility they have when they attack the “consensus” on other points where the “consensus” only has weak arguments: the disaster of climate models which for 95% are already above reality and thus the real effect of CO2 on temperature…

April 26, 2020 11:29 am


Dr. Berry is incorrect. I have responded several times on his blog, as he uses the residence time to calculate the time needed to reduce the human input, but residence time (which is mainly seasonal temperature controlled) and excess CO2 decay rate (which is mainly pressure controlled) have nothing in common.
Further he uses an improper calculation: the reverse of the residence time to calculate the outflows.
While the residence time is mass/output (or input or throughput when in equilibrium), the reverse formula output = mass/residence time may only be used if you have a mass with one inflow and one outflow or several inflows and outflows which are all unidirectional.
In the case of the seasonal changes, oceans and vegetation are in counter flow in spring/summer and reverse counter flow in fall/winter. That doesn’t make a difference for the residence time, which doesn’t change whatever the direction of the throughput, but you can’t reverse the formula to calculate the outflow(s)…

Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
April 26, 2020 4:27 pm

What do you say Joe? I know you read this stuff.
How about: “Well you learn something every day, don’t ya”. Got the cojones?

Allan, please keep flogging Ed Berry, it suits you.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
April 27, 2020 1:07 am

Ferdinand said ” but residence time (which is mainly seasonal temperature controlled) and excess CO2 decay rate (which is mainly pressure controlled) have nothing in common.” Nature doesn’t know the difference between residence time and CO2 decay rate. The decay rate is insignificant when you have a 27 % turnover rate. Ferdinand your argument about the increase in net CO2 in atmosphere showing major increases after 1958 as proof of mankind doing it rests on your supposed assumption that the ice core records are all correct of a constant 280 ppm for last 800000 yrs. We should try to set up a real debate between you and Segalstad.

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
April 27, 2020 8:25 am

Alan Tomalty,

Nature does not make a differentiation between human and natural CO2. that is certaion, except for a small difference in isotopic composition.
Nature does react quite different on temperature changes than on pressure changes.

The largest natural CO2 flows in and out are seasonal:
In spring and summer:
60 GtC as CO2 taken away by vegetation (mainly in the mid-latitudes of the NH)
50 GtC released by the warming oceans (again mainly in the mid-latitudes)
In fall and winter:
60 GtC released by decaying vegetation
50 GtC uptake by cooling oceans.
40 GtC between the warming deep ocean upwelling near the equator and the sink places near the poles.

Residence time = mass / throughput, no matter the direction of the individual fluxes.
Residence time = 830 / 150 GtC/year = 5.5 years
Dr Berry includes the diurnal CO2 fluxes within vegetation, which gives a residence time of around 4 years, although the diurnal exchanges don’t reach the bulk of the atmosphere, but that is not important at all.

Net effect after a full year: zero change in total CO2 mass of the atmosphere when in/out fluxes are in equilibrium. The residence time has zero effect on the total mass of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Human emissions are based on sales (taxes!) and combustion efficiency with reasonable accuracy (maybe somewhat underestimated), CO2 in the atmosphere is measured with high accuracy. The gain or loss in the atmosphere then is what nature has done in reality over a full year, no matter the individual fluxes changed or even reversed during that year.

Increase in the atmosphere = human emissions + natural inputs – natural outputs
For the past decade or so:
4.5 GtC = 9 GtC + X – Y
X – Y = -4.5 GtC
In the past 60 years nature was always more sink than source.

It doesn’t matter what the exact height of X and Y is (thus the residence time), as all what matters is the difference between X and Y to induce a change of CO2 mass in the atmosphere and that is CO2 pressure dependent with an e-fold decay rate of ~50 years.

BTW I had that discussion with Segalstad and others already in the past, but they still don’t understand the difference…
Ice cores are quite good inventories of past air composition, including CO2 levels, with only one drawback: that are averages of 10 to 600 years, depending of the local snow accumulation rate… The 280 +/-10 ppmv is only for the past 10,000 years, up to the industrial revolution, before that there were levels of 180-310 ppmv, in direct ratio to temperature – with a long lag.

April 25, 2020 10:57 pm

Did Joe read the article or did he decide all the info was in the headline?

“Scientists say that by May, when CO2 emissions are at their peak thanks to the decomposition of leaves, the levels recorded might be the lowest since the financial crisis over a decade ago.”

“”I expect we will have the smallest increase in May to May peak CO2 that we’ve had in the northern hemisphere since 2009, or even before,” said Prof Commane.”

“If it lasts another three of four months, certainly we could see some reduction.”

Reply to  MorinMoss
April 26, 2020 12:35 am

“I expect we will have the smallest increase in May to May peak CO2 that we’ve had in the northern hemisphere since 2009, or even before,” said Prof Commane.

This view is echoed by others in the field, who believe that the shutdown will impact CO2 levels for the whole of this year.

“It will depend on how long the pandemic lasts, and how widespread the slowdown is in the economy particularly in the US. But most likely I think we will see something in the global emissions this year,” said Prof Corinne Le Quéré from the University of East Anglia.

So we have something to measure the claim against.

Reply to  Redge
April 26, 2020 12:40 am

Damn, not sure what went wrong with the blockquote – apologies

Reply to  MorinMoss
April 26, 2020 8:33 am

MorinMoss April 25, 2020 at 10:57 pm

“Scientists say that by May, when CO2 emissions are at their peak thanks to the decomposition of leaves, the levels recorded might be the lowest since the financial crisis over a decade ago.”

“”I expect we will have the smallest increase in May to May peak CO2 that we’ve had in the northern hemisphere since 2009, or even before,” said Prof Commane.”

“If it lasts another three of four months, certainly we could see some reduction.”

Total obfuscation claims that they are unable to prove.
Their claims for reduction will be hidden in the annual drop of atmospheric CO₂ as NH plants ramp up their CO₂ intake…

And ignoring various governments restarting their economies.

April 25, 2020 11:05 pm

This post raises the same issue as discussed by Gregory Wrightstone on 14 April, “ Green New Deal goes viral, and fails”.
Does an increase in the March Mauna Loa figure for CO2 mean that anthropogenic contributions to global emissions are negligible (or not significant?)given the clear reduction in man made emissions world wide occasioned by the pandemic?
Too soon to tell?
The April figure should be interesting.

Reply to  Herbert
April 26, 2020 6:21 am

Yes, on such a short timescale our emissions are trivial. See the comments from Rich Davis and Allan Macrae above for good explanations and detail.

April 26, 2020 12:46 am

Bastardi’s analysis is beyond stupid.
The annual cycle on the upswing between October and May adds 15 to 20 ppm CO2 to the atmosphere. Translated into units of annual growth rate, the growth during this 7 month period corresponds to a gradient of something over 30 ppm per year. EVERY YEAR.

By comparison, the human-caused mass addition, if you accept the consensus argument, corresponds to a net addition of a little over 2 ppm per year from all anthropogenic sources. If human production of CO2 were to close down completely for 3 solid months from March through May, then it would produce a very small change in the RATE OF GROWTH of CO2 over the period, and it would bring forward the May peak in the annual cycle by a few days. It would not be sufficient to cause a decrease in CO2 concentration, which seems to be what Bastardi is expecting to see on his plot.

It may be that careful analysis of the data reveals some impact of the recent economic slowdown, but this will require some very careful modelling to account for the annual cycle and the actual sea surface temperature changes over the period. I suspect that like everything else in climate science, any signal will end up being lost in the noise, and analysis will end up yielding an assumption-dependent answer.

Carl Friis-Hansen
Reply to  kribaez
April 26, 2020 1:57 am

kribaez, although I agree with you that the calculations are difficult and best left to those with adequate knowledge, I think you are judging Joe Bastardi too hard.
I interpret Joe’s video as a way to clarify that an obvious fingerprint in the CO2 levels, in conjunction with the lock-down or anything else, has not manifested at this point.

Reply to  Carl Friis-Hansen
April 26, 2020 3:23 am

You are more generous than I am in your interpretat ion. At 2:57, his argument is:-

“The question is, with this continuing to go up, folks, why are people describing this economic shutdown as something good to fight climate change? It’s going up! It’s not stopping!”

Carl Friis-Hansen
April 26, 2020 1:18 am

Seen in a Youtube comment to a CO2 sensor using Arduino:

Can you use this Sensor to measure Breathing CO2

This comment is particular puzzling in the light of the commented video demonstrates that breathing on the sensor increases the CO2 read-out.

Stephen Richards
April 26, 2020 1:21 am

Had you listened carefully you would have heard him say that the growth of summer reduces CO²

Reply to  Stephen Richards
April 26, 2020 4:23 am

Carbon monoxide squared, that sounds serious. Do Scripps Institute do bottle samples on that too? 😉

Looks like useless Eustace decided he must he insult his own intelligence and that of the electorate too. Sounds like he may have a liberal bias too there, so his neural pathways will be exceptionally sensitive to CO2 damage.

Doug Danhoff
Reply to  Greg
April 26, 2020 7:57 am

So do we need to fill out this questionnaire every time we post?

If so I can read this information elsewhere
I will do this one last time

April 26, 2020 1:56 am

“Can you use this Sensor to measure Breathing CO2” LOL.
That’s what I did on occasion as part of my work. Guys talking, probably smoking (prohibited on the job), using gas torches to make capillary joints in pipework in a confined space. Set the alarm at 2000 ppm and it soon went off. It made the point; go get the Fanmaster thing.
Switched the device on during a seminar that included persons of a greenie persuasion.
“what’s that thing let me see it whaaat its going up all the time are you doing this remotely? You hiding something in your pocket?”. “No. It’s you hyperventilating your anger at it and pouring out 40,000 ppm right in its face.”
Some elderly gardeners talk to their plants because they have observed that it encourages them to grow better.

April 26, 2020 2:00 am

Carbon Dioxide Surface Concentration
the fraction of carbon dioxide present in air at the earth’s surface,0.32,188

Reply to  ren
April 26, 2020 3:27 am

ren , Is there key with that ?

Look at the massive CO2 being produced in lower Eastern Africa, Borneo, and Brazil.

Must be all the industrial complexes and SUVs there. 😉

Reply to  fred250
April 26, 2020 3:42 am

Click on the map. The key is the growing season in the oceans.

Reply to  fred250
April 26, 2020 6:33 am

It seems strange that the blood red corresponds to low CO2 concentrations. The Amazon is ~410 ppm. Some parts of Eastern Russia are over 440 ppm.

Reply to  fred250
April 26, 2020 7:18 am

You are dark areas the wrong way the are the low CO2 areas, clic f.x. on the spot in the Bearing strait where it is narrowest an get 445 ppmV CO2 reading and then click again with the arrow pointing at a few spots in the north east part of Mozambique , where you will get CO2 levels at something like 400 +/- 2 ppmV this time of the year.

Reply to  Björn
April 26, 2020 9:00 am

Look at Mauna Loa. NOAA is reporting ~415 ppm, and gives 427 ppm. NOAA results should be accurate.

John Dowser
April 26, 2020 3:35 am

Joe has lost his reading and comprehension abilities?

The article he’s ranting about addresses “warming gases over some cities and regions “. It also quotes “If it lasts another three of four months, certainly we could see some reduction.”

Then he counters with some current Mauna Loa statistics as if the claim was about some global trend.

Also it’s unclear why the thinks the headline was suggesting that CO2 is a pollutant . It does not at all.

Reply to  John Dowser
April 26, 2020 4:20 am

Yeah the article was terribly written with “could happen” and “scientists say”. Joe should not have commented to such drivel.

John Shewchuk
April 26, 2020 3:36 am

Good stuff Joe. Keep up the good work. This will obviously lead to the demise of Agenda 21, or 2030, or whatever the latest flavor is.

Cyril Wentzel
April 26, 2020 4:16 am

Why isn’t anybody pointing at the analysis by dr. Roy Spencer at his blog and reproduced at this site? He reduced the signal from the noise by elementary statistical manipulation and did so until the month of March. I am very curious to see his analysis being carried into April as well.
And indeed, this is also a good opportunity to test the models proposed by Berry and Harde.
We should be welcoming this opportunity for this natural experiment as a blessing in disguise maybe. For this could shed some light on the issue at the root of the AGW debate chain argumentation: is CO2 rise indeed largely man-made? Does anybody know how long a “pause” would be necessary before a result would become meaningful?

Reply to  Cyril Wentzel
April 26, 2020 4:46 am

Roy Spencer’s preliminary conclusion from that:-

“I personally doubt we will see a clear COVID-19 effect in the CO2 data in the coming months, but I would be glad to be proved wrong. ”

A very reasonable view IMHO.

Cyril Wentzel
Reply to  kribaez
April 26, 2020 10:41 am

Yes, I was puzzled by his phrase lI would be glad to be proved wrong”. Because if it were to be true (a significant effect, i.e., reduction of rate of increase), then this would mean that that part of the basis for AGW was true. Is this something to be glad about? If so, why?

Apart from my being agnostic about that issue, if there were no effect at all, then this would mean that the whole body of climate science is in danger of being de-funded. We could all go home and sleep safely in the knowledge that climate dynamics go their own way.

There would be nothing left but to adapt. Slowly building dykes as we have always done. Sounds like a very good scenario to me. No more eco-totalitarism, no more excuses for forced “transitions” that are transitions to nowhere but collectivistische an authoritarian hell. Now that is a cheerful prospect and I would not see why dr. Spencer would not agree to that.

Reply to  Cyril Wentzel
April 26, 2020 12:07 pm


After a lot of debate, Dr. Spencer now is convinced that humans are the cause of the small, but steady increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.
The increase before corona was about 2.23 ppmv/year, now about 1,75 ppmv/year. That is too small to be measured at Mauna Loa on a monthly basis. You need at least a full year or even years to be certain of the difference in trends within the year-by-year “noise” from natural seasonal and longer (Pinatubo, El Niño) cycles…
A real scientist like Dr. Spencer agrees with the data, no matter his own biases or beliefs…

Reply to  Cyril Wentzel
April 26, 2020 4:19 pm

A true scientist is always glad to be proved wrong, because it is better to be proved wrong than to continue being wrong.

Those who think otherwise, I think, confuse science with ego.

Cyril Wentzel
Reply to  Mike Jonas
April 27, 2020 2:52 pm

Ego however is culturally greatly misrepresented and undervalued. Properly understood, as a basis for ego-ism in the Aristotelian sense, it is the only thing that could bring this crazy civilisation of ours back on track. But that is a side issue, we are discussing CO2-experiment and here is Roy Spencer’s graph from several weeks ago:

Reply to  Cyril Wentzel
April 26, 2020 6:45 am

I understand your sentiment about the desire to see results from this “experiment” but it is no blessing in disguise. The experiment would have to be run for at least a year to see much statistical effect and even then the measurements and natural variation will make it difficult to see signal from noise.

In the meantime, the economic toll from shutting down a significant fraction of the economy will lead to much suffering and death, probably multiples of those resulting from the Wuhan virus. I heard on the radio this morning that in some places suicides have risen dramatically and in at least one county are 3 times higher that deaths from CV-19.

Supply chains for food are being highly disrupted now and the outcome will not be good if it is allowed to continue.

Cyril Wentzel
Reply to  Scissor
April 26, 2020 10:26 am

@Scissor, indeed I quite agree with you and I realise my wrong phrasing, since it would not and could not be a blessing one way or the other. I was grappling for a translation of what we in Holland say is that “every disadvantage has its benefits/advantage”. (The phrase is supposedly traced back to a citation of the Dutch soccer player Johan Cruyff, who was perhaps the only popular contemporary “philosopher”, indicating something about the quality of philosophy in our country).

My personal concerns are about something that goes beyond “the economy”, i.e., the power grab by governments and the loss of freedom that occurs at every crisis. Often of government’s own creation. For example, here in Holland a partial lock down was imposed and flights have been decimated. Now the government is “bailing out” the Dutch part of KLM/AirFrance but with an explicit demand that “what they want in return” is more sustainable flying (which of course is a non-concept).

Reply to  Cyril Wentzel
April 26, 2020 1:00 pm

Thank you for your explanation. I never would have guessed that English is not your native language.

I share your concerns. It is particularly concerning to me that citizens of Western countries almost in unison surrendered their freedoms so easily in the face of a media driven fear and panic.

Ron Long
April 26, 2020 4:28 am

Eustace, I am certain that Joe Bastardi is not a “blithering idiot” and the others you cite show your political tendencies. By the way, it’s “mortgage”. Stay sane (this means you, Eustace) and safe. Day 37 of the quarantine and dogs in open revolt and I’m thinking about joining them.

Reply to  Ron Long
April 26, 2020 10:53 am

The PEOPLE of America … quietly withdrew from the quarantine yesterday … and now even the Mayor of NYC is scrambling to catch up with us … as he convenes a blue ribbon panel to “look into restarting NY”. Hint: none of those Americans you saw “crowd” onto the beach yesterday took the subway to get there, nor stood in a packed elevator rising to the 40th floor. So, this FOOL of a Mayor will be sending MORE New Yorkers to their deaths … and they call us the rubes… the ignorant deplorables.

Reply to  Ron Long
April 27, 2020 7:32 am

Your far from alone Ron. I don’t see these tyrannical edicts making it through May.

The fear of the virus instilled by the government and their press is going be outweighed by the fear of losing everything, including the opportunity to recover. As I write this people are getting ever more restless and less compliant with the edicts of isolation, shutdown, masks, and social distancing. The numbers of those that refuse to comply any longer will only grow. In the places with the most tyrannical edicts the protests are already growing quickly. In those places is exactly where the state or local government will try and enforce their edicts using police state tactics and so violence will ensue. There simply is not the money to keep up the unemployment supplement for much longer and I suspect that when that supplement ends will be the tipping point that results in large scale civil disobedience if things continue as they are.

April 26, 2020 4:38 am

How about WUWT bloggers embarking on what is like a class action in legal work. Pick a location that measures atmospheric CO2 on a daily basis. Ask them for the daily data for march 2020. When you find you cannot get it, ask why not?
Exceptions. NOAA ans Scripps have graphs of daily data for Mauna Loa for March 2020, NOAA has digital .csv data but there are some days with missing data as available to the public.
I can find not a single other location reporting daily data for March 2020. Can you? Geoff S

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
April 26, 2020 5:08 pm

I think NOAA even notes that the Mauna Loa data is preliminary for a calendar year or so…

Rich Davis
April 26, 2020 5:05 am


Ron Long
Reply to  Rich Davis
April 26, 2020 6:12 am

Yea, Rich Davis, Huh? Where’s ctm, that maniac with a machete, when you need him? ctm would protect Charles Rotter for sure!

Rich Davis
Reply to  Ron Long
April 26, 2020 7:56 am

So I don’t doubt ctm can defend himself, but I am pretty sure that’s irrelevant to my “Huh?”

Russell Seitz said “That includes you”
“That” refers to what? And why would ctm aka Charles the Moderator aka Charles Rotter aka Moderator Rotter care that some “screen shot” had been taken?

Janice Moore
Reply to  Rich Davis
April 26, 2020 10:26 am

I think Russell Seitz is a screensot. 😆

“Screensot” — One committing B.U.I. (Blogging while Under the Influence).

When you have had time to sleep it off, Mr. Seitz — do come back. LOTS of WUWTers have a B.U.I. (or two or three 🙂 ) on their record. No reason to be ashamed. And while “sot” implies a habitual problem with getting drunk, as far as we can see, you are just an acute, not a chronic, sot.

Reply to  Rich Davis
April 26, 2020 12:00 pm

Janice, your “’Screensot’ — One committing B.U.I. (Blogging while Under the Influence)” is classic.

Hope you are well, my friend.

Stay safe and healthy, all.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Rich Davis
April 26, 2020 1:50 pm

Hi, Bob! 😀


How lovely to hear from you. I have been wondering (no doubt, many of us regulars have) why your last series of surface temperature data analyses/graphs and accompanying reporting was not published on WUWT. SMsher sure seems to have more and more influence around this place…. Hope it wasn’t he or some other lukewarmer who kept your always-excellent reporting out.

We (I know it is more than just I) MISS YOU!

Thank you for asking, I am quite well. My low-wage job is waiting for me (yay 🤨 — really, am glad to have a job at all…. but, well….) and my employer is paying us our full paychecks (he took advantage of that payroll protection loan/grant program). VERY sick and tired of the gross overreaction to the COVID19 virus. If only they would focus on the data (mortality rate and co-morbidities data, esp.). Still in the shed and pretty lonely, but, I am healthy and THAT is wealth, indeed. 🙂

I hope that you are doing well. Hope you are enjoying the lovely springtime weather in your neck of the woods. And I have prayed, from time to time, about a certain person and you….. (now, don’t worry, no one will have any idea who it is — whether it’s that neighbor who puts his garbage into your can in the middle of the night or the brother-in-law who parked his fishing boat in your driveway last October and said, “I’ll be back in a couple of weeks to get it” or the 400 lb. woman who keeps baking you pies and winking at you in a disturbingly suggestive manner! 🙂 ) Hope things are going well…. You sure do deserve happiness.

Thank you, so very much, for taking the time to talk to me. You really brightened my day!

Your friend,


April 26, 2020 6:31 am

As a tree grows it should increase its consumption of CO2 exponentially. If the Earth is getting greener, than CO2 should be either staying the same or going down.

April 26, 2020 6:36 am
Reply to  AZeeman
April 26, 2020 6:50 am

Anaerobic and aerobic respiration were out of balance. Interesting.

Joe bastardi
April 26, 2020 7:47 am

Plant more trees. We should be smart enough to figure that out given seasonal downturn when Nhem comes alive. Also quit being a slave to Jane Fonda and the China syndrome, For goodness sakes this is 2020 USA we can build safe nuclear power plants, If you are really concerned about co2s rise, you simply adapt and counter. Its called making progress, Peace out

Reply to  Joe bastardi
April 26, 2020 8:48 am

Look at what is happening in Asia, in Malaysia and Indonesia for example, with regard to clear cutting rain forests to create palm and coconut oil plantations. Much of this oil is being sent to Europe for biodiesel to meet “green” regulations. It’s sick really, and pointing this out is another thing that Moore and Gibbs got right in their recent video.

Joe Bastardi
April 26, 2020 7:52 am

one more thing, Lord knows I may be wrong about the hypothesis, But what I do know is people pushing the shutdown and saying that its stopping co2 are clearly either ignorant of what is going on or do know it and choose to ignore it because it does not fit their missive. But there are noticeable downturns in the other so called “pollutants” ( co2 is not IMO) so why not this? And why say the opposite, The BBC got sucked in to buying a flattening which if they went back and looked you would have seen has happened in each of the last several years Have they printed a retraction? Have they updated it for the Co2 part. If so I have not seen it so forgive me if they have.

Reply to  Joe Bastardi
April 26, 2020 8:11 am

Sulfur dioxide is much worse.
Sulfur Dioxide Surface Mass
amount of sulfur dioxide in the air near the earth’s surface,0.00,188

Reply to  Joe Bastardi
April 26, 2020 9:19 am

Definitely our emissions from burning fossil fuels are being lowered. You can see that in the price of oil and from pictures of oil tankers sitting off shore.

However, the reduction of our emissions is about 30-40% and our total emissions are about 3-4% of natural CO2 emissions. Take the high end of this, if this continues for the next year, then there could be a ~1.6% reduction in global emissions from the CV shutdown. That is well within the variability of natural emissions. I hope that this reduction does not last for a year.

Reply to  Joe Bastardi
April 26, 2020 4:49 pm

Yeah, but why muddy the water with your “warming ocean”?

Eustace Cranch
April 26, 2020 8:28 am

Just want to make clear that this “Eustace” is not me. Two different people.

April 26, 2020 8:34 am

Interesting to see the amount of flak Joe is getting. He must be right over a highly sensitive target.

Reply to  KT66
April 26, 2020 12:40 pm

I think more people here are on Joe’s side and are just pointing out that Joe himself is over the wrong target in this case. It’s best to be precisely on target so as to avoid friendly fire.

Reply to  Scissor
April 26, 2020 7:42 pm

No, Joe thought he was right over the target with his little doubt bomb. When he dropped his half-baked hypothesis it was smartly shot down because it is based on a demonstrably wrong assumption: that the ocean is a net source.

He’s copped a harsher smack-down from me because it shows his deeper political motivation. At best, he fools himself by willingly failing to check any facts, at worst, by deliberately doubt-mongering about the source of the CO2, he reveals his anti-AGW ideology is more important to him than science. Lets give him the benefit of the doubt, afterall incompetence is always more probable than malevolence

Carbon Bigfoot
April 26, 2020 8:39 am

As a subscriber of Weatherbell Analytics, we have come to appreciate the unorthodox delivery of Joe. He was NY TV weather guy in years past until pretty faces and robots have taken over the broadcasts. I suggest that you take advantage of the free Saturday forecast because it is far more instructive than watching T&A on TV.
The left side of the screen was indicative of 1980 oceans temperatures which he used as a comparison or didn’t you catch that? Ocean temperatures today are due to submariner volcanoes and vents being influenced by excess gamma ray infiltration due to a quiet sun Cycle 25, delivering copious amounts of previously understated CO2

Ron Long
Reply to  Carbon Bigfoot
April 26, 2020 9:59 am

You’re my hero, Carbon Bigfoot, because you got “T&A on TV” past the Snipper, Charles Rotter. Lucky for you that ctm was not the Snipper, just saying.

Reply to  Carbon Bigfoot
April 26, 2020 12:26 pm

Carbon Bigfoot,

All CO2 from undersea volcanoes is simply dissolved in the huge mass of deep ocean waters at the enormous local pressure and the fact that the deep oceans are undersaturated in CO2 at their low temperatures.
Except of course is there is a huge outbreak and the gas masses reach the surface (Bermuda Triangle someone?)…

Gordon Dressler
Reply to  Carbon Bigfoot
April 26, 2020 12:35 pm

Carbon Bigfoot posted: “Ocean temperatures today are due to submariner volcanoes and vents being influenced by excess gamma ray infiltration due to a quiet sun Cycle 25 . . .”


The average depth of Earth’s oceans is about 3,688 meters (12,100 ft). Nearly half of the world’s marine waters are over 3,000 meters (9,800 ft) deep. The vast expanses of deep ocean (anything below 200 meters or 660 feet) cover about 66% of Earth’s surface.

So what percent of cosmic ray-generated gamma radiation penetrates to an ocean depth of 200 meters, let alone a depth of 3,700 meters?

Answer: In astrophysics, gamma rays are conventionally defined as having photon energies above 0.1 MeV and are the subject of gamma ray astronomy. Wikipedia’s article on “Penetration Depth” (see ) has an accompanying graph that shows radiation penetration depth (the distance over which radiation intensity decays by 1/e due to absorption and scattering) in water as a function of photon energy. This graph indicates that for photon energies up to about 0.3 MeV, the penetration depth in water is asymptotically approaching about 10 cm. So, this indicates that within the first 1 meter of ocean depth, the intensity of, say, a 1 MeV gamma ray would be attenuated to about 0.005% of its value entering the water. Now, the energy distribution of cosmic rays (particles) peaks at about 0.3 GeV (see, so let’s pessimistically assume all of a 0.3 GeV particle’s energy could be transformed directly into gamma ray energy and let’s further pessimistically assume that this higher energy would increase the penetration depth by TWO orders of magnitude (i.e., from 10 cm to 10 meters). Such scaling would say that within the first 200 meters of ocean depth, the resulting gamma ray intensity would be reduced to about 0.0000002% of its value entering the water. Bottom line: cosmic gamma rays do not provide any energy to the bottom surfaces of the Earth’s oceans.

Carbon Bigfoot
Reply to  Gordon Dressler
April 27, 2020 2:37 pm

Ferdinand & Gordon:
I suggest that you both read about the evidence in above mentioned 66 page paper.
The video is even more dedicated to non-believers and is only an hour long.
When you have read/view the information I’ll try to explained it further, but I think any critical thinker can fathom (sic) the evidence and agree with the author.( and me ).

Gordon Dressler
Reply to  Carbon Bigfoot
April 27, 2020 3:57 pm


Thanks for the suggestion, but I have much better things to do with my time than wade through an article that is long on pretty pictures, handwaving and references, yet fails to present basic mathematics-based science (such a net heat flow balance) in support of the Plate Climatology Theory. In fact, not one single mathematical equation was found in scanning through all 66 pages

Nevertheless, I did go so far as to do a global word search of the full article for the following terms: “gamma”, “ray”, “cosmic” and “infiltration”. Guess what? . . . no hits on any of these. So, if you meant for your linked article to support your claim of “submariner volcanoes and vents being influenced by excess gamma ray infiltration” it ain’t there.

Have you yet reconciled with yourself that cosmic-“ray” originated gamma rays cannot penetrate to an ocean depth sufficient to deposit above-insignificant energy to Earth’s tectonic plates?

Reply to  Carbon Bigfoot
April 28, 2020 1:23 am

Carbon Bigfoot,

Like Gordon, I haven’t read everything, but searched for “CO2”. That showed following gem:

The current global ocean warming period appears to be ending as demonstrated by both the 18-year atmospheric temperature “Pause”, and other global ocean temperature data. The consequence of a lower overall ocean temperature is that the ocean will have a greater ability to retain CO2. It will therefore emit less CO2. The result will be lower atmospheric CO2 levels. This response will “Lag” the temperature “pause” of the atmosphere.

That was written in 2015. After that year we have had the 2016 El Niño and higher ocean temperatures and still increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Seems that their prognoses are not that “robust”…

Gary Pearse
April 26, 2020 9:26 am

Maybe Trump is better than T. Jefferson? He is doing a considerably harder job very well. Aren’t TJ, GW and other once esteemed US gents being ‘re-evaluated’ and trashed by “progressives” for their lack of support for diversity, inclusiveness, unwarned trigger words in their ‘writings’ and governing while being old whiteguys?

Rich Davis
Reply to  Gary Pearse
April 26, 2020 10:08 am

Indeed. Who’s Thomas Jefferson? You mean the character in Hamilton, the musical?

Reply to  Gary Pearse
April 26, 2020 10:55 am

Well … Trump never owned slaves … nor did he sire a child by one of those slaves!

Rich Davis
Reply to  Kenji
April 26, 2020 1:53 pm

I’m sure that CNN would say “allegedly he has never owned slaves”, or “Trump claims, without providing evidence, that he never owned slaves”

Reply to  Kenji
April 26, 2020 3:20 pm

Be careful, your lack of sensitivity to “enslaved people” is showing.

Take the tour at Jefferson’s mansion, Monticello, in Charlottesville, VA., and find out that there were no slaves. Nope. They were all “enslaved people”. “Really?”, I asked the tour guide? Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and all those fairly learned men called them “enslaved workers” or some such thing and not “slaves”?

Well, yes, of course they called them slaves BACK THEN. But don’t you know, the term “slave” puts the onus on the enslaved person, whereas calling them “enslaved” blames the owner for the sin. “Ah”, said I, so you no longer care about history here. Such a shame that people like you prefer to spout 21st century political correctness and shadow the larger history of Jefferson’s life. A genius who helped create and establish a new nation, and your idiotic focus is that somehow he’s to blame for failing to find the time to abolish an accepted part of 18th century society. Shame on the curators/liars of Monticello.

Reply to  BobM
April 26, 2020 4:37 pm

Sorry … I forgot the /sarc. tag. I am in total agreement with you

April 26, 2020 9:36 am

The thing I like about planting trees is that it’s one way benefit. If you plant a tree, someone somewhere else in the world doesn’t cut down a tree because you made trees cheaper. Maybe in 50 years but not today. If you do something like not burn a litre of oil the price of oil goes down and somewhere in the world someone burns another litre. No net benefit.

Reply to  Starman
April 26, 2020 1:09 pm

I have to confess that I spend a lot of effort removing volunteer seedlings, saplings and runners from my property, mostly in the spring time. Between the maples and their seeds and the aspen and cottonwood with their runners, it’s a battle. Once in a while, I will put a rogue fir or oak into a pot for future use.

I do get some help from squirrels and birds, who eat the seeds, but they miss quite a lot of them.

Jack Black
April 26, 2020 10:15 am

CO2 twittering away with fatuous trivia, and making video rants, about the bloviations of other commentators etc. Let’s not forget that folks like Bastardi are vested interest cash grabbers in an oversaturated marketplace, where everybody with a computer (or even a smartphone these days) can set up a “weather channel” with its own internet pages and hope to reap in the cashola from the vast reservoir of ignorant mugs who might subscribe, or fall victim to even displaying page view advertisements. Bastardi has a vested interest in getting more people visiting his page, even if it’s just to argue with him. He’s just another waffling rentseeker, putting the CO2 cart before the horse after it has already bolted already. Bah !

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Jack Black
April 26, 2020 12:57 pm

He also has a vested interest in being correct most of the time or he will lose his subscribers, his business and all the effort and expense to starting it in the first place.

John Shewchuk
Reply to  Jack Black
April 26, 2020 3:39 pm

And it’s all legal. Go Joe! Love your books, videos, TV interviews, and outstanding hurricane reviews, analyses, and outlooks — which are often better than official outlooks.

Clay Sanborn
April 26, 2020 10:17 am

We NEED more CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere. Plants and the “greening” of Earth want much more than current levels (3 to 4 times as much). If we want more food, increase CO2. If we want more trees (i.e. plants), increase CO2. These statements should be the mantra of environmentalists. My only concern is that we also get more poison ivy, poison oak, etc.

N. Jensen
April 26, 2020 3:22 pm

How large were human co2 emissions at the start of the Keeling curve, and how large is it now ?

If, as I suspect, human emissions has risen exponentially, why is that not seen in the Keeling curve, that shows a near monotonic, linear rise ?

Reply to  N. Jensen
April 27, 2020 4:07 am

It is, the increase is atmospheric concentration is accellerating.

N. Jensen
Reply to  Loydo
April 27, 2020 8:44 am

Sorry, I do not see the accelerating You are referring to.

Even if we accept Engelbeens contention that natural sources and sinks are equal (for the whole Keeling period), how do you reconcile the exponential growth in human emissions with the nearly linear rise in the Keeling curve ?

Seems to me, the rise is overwhelming natural, and net beneficial, too for that matter.

Reply to  N. Jensen
April 27, 2020 1:19 pm

Its not linear. In the 60s the annual increase was only 1ppm/year now its close to 3. Half our our emission get sequestered and that rate has been increasing too.

Reply to  N. Jensen
April 28, 2020 12:57 am

N. Jensen,

Natural sinks and sources were not equal in the past 60, years, sinks were always larger than sources. Net sinks in oceans and vegetation are directly proportional to the extra CO2 pressure (pCO2) in the atmosphere compared to the “normal” equilibrium (~290 ppmv) for the current average sea surface temperature.

Thus sinks are independent of the yearly human emissions. That the increase in the atmosphere was about 50% of the emissions was pure coincidence: emissions increased slightly quadratic over time, so did the increase in the atmosphere and thus the sinks and the “airborne fraction” remained about constant.
The moment that the emissions remain near constant, CO2 in the atmosphere still increases and thus the net sinks increase and the increase in the atmosphere gets smaller.
With half human emissions, there is no increase in the atmosphere anymore as emissions and sinks are equal.
With zero human emissions, there will be a decrease in the atmosphere, proportional to the extra pressure in the atmosphere, until the equilibrium is reached again.

Over the past 60 years, the net sink rate per year was about 1/50 of the extra pressure in the atmosphere, or an e-fold decay rate (tau) of about 50 years.

Cyril Wentzel
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
April 28, 2020 12:14 pm

@Ferdinand, on the basis of which model do you give this assessment? And what is your view on the natural experiment that is going on? Visible after 2 months? Three? A year?

Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
April 29, 2020 6:57 am


The “model” is simply a linear ratio above the equilibrium, based on the past 60 years of rather accurate data for human emissions from the use of fossil fuels and the measured increase in the atmosphere:

The e-fold decay rate for a linear process is tau = cause/effect
– In 1959: 25 ppmv extra above equilibrium, net sink rate 0.5 ppmv/year, e-fold decay rate 50 years, half life time 34.7 years
– In 1988: 1988: 60 ppmv, 1.13 ppmv/year, 53 years, half life time 36.8 years
In 2012: 110 ppmv / 2.15 ppmv/year = 51.2 years or a half life time of 35.5 years.

Seems quite linear to me. One can plot the expected increase in the atmosphere from human emissions and the calculated net sink rate on basis of the ΔpCO2 between atmosphere and equilibrium. That gives following plot (needs some update…):
where the calculated increase is in the middle of the temperature induced “noise”…

Without an El Niño or huge volcanic outbreak, any reduction of the human emissions should be measurable after a full year, but I don’t expect (and hope) that the reduction will be that long and severe…

April 27, 2020 6:30 am


Nook lee er

NOT “Nook u ler”.

Sorry, Pet Peeve rant. Makes otherwise very smart people sound like idiots when they can’t pronounce such a simple word.

May 7, 2020 11:46 am

_Rise_ of tectonic plates (or other parts of the earth) results in apparent decrease in sea level, I said it backwards.

(There are suggestions that some ground is subsiding, such as on the east coast of the US.

The Hawaiin islands see much volcanic action, which is probably associated with plate movement – terra firma is not.)

May 7, 2020 11:50 am

Romeo R:


Part of what you say illustrates the tendency of eco-bleeps to make simplistic assumptions.

Sometimes from ignorance and laziness – they don’t go look.

Tree planting after tree harvesting is common in B.C., it will proceed this summer despite the panicdemic.

Regrowth without planting by humans can be variable, a big area on the Olympic Peninsula showed that.

%d bloggers like this: