Global Human CO2 Emissions Have Been On A Slightly Declining Trend Since 2011

From the NoTricksZone

By Kenneth Richard on 9. December 2021

Until recently, human CO2 emissions were responsible for ~10% of the variance in year-to-year CO2 growth rate. But a new analysis says human CO2 emissions have been slightly declining for the last decade. So 0% responsible, apparently.

CO2 emissions derived from human activity (fossil fuel combustion and land use changes) only account for about +0.1 to 0.3 PgC/yr of the annual change in CO2 concentration. This is about “10% of the variance (σ²) of the CO2 growth rate” (Wang et al., 2013).

Image Source: Wang et al., 2013

Jones and Cox (2005) have pointed out that the changes associated with annual fossil fuel emissions are unlikely to explain CO2 growth rate anomalies.

“…it is unlikely that these anomalies can be explained by an abrupt increase in anthropogenic emissions, as the anomalies are much larger than annual increases in fossil fuel emissions.”

Image Source: Jones and Cox, 2005

Dr. Jari Ahlbeck (2009) also concluded that the correlation between fossil fuel emissions and the increase in CO2 growth rates is “clearly statistically insignificant.” He therefore excluded this factor from consideration in his analysis of the mechanisms of CO2 variability.

A chart included in the body of the paper reveals other 5-year periods where there was either a decline in the annual CO2 emissions trend (5.33, 5.17, 5.13, 5.11, 5.29 GtC/yr for 1980-1984) or a flattened trend (6.40, 6.53, 6.63, 6.59, 6.57 GtC/yr for 1995-1999).

Image Source: Ahlbeck, 2009

And now an updated analysis detailed in the Carbon Brief blog suggests “global CO2 emissions have been flat – if not slightly declining – over the past 10 years.”

Image Source: Carbon Brief

In sharp contrast with the tiny to non-existent changes in the year-to-year anthropogenic CO2 growth rates, there is an enormous amount of uncertainty and lack of observational knowledge when estimating the massive year-to-year changes in natural CO2 emissions from Earth’s soils.

While human CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion and land use change have hovered around 9 to 10 GtC/yr with little variance during the 21st century, soil emissions have been estimated to range anywhere from 78 GtC to 108 GtC/yr in recent decades (Huang et al., 2021).

These natural CO2 emissions are annually about 8 to 10 times greater than emissions from all human activities combined (Carey et al., 2016).

The uncertainty spread of ±15 GtC/yr (78 to 108 GtC/yr) is orders of magnitude larger than the variance in year-to-year growth from anthropogenic sources.

Image Source: Huang et al., 2021

So we have (a) flat to declining trends in annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions in the last decade, (b) many times smaller annual CO2 emissions fluxes from anthropogenic sources relative to nature, and (c) massive uncertainty in the magnitude of change from natural CO2 emissions sources.

So is there a point at which we question the significance of the human contribution to the overall changes in atmospheric CO2? Or does the perception of “settled science” preclude such an examination?

4.8 20 votes
Article Rating
78 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Boff Doff
December 10, 2021 2:12 pm

Hence the cooling!

Good grief…

Bloke down the pub
Reply to  Boff Doff
December 11, 2021 10:04 am

Just as well that CO2 has such a small impact on global temps, or we might be in real trouble.

MarkW
December 10, 2021 2:13 pm

Considering how much China and India have been increasing their emissions over the last decade, I find this claim hard to believe.
Perhaps they meant the rate of increase has declined. While somewhat less absurd, this is also hard to believe.

Smart Rock
Reply to  MarkW
December 10, 2021 2:40 pm

I also find it hard to grasp, but the last figure is labelled “Annual total global CO2 emissions – from fossil and land-use change” and the Y-axis is also labelled “Global CO2 Emissions (Ct CO2)”. Perhaps the widespread use of natural gas to replace coal is responsible for lower emissions. And the emissions from land-use changes are surely a guess.

But it comes from Carbon Brief, which is an alarmist website, so it must be semi-reliable.

In which case, why haven’t the media been telling us about it? (rhetorical question – we know why)

MarkW
Reply to  Smart Rock
December 10, 2021 3:49 pm

Maybe it’s just the cynic in me, but I can’t help but think that they are laying the groundwork in order for them to claim credit for the continuing cooling of the planet.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  MarkW
December 10, 2021 4:18 pm

You may be cynical, but are you cynical enough?

Reply to  MarkW
December 10, 2021 4:19 pm

Yes, you’re absolutely right. Once things start to improve they’ll claim it’s all a result of their work. But wait…we now have to work even harder with even more bird choppers so we can get back to Pre-industrial levels (of poverty)!

We will never win.

ATheoK
Reply to  MarkW
December 10, 2021 10:48 pm

Just keep in mind that rising global ppm measurement.

For all practical consideration, they’ve killed the human caused increased CO₂ atmospheric claim.

Atmospheric CO₂ levels have increased since 2011 over their study period.comment image
comment image

If the atmospheric average is increasing while global emissions are slightly declining or staying level, then mankind is not fueling atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Approximately 387ppm to 390ppm circa 2011

CO₂ Level November 2020 – 413.12 ppm.
CO₂ Level November 2021 – 415 ppm, with a brief cycle through a maximum 419.13 ppm peak in April 2021.

Put a long sharp white oak stake into blaming mankind.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  ATheoK
December 10, 2021 11:28 pm

ATheoK, please take into account that the declining human contribution still is average twice the observed increase in the atmosphere, thus still almost all of the increase is from the human emissions and nature still is a net sink for CO2…

Richard S Courtney
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
December 11, 2021 1:00 pm

Ferdinand,

The anthropogenic emissions of CO2 do NOT correlate with the atmospheric CO2 concentration increase. Thus, any effect of the anthropogenic emissions on the atmospheric increase is observed to be swamped by the variations in the natural CO2 emissions. This has been known for decades; see e.g.
Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005).

Observations also show that atmospheric CO2 changes follow changes to global temperature changes at all time scales. This suggests natural variations of atmospheric CO2 concentration are continuing to respond to global temperature and are unaffected by the trivially small anthropogenic emission of CO2.

The reduced anthropogenic CO2 emissions induced by the Covid-lockdowns have had no discernible effect on the inexorable rise of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. This demonstrates that attempts to obtain ‘net zero’ are pointless.

Observations trump opinions. Live with it.

Richard

Bartemis
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
December 13, 2021 10:19 pm

I have told you so many times, this means nothing.

Paul Milenkovic
Reply to  Bartemis
December 14, 2021 10:31 am

Bartemis:

The go-to main-stream-science Carbon Cycle person is Pieter Tans at NOAA.

Tans is aware of the large swings in the rate-of-change of atmospheric CO2 concentration about the decade-scale average rate of increase that is attributed to humans (the half of net emissions that isn’t taken up by sinks but ends up in the atmosphere. He is also aware that this large-in-comparison-to-human-contribution change in the rate-of-change is highly correlated with the global temperature anomaly.

He claims, however, that the correlation is only short term — on the order of a couple of years — that the source of the temperature-stimulated CO2 emission is in the leaf litter of the tropical rainforests, and that this reservoir of terrestrial carbon is shallow, accounting for the short-term of the correlation.

If what he says is correct, my own carbon cycle modelling agrees that whereas only half of the human-caused emissions end up in the atmosphere, the half that goes into the atmosphere accounts for nearly all of the long-term trend in the CO2 concentration “Keeling curve.” If what he says is incorrect and that the source of the temperature-stimulated emission is longer term, this means that the temperature-stimulated emission needs to be balanced by an increase in CO2 absorption with increased atmospheric CO2 concentration, the so-called “greening” of increases in terrestrial plant life being a necessary countervailing effect to get the observed Keeling curve to come out as is observed.

Salby claimed that these effects were so strong that practically none of the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere that people worry about is the result of human activity. Salby, however, relied on a linear model of CO2 absorption in the ocean, but the absorption is highly non-linear owing to the Revelle buffer of the chain of chemical reactions in the “soluble carbonates” that differs from the linear Henry’s Law model. Taking this into effect, I find that only half of the increase in CO2 everyone worries about is from humans with the remaining half a natural increase driven by increasing global temperature.

You suggested to me a longer-term correlation between both atmospheric CO2 and atmospheric temperature driven by variation in mixing of the surface and deep ocean layers owing to changes in ocean currents.

Any thoughts on where to get more information on possible sources of the apparent temperature-stimulated CO2 emission mechanisms, whether a correlation related to ocean currents or a causative mechanism owing to warming temperatures rotting more of the stored organic carbon in soils?

Redge
Reply to  MarkW
December 11, 2021 4:18 am

My first thought too

Richard M
Reply to  MarkW
December 10, 2021 6:32 pm

Date on paper is 2013. Recent data affected by the pandemic. I wouldn’t read too much into this.

Doonman
Reply to  Richard M
December 10, 2021 9:02 pm

And now an updated analysis detailed in the Carbon Brief blog suggests “global CO2 emissions have been flat – if not slightly declining – over the past 10 years.”

Date of the Wang et al paper is 2013.
Date of the new paper in Carbon Brief referenced above is 2021.

Is there something we shouldn’t read into this paper too?

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Doonman
December 10, 2021 11:30 pm

CO2 emissions are flat, but still much higher than the increase in the atmosphere, thus still responsible for the increase…

Richard S Courtney
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
December 11, 2021 1:08 pm

Ferdinand,

No. Please take your head out of the sand and read my refutation of your stating the same error above. Thinking about it, I will copy the refutation from above to here to save you needing to find it,

“The anthropogenic emissions of CO2 do NOT correlate with the atmospheric CO2 concentration increase. Thus, any effect of the anthropogenic emissions on the atmospheric increase is observed to be swamped by the variations in the natural CO2 emissions. This has been known for decades; see e.g.
Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005).

Observations also show that atmospheric CO2 changes follow changes to global temperature at all time scales. This suggests natural variations of atmospheric CO2 concentration are continuing to respond to global temperature and are unaffected by the trivially small anthropogenic emission of CO2.

The reduced anthropogenic CO2 emissions induced by the Covid-lockdowns have had no discernible effect on the inexorable rise of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. This demonstrates that attempts to obtain ‘net zero’ are pointless.

Observations trump opinions. Live with it.

Richard

ATheoK
Reply to  Richard M
December 10, 2021 11:12 pm

Recent data affected by the pandemic.”

Oh!?
You mean the calculated estimate since actual measurements could not identify any CO₂ reductions?

While the year-to-year increase of 1.8 ppm in the May CO2 peak was slightly less than previous years, CO2 measurements at Mauna Loa for the first five months of 2021 showed a 2.3 ppm increase over the same five months of 2020, close to the average annual increase from 2010 to 2019. There was no discernible signal in the data from the global economic disruption caused by the coronavirus pandemic.”

Estimates are imaginary assumptions for points in time. Invalid before, after and frequently during that point in time.

Mr.
December 10, 2021 2:24 pm

Identifying what drives climate(s) can be compared to fronting up to a roulette table and placing your betting options.

At one end of the choices spectrum, you can nominate just one solitary element (number), which gives you a 35:1 chance of being right.

(which is what the “settled science” boosters have done)

At the other end of the betting spectrum, you can nominate a basket of elements that give you a 1:1 even money chance of being correct.
(which is what rational climate observers do).

And then there’s the Gaia spin, where the ball lands on “0” or “00”, and all bets are a bust.
(which is the ever-present “unknown unknowns” in science)

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-odds-on-hitting-one-specific-number-in-roulette?share=1

Alexander Mentes
Reply to  Mr.
December 10, 2021 4:00 pm

For what it’s worth, you can bet 0 and/or 00 in Las Vegas

CD in Wisconsin
December 10, 2021 2:28 pm

“These natural CO2 emissions are annually about 8 to 10 times greater than emissions from all human activities combined (Carey et al., 2016).”

***********
This is a all religious heresy and Orwellian thought-crime in the climate alarmist camp, so it will be ignored. There is too much as stake (especially $$$$) in the climate alarmist camp for this to be given any attention or credence.

n.n
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
December 10, 2021 3:56 pm

Religious heresy: thou shalt not emit carbon dioxide, which is correlated with global warming.

Religious heresy: while intermittents/unreliables and a Green blight are good, greening is inconvenient and shall henceforth be ignored, and reliable energy is a deplorable first-world privilege.

Throw another baby on the barbie for social progress, secular favor, and fair weather. Let us bray.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
December 10, 2021 11:36 pm

I don’t think that your bookkeeper would agree if you make a balance of your shop and only count the incoming money and forget the expenses…

Human emissions are about 5% of all emissions, but 0% of all sinks and all sinks together are 97.5% of all incoming CO2, thus leaving 2.5% CO2 in the atmosphere, fully caused by human emissions (not the original molecules, but the total CO2 mass).

Skeptics loose all credibility by using this kind of reasoning…

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
December 11, 2021 5:32 am

Horse hockey. Can you put red food coloring in water and then only dip out the clear water leaving just the red. You are dealing with a solution and the sinks are not permeable only to non-anthropogenic CO2.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Jim Gorman
December 11, 2021 6:45 am

Jim, as I clearly said: it is not about the original (red) molecules, it is about the total mass which increased, even if all human emissions were absorbed by the next available trees instead of all natural CO2 molecules… The net result is that the total amount of CO2 increases and thus the CO2 pressure (pCO2) and that pushes more CO2 in oceans and vegetation.

The removal of any extra injection of CO2 (whatever the source: volcanoes, humans,…) in the atmosphere only depends of the extra CO2 pressure above the equilibrium CO2 pressure.
The latter is dictated by the ocean surface temperature over the past 800,000 years: 295 ppmv should it be for the current area weighted average ocean surface temperature.
Over the past 800,000 years that changed with 8 ppmv/K for Antarctic temperatures or 16 ppmv/K for global temperatures. Not by coincidence the change in solubility of CO2 in seawater…

Meanwhile 415 ppmv is measured which results in 2.25 ppmv/year removed.
The e-fold decay rate for a removal which is in ratio to the cause then is:
120 ppmv / 2.25 ppmv/year = 53 years or about 37 years half life time.

Richard S Courtney
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
December 11, 2021 1:20 pm

Ferdinand,

You are assuming the variations in the natural CO2 emissions do not swamp the trivially small anthropogenic CO2 emission. But your assumption is observed to be wrong because the anthropogenic CO2 emissions do NOT correlate with the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration.

In some years almost all the anthropogenic CO2 seems to be sequestered from the air and in other years almost all of it seems to stay in the air.

Richard

mkelly
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
December 11, 2021 8:40 am

Why should I care whether humans are 2.5% or 100% of increase in CO2? CO2 has no effect on temperature in regard warming.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  mkelly
December 11, 2021 11:02 am

My point is that if you use wrong arguments for one item where the IPCC is on firm grounds, you loose all credibility, including where your arguments matter: the effect of the CO2 increase, where the IPCC and other alarmists are on shaky grounds…

Richard S Courtney
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
December 11, 2021 1:29 pm

Ferdinand.

You are defending the IPCC’s shakyest ground!

It is a fact that the reduced anthropogenic CO2 emissions induced by the Covid-lockdowns have had no discernible effect on the inexorable rise of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Everybody can understand this demonstrates any attempts to obtain ‘net zero’ are pointless.

I again say to you,
Observations trump opinions. Live with it.

Richard

Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
December 11, 2021 3:46 pm

All those natural sinks that zero out natural sources are just as effective at zeroing out anthropogenic emissions. Cold rain absorbs emissions from a power plant stack just as easily as it does from rotting biomass/

Steve Case
December 10, 2021 2:28 pm

Considering that increasing atmospheric CO2 is mostly beneficial,
jumping for joy over a decrease in the human fraction of the decrease,
is misplaced celebration.

Richard M
Reply to  Steve Case
December 10, 2021 6:35 pm

Exactly. CO2 has an insignificant effect on the climate.

Rud Istvan
December 10, 2021 2:50 pm

The results Richards reports on are very unpersuasive. An r^2 of 0.5 is crummy. And the later papers show that the large uncertainties far outweigh the crummy result.

We can do far better with simpler, more certain alarmist counters.
CO2 is rising (Keeling curve), but temperature anomalies not nearly as much as predicted. Observational ECS about half of modeled is one reason. No tropical troposphere hotspot as predicted is another (water vapor feedback overstated by about 2x per Argo ocean salinity).
Rising CO2 has promoted greening, thanks to C3 photosynthesis.
Rising CO2 has NOT caused Arctic summer ice to disappear as predicted a decade ago.
Rising CO2 has NOT caused sea level rise to accelerate as predicted three decades ago.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Rud Istvan
December 10, 2021 3:12 pm

An r^2 of 0.5 is crummy.

I agree. It only explains/predicts about half of the variance of the dependent variable. It is shown as being approximately equal to 0.50; did they round up, or down? One never sees an uncertainty associated with the claimed correlation coefficient or its squared value.

Calling it a “strong and persistent coupling” is putting a spin on the numbers!

meab
Reply to  Rud Istvan
December 10, 2021 3:24 pm

I second your post. I’ll add that there’s no statistically significant evidence of increased accumulated cyclone energy, tornadoes, drought, or flooding.

In addition, Manhattan is not under water as predicted by James Hansen in 1988. The population of polar bears is stable or growing, the Great Barrier Reef isn’t dying, and food production hasn’t declined. The facts clearly counter the false narrative that there’s a climate crisis. Anyone who claims that there is a crisis is either a liar or is ignorant.

Anthony Banton
December 10, 2021 3:05 pm

“So we have (a) flat to declining trends in annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions in the last decade, (b) many times smaller annual CO2 emissions fluxes from anthropogenic sources relative to nature, and (c) massive uncertainty in the magnitude of change from natural CO2 emissions sources.
So is there a point at which we question the significance of the human contribution to the overall changes in atmospheric CO2? Or does the perception of “settled science” preclude such an examination?”

A flat trend in anthro CO2 emission still means that there is a steady excess to that which the biosphere can respond via sinks. It’s just not accelerating and that anthro CO2 is a small part of the CC is irrelevant in that regard.
And the “settled science” is that the addition of CO2 via a ~50% increase since pre-industrial times of a GHG into Earth’s atmosphere is the driver of modern warming.
What the magnitude of that warming will be and it’s consequences will be are not settled.

We know that anthropogenic CO2 growth is unchecked because of the ongoing isotopic ratios trends in the atmosphere.
Vis: Burning fossil fuel uses oxygen and the C13 content is falling.
Both with undiminished trend.

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/TAR-03.pdf

“Several additional lines of evidence confirm that the recent and continuing increase of atmospheric CO2 content is caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions – most importantly fossil fuel burning. First, atmospheric O2 is declining at a rate comparable with fossil fuel emissions of CO2 (combustion consumes O2). Second, the characteristic isotopic signatures of fossil fuel (its lack of 14C, and depleted content of 13C) leave their mark in the atmosphere. Third, the increase in observed CO2 concentration has been faster in the northern hemisphere, where most fossil fuel burning occurs.”

comment image

comment image

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Anthony Banton
December 10, 2021 3:19 pm

Yes see my just posted comment upthread, which yet to appear. Thanks for posting the actual isotope ratio.

Mr.
Reply to  Anthony Banton
December 10, 2021 5:02 pm

And the “settled science” is that the addition of CO2 via a ~50% increase since pre-industrial times of a GHG into Earth’s atmosphere is the driver of modern warming.

And that loud guffaw you can hear from the direction of the North Pole isn’t Santa, it’s Old Sol gazing upon the comedy capers at CoP 26.

Loren Wilson
Reply to  Anthony Banton
December 10, 2021 5:57 pm

There is a strong seasonal trend in the data. Do we burn that much less fossil fuels in the winter?

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Loren Wilson
December 11, 2021 6:56 am

No, that is the result of the large deciduous forests in the NH: in spring/summer a lot of new leaves are growing and take a lot of CO2 away while in fall/winter the fallen leaves are decaying and a lot of CO2 is released again.
The net result after a full year still is an increase, even if plants are taking more CO2 away than released, as human emissions are 4 times larger than what vegetation absorbs…
We know that it is vegetation as the main cause, as the δ13C and CO2 changes are opposite to each other. If the change was from the oceans, the changes would parallel each other…

seasonal_CO2_d13C_MLO_BRW.jpg
Rud Istvan
Reply to  Anthony Banton
December 10, 2021 6:13 pm

Ok, my explanatory post never appeared. So why is the above 12C/ 13C graph important? Since both are atomically stable, unlike 14C. Is fundamental to planetary formation.
12C is atomically lighter than 13C, both atomically stable so forever. So C3 photosynthesis favors 12C, which means that over geologic fossil fuel formation time, the 13C ratio increases as fossil fuels sequester 12C.
And, in a reversal, the 13C proportion decreases as fossil fuels are consumed.
Proof that it isn’t Salby natural carbon sink variation, but rather anthropogenic fossil fuel consumption, that fuels the Keeling curve. But as posted above, it does not matter.

Sunsettommy(@sunsetmpoutlookcom)
Editor
Reply to  Rud Istvan
December 10, 2021 8:06 pm

That is weird since I can’t find the missing post you talked about twice, checked the mod board twice.

Richard S Courtney
Reply to  Rud Istvan
December 11, 2021 1:39 pm

Rud Istvan

The change in the isotope ratio indicates the opposite of what you suggest.
The direction of the change is as expected from an addition of anthropogenic CO2 but its magnitude is too large by ~300%.

When two thirds of the change is observed to be caused by something other than the anthropogenic emission then it is a stretch to say the other third has a different cause.

Richard

Bartemis
Reply to  Rud Istvan
December 13, 2021 10:24 pm

This is not proof. This is narrative.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Anthony Banton
December 10, 2021 9:22 pm

Third, the increase in observed CO2 concentration has been faster in the northern hemisphere, where most fossil fuel burning occurs.

That isn’t the only difference between the northern and southern hemispheres. There is more land area in the NH and more vegetation, and less water to absorb CO2.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Anthony Banton
December 10, 2021 9:29 pm

Second, the characteristic isotopic signatures of fossil fuel (its lack of 14C, and depleted content of 13C) leave their mark in the atmosphere.

If upwelling of deep, old water makes a major contribution to the atmosphere through out-gassing, then one wouldn’t expect to see much if any 14C. The accounting for the 13/12C ratio typically doesn’t take into consideration several processes that result in isotopic fractionation. It only considers the effect of vegetation.

meab
Reply to  Anthony Banton
December 10, 2021 10:26 pm

Bantam Weight,

Three points, 1) the CO2 increase is not faster in the NH, it just leads the SH by a few PPM, 2) the decrease in O2 is minuscule, you posted a plot of O2/N2 without explaining the units and how little the absolute change in O2 is. It’s nothing to get your panties in a bunch over.

https://www.sciencefocus.com/planet-earth/is-atmospheric-oxygen-declining-and-does-it-matter/

The change in O2 is only qualitatively consistent with the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. 1/2 the anthropogenic CO2 is being taken up by the biosphere and the greening of the Earth has resulted in plants producing more O2 – both things can only be estimated by error-prone models. 3) CO2 is not the only factor. That’s clear. If it was, the global average temperature would closely track CO2 concentration – but it doesn’t. CO2 is a factor, and because the global average temperature has gone down during periods of steadily increasing CO2, it isn’t necessarily even the dominant factor.

If you’re trying to alarm anyone, you’re not effective.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  meab
December 10, 2021 11:47 pm

meab,
Bender ea. have used very accurate O2 measurements to calculate the CO2 sink in vegetation, as the release of O2 is directly related to each other for the period 1990-2000:
https://tildesites.bowdoin.edu/~mbattle/papers_posters_and_talks/BenderGBC2005.pdf
With the variability illustrated at the last page: the 1998 El Niño dried out the Amazon which turned from a net sink into a net source of CO2…

Richard S Courtney
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
December 11, 2021 1:52 pm

Ferdinand,

That answer ignores the excellent points made by meab who said,
The change in O2 is only qualitatively consistent with the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. 1/2 the anthropogenic CO2 is being taken up by the biosphere and the greening of the Earth has resulted in plants producing more O2 – both things can only be estimated by error-prone models.”

You have ignored “both things can only be estimated by error-prone models” and mentioned “very accurate O2 measurements to calculate …”.

And you have not mentioned meab’s explanation of “CO2 is not the only factor. That’s clear. …”

My past interactions with you tell me you can do better than this so perhaps you would consider adding a less evasive answer to meab because I am sure I am not the only person who would like to read it.

Richard

Kevin McNeill
December 10, 2021 3:18 pm

I am very much a skeptic about studies like this and the posts by various alarmists, this one especially. It seems to me that the alarmists have finally noticed that none of their predictions have come to pass and that temperatures are not rising as predicted and that it looks like we are headed into a cooling phase. Hence the need to get ahead of the narrative and show that this is because of declining CO2 emissions and that it is obvious CO2 controls climate. You may have gathered that I have a suspicious turn of mind.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Kevin McNeill
December 10, 2021 3:23 pm

KM, No Tricks Zone is a skeptical site in Germany in English co run by Pierre Gosslin and Kennith Richards. Occasionally KR gets a bit out over his ski tips, as here highlighting published studies debunking warming BUT of dubious value.

Dave Fair
December 10, 2021 3:35 pm

Just to clarify: If the rate of human CO2 emissions has been flat for the past 10 years, it is still adding to the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere every year, which is still rising at about 2 ppm/yr. It seems to me that, as a practical matter, this means nothing to either side of the debate. Anyway, the developing world is still rapidly adding to CO2-emitting energy sources. Any economy-destroying CO2 emission reductions by the West will have minimal impact on increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

n.n
December 10, 2021 3:49 pm

Increased activity, less [detectable] emissions, declining or stable temperatures. The protocol either overestimated the anthropogenic signature or [political] science mischaracterized the human footprint and carbon dioxide effect in the wild.

Philip
December 10, 2021 6:14 pm

And yet CO2 in the atmosphere has continued to increase – completely unaffected. Wonder why?

https://scc.klimarealistene.com/2021/10/new-papers-on-control-of-atmospheric-co2/

Bill Everett
Reply to  Philip
December 10, 2021 7:44 pm

Is it possible that increased vegetation is the cause of increased atmospheric CO2? Some of the OCO-2 mapping has shown increased levels of CO2 where vegetation is most present.

Doonman
Reply to  Bill Everett
December 10, 2021 9:13 pm

It’s the increasing number of termites.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Bill Everett
December 10, 2021 11:59 pm

Bill, based on the O2 balance (less O2 used than expected from burning fossil fuels), vegetation is a net producer of O2, thus a net sink for CO2, not a source:
https://tildesites.bowdoin.edu/~mbattle/papers_posters_and_talks/BenderGBC2005.pdf

Bill Everett
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
December 11, 2021 8:43 am

Then why do OCO-2 data mappings show increased levels of atmospheric CO2 where vegetation (forests and jungles) are located and minimal levels of CO2 in semi-arrid or arrid areas?

Bill Everett
Reply to  Bill Everett
December 11, 2021 8:47 am

It also seems to me that the root and leaf systems of plants and trees would be a natural pathway for carbon beneath the Earth’s surface to reach the atmosphere.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Bill Everett
December 11, 2021 10:57 am

The OCO-2 shows a lot of CO2 emissions near the equator, most of which is from the upwelling deep ocean waters before the Peruan/Chilean coast where the THC returns to the surface. The warming water release lots of CO2 that passes the atmosphere to sink near the poles, mainly in the N.E. Atlantic and sink there together with the THC…
Just a matter of temperature, CO2 solubility with temperature and upwelling/downwelling…

Bill Everett
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
December 11, 2021 4:26 pm

An early presentation of OCO-2 CO2 mapping showed that the areas of highest CO2 presence were the Amazon Rain Forest, The Congo Basin of Central Africa, Eastern China, Southeast Asia and Indonesia. These areas are the most heavily vegetative in the World.

Bill Everett
Reply to  Bill Everett
December 12, 2021 6:42 am

A NASA document entitled “Satellite Detects Human Contribution to Atmospheric CO2” described the results of a Finnish study that used OCO-2 data to map the locations of human induced CO2. The map of the US showed those concentrations of human induced CO2 located almost entirely in the moist and rainy Eastern US with almost none in the semi-arrid western US. The CO2 locations correlated with the locations of broadleaf forests, not cities.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Philip
December 10, 2021 11:57 pm

Philip, I am preparing an answer to that paper, which in my opinion is completely wrong, as based on the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere. Residence time is related to the exchange of CO2 between the reservoirs, but doesn’t change the total quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere. That is the decay rate, which is much slower (about 50 years) than the residence time (about 4 years)…
My critique currently is under peer review…

December 10, 2021 6:54 pm

The Keeling Curve would look very different if CO2 emissions had been flat for 10 years. Btw. China has been telling mainly flat CO2 emissions over this period, despite soaring traffic (cars trippled between 2010 and 2020) and electricity production (no, renewables and nuclear did not do the job). Must be a miracle.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/285306/number-of-car-owners-in-china/

However, if you want to decarbonize the west, certainly it would not be helpful telling the truth. In fact, available statistics on chinese CO2 emissions (and related topics) run somewhat dry after 2010. I mean they are scarce and inconsistent. Go figure..

Reply to  E. Schaffer
December 11, 2021 6:01 am

Electricity production also doubled since 2010..

https://www.statista.com/statistics/802839/monthly-power-generation-in-china/

So cars are up 3x, electricity 2x, but chinese CO2 emissions remain virtually flat since 2010…

Bill Everett
Reply to  E. Schaffer
December 11, 2021 4:39 pm

Based on an Ala Moana measured atmospheric CO2 level for 1960 of 310 PPM and one for 2020 of 420 PPM and an IPCC estimate of a five percent contribution by human activity to the atmospheric CO2 level than the average per year human activity contribution to the CO2 level was .09 PPM over that sixty-year period. Why the need to reduce this microscopic contribution to net zero.

Doug D
December 10, 2021 8:41 pm

This is not good news …we will soon be burning carbonate rocks to keep our co2 levels high enough to sustain plant growth if this continues . There are different figures put forth, but levels under 200 ppm will cause a collapse of the fauna system and thus eventually all life .. We should now be doing all we can to increase co2 levels to 100 ppm at least

Ferdinand Engelbeen
December 10, 2021 11:23 pm

Please! Stop this kind of erroneous reasoning!
It is already 11 years ago that we have discussed the human contribution to the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere and still the same bad reasoning comes back again and again.

There is no correlation between the variability of the sink rate of CO2 from the atmosphere into oceans and vegetation and indeed all variability is caused by the temperature changes in the tropics (mainly the reaction of tropical vegetation as the Amazon dries out).
But that has nothing to do with the trends of CO2 in the atmosphere, which are for over 95% caused by human emissions, or you violate the carbon mass balance and other observations…

Here illustrated in all the derivatives, where the temperature trend is zero, thus not responsible for the fourfold increase in sink rate and residual increase in the atmosphere, as that is caused by the fourfold increase of human emissions, even including the drop caused by the Covid pandemic…

See further:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_origin.html

dco2_em8.jpg
Frank
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
December 11, 2021 2:04 pm

Yes, please stop disagreeing with Ferdi’s superficial claims – He has spoken. Otherwise, he will go on forever!
 
More concrete is Berry’s analysis, which shows that even with the IPCC’s own guesstimates of carbon reservoirs, man’s emissions are irrelevant.
 
https://edberry.com/blog/climate/climate-co2-temp/the-impact-of-human-co2-on-atmospheric-co2/

Richard S Courtney
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
December 11, 2021 2:20 pm

Ferdinand,

You express surprising superstitious faith in a “carbon mass balance” where nobody knows the magnitudes and variations of most of its inputs and outputs.

It is nonsense to claim – as you do – that “the trends of CO2 in the atmosphere, which are for over 95% caused by human emissions”.

During each year the atmospheric CO2 concentration varies by about an order of magnitude more than the annual anthropogenic CO2 emission. This ‘seasonal variation’ is smallest at Mauna Loa (which is why Mauna Loa was chosen as the first CO2 monitoring site) and can be seen with a glance at the graph of the Mauna Loa CO2 time series; see https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/ .

For each year, the annual increase to the atmospheric CO2 concentration is the residual of the seasonal variation of the year. The residual is equal to about half the anthropogenic emission of CO2 but that that does NOT mean half the anthropogenic emission is retained in the air (as alarmists and you often claim).

The magnitude of the annual rise in atmospheric CO2 should relate to the magnitude of the anthropogenic CO2 emission if one is directly causal of the other. But these two parameters do not correlate. In some years almost all the emissions seem to stay in the air and in other years almost none. For example, the reductions to anthropogenic CO2 emissions during Covid-lockdowns of the most recent two years have had no discernible effect on the continuing rise.

Accounting errors of the anthropogenic CO2 emission may be contributing to lack of correlation between annual atmospheric CO2 rise and anthropogenic emissions. For example, significant emissions may be recorded in an adjacent year to the year of their emission. So, problems of accounting errors may require data smoothing. but effects of all such errors would be overcome by at most 3-year-smoothing. The IPCC uses 5-year smoothing which is required to obtain agreement between the measurements and its Bern model. Please note that the six models we (i.e. Rorsch, Courtney and Thoenes) published in 2005 (and are also in my paper copied by Ed Berry on his blog at https://edberry.com/blog/climate/climate-co2/limits-to-carbon-dioxide-concentation/ ) each provides agreement with the measurements of annual rises without use of any smoothing.

Also, if the anthropogenic emission is overloading the ‘sinks’ which sequester CO2 then the rate of sequestration should reduce as sinks fill but that does not happen. The Mauna Loa data (and the similar data from other sites shown in my paper on Berry’s blog) does not suggest overloading of sinks. At each site the seasonal variation plummets then almost instantly reverses. This pattern is consistent with changing equilibrium. The short-term sequestration processes can easily sequester all the annual CO2 emission both natural and anthropogenic but they don’t.

The observations are consistent with, during each year,
(a) the short-term equilibrium variations cause the seasonal variation of atmospheric CO2 concentration,
while
(b) the long-term equilibrium variations raise the values of both the maximum and minimum atmospheric CO2 concentration.

This explanation is supported by the fact that atmospheric CO2 temperature changes are observed to follow global temperature changes at all time scales,

Richard

Chic Bowdrie
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
December 11, 2021 6:16 pm

Ferdinand, your graphs show that temperature, CO2, and sink rate are all highly correlated and emissions are not. That’s because they are only a fraction of what the non-fossil fuel emissions are. The sink rate is increasing, because other sources of CO2 are increasing even greater than fossil fuels by absolute amounts, not by percent increase, however.

PCman999
December 11, 2021 12:40 am

At what point in time will the increasing greening of the Earth lead to the CO2 being absorbed more during the critical April-Oct period than the increase during the rest of the year? It’s only a 2-3 ppm difference now, and since the world is greening and the growing season getting longer, it’s only a matter of time before sinks outweigh sources….all other things being equal.

December 11, 2021 8:29 am

They have limited their study to land based emission rates and have used the rate of change in concentration as an emission rate indicator. I have used similar techniques on both ocean and land based measurements (Scripps and NOAA) and come to similar conclusions. Natural emission rates are at least 20 times all anthropogenic emissions. Within year variation in concentration is much greater than year-to-year variation. This is an indicator that there is no accumulation in the atmosphere beyond a year, The observed increase in atmospheric concentration is a measure of the year-to-year increase in natural emissions. This observed increase is much greater than year-to-year increases in anthropogenic emissions based on reported annual emissions. The signal is lost in the natural variability.

Do the math and check it out.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Fred Haynie
December 11, 2021 10:52 am

Fred, according to your reasoning there can’t be a sea level increase, because the natural variability by waves and tides is much larger than from the 2 mm/year in tide gauges…

And how does the natural CO2 sinks compare to the natural CO2 sources? How large are the human sinks and how do you close the carbon balance at the end of the year?

Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
December 11, 2021 1:05 pm

Ferd

Waves and swells with respect to sea level rise rise are like water evaporation and rain in that it cycles on a daily bases. In tropical source zones, atmospheric CO2 concentrations also cycle with the evaporation/rain cycle. That cycle likely returns about 95% of the naturally emitted CO2 to the ocean surface. However, some CO2 is pumped into the upper atmosphere where it is delivered by jet streams to cold poles where the surface is colder than the air above it. The air sinks and travels over ice to open cold water where it is readily absorbed. In the Arctic the area of open water changes annually. In the winter, the CO2 concentration builds up. As the ice melts in spring and summer, all that buildup is being absorbed so on an annual basis there is no accumulation. Further proof of little or no accumulation is demonstrated by comparing the year-to-year changes in emission rates from source zones with the year-to-year changes in sink rates in the sink zones. My analysis shows the resulting plots are nearly the same. .

Reply to  Fred Haynie
December 11, 2021 1:18 pm

A further note. The year-to-year changes in natural emission rates are at least an order of magnitude greater than year-to-year changes in anthropogenic emission rates.

Anders Rasmusson
December 11, 2021 4:19 pm

We know that during the industrial era there have been an amount of carbon transferred from place(1) to place(2). 

We also know that all that transferred carbon amount is not found in place(2).

The missing amount of carbon then have been further transferred to place(3), place(4) or any other place.

Kind regards
Anders Rasmusson 

Tom
December 12, 2021 4:32 am

I think the science relating to the fossil CO2 content of total atmospheric CO2 is pretty good, no?

%d bloggers like this: