A new paper in HEALTH PHYSICS asks this question.
World Atmospheric CO2, Its 14C Specific Activity, Non-fossil Component, Anthropogenic Fossil Component, and Emissions (1750–2018)
Skrable, Kenneth; Chabot, George; French, Clayton1
1University of Massachusetts Lowell, 1 University Avenue, Lowell, MA 01854.
Health Physics: February 2022 – Volume 122 – Issue 2 – p 291-305
doi: 10.1097/HP.0000000000001485
Abstract
After 1750 and the onset of the industrial revolution, the anthropogenic fossil component and the non-fossil component in the total atmospheric CO2 concentration, C(t), began to increase. Despite the lack of knowledge of these two components, claims that all or most of the increase in C(t) since 1800 has been due to the anthropogenic fossil component have continued since they began in 1960 with “Keeling Curve: Increase in CO2 from burning fossil fuel.” Data and plots of annual anthropogenic fossil CO2 emissions and concentrations, C(t), published by the Energy Information Administration, are expanded in this paper. Additions include annual mean values in 1750 through 2018 of the 14C specific activity, concentrations of the two components, and their changes from values in 1750. The specific activity of 14C in the atmosphere gets reduced by a dilution effect when fossil CO2, which is devoid of 14C, enters the atmosphere. We have used the results of this effect to quantify the two components. All results covering the period from 1750 through 2018 are listed in a table and plotted in figures. These results negate claims that the increase in C(t) since 1800 has been dominated by the increase of the anthropogenic fossil component. We determined that in 2018, atmospheric anthropogenic fossil CO2 represented 23% of the total emissions since 1750 with the remaining 77% in the exchange reservoirs. Our results show that the percentage of the total CO2 due to the use of fossil fuels from 1750 to 2018 increased from 0% in 1750 to 12% in 2018, much too low to be the cause of global warming.
INTRODUCTION
At an elapsed time of t years since 1750 (the start of the industrial revolution with the onset of the use of fossil fuels in vehicles and power plants), atmospheric CO2 concentrations, C(t), increased along with increases in temperatures. Atmospheric measurements of C(t) were not available until 1958 at the Mauna Loa, HI, observatory of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which has provided the longest record of atmospheric measurements of the total CO2 initiated by Charles Keeling in 1958 at the Mauna Loa observatory (Keeling 1960). Based on our knowledge, the anthropogenic fossil component, CF(t), and non-fossil component, CNF(t), in C(t) have never been estimated by NOAA at its observatories or at any other observatory from atmospheric measurements of CO2. Despite the lack of knowledge of the components of C(t), claims have been made in the scientific literature (CSIRO 2014; Rubino et al. 2013, 2019) that all or most of the increase in C(t) since 1800 has been due to the anthropogenic fossil component, CF(t).
Other atmospheric measurements of C(t) began in 2003 at the NOAA observatory in Niwot Ridge, including measurements of the three isotopes of carbon: 12C, 13C, and 14C. Carbon-14 is a radioactive isotope of carbon having a half-life of 5,730 y. Carbon-14 atoms are produced in the atmosphere by interactions of cosmic rays, and they have reached an essentially constant steady state activity, i.e., disintegration rate, in the total world environment (Eisenbud and Gesell 1997). The age of fossil fuels is much longer than the 5,730 y half-life of the 14C radioactive isotope; consequently, fossil fuels are devoid of the 14C isotope. When the anthropogenic fossil component of CO2 is released to the atmosphere, the specific activity of 14C,S(t) in C(t), decreases. The units of S(t) used in this paper are disintegrations per minute per gram of carbon abbreviated as dpm (gC)−1, the common units used in 14C dating. The ratio RS13 of the (13C/12C) atoms and the ratio RS14 of the (14C/12C) atoms at the Niwot Ridge observatory are used to calculate two statistics designated respectively in this paper as d13C and D14C, both of which are said to decrease when the anthropogenic fossil component, CF(t), increases in the atmosphere. As discussed later in Table 1, values of the annual mean specific activity, S(t), are calculated in this paper from annual mean values of the D14C statistic.
Both the d13C and D14C statistics represent 1,000 times the relative deviations of their respective (13C/12C) and (14C /12C) atom ratios from those of a 1950 standard (Karlen et al. 1964) when expressed in per mil, given by the symbol ‰. This magnification increases their underlying relative deviations and slopes in plots by a factor 1,000. While such amplification techniques often are useful for displaying very small changes in quantities of interest, the interpretation of such magnified changes must be attended with some care. In the cases of concern here, the resultant steep slopes in plots likely have led persons throughout the world to conclude that the anthropogenic component has dominated the increase of CO2 and caused global warming. We believe that both statistics have been misused to validate the anthropogenic fossil component, CF(t), as the major cause of the increase of C(t).
Global carbon cycle and its effect on CO2 quantities
The global carbon cycle for CO2 is described by the Energy Information Administration (EIA 2020). Natural, two-way exchanges of CO2 occur between the atmosphere and its two exchange reservoirs, the oceans and terrestrial biosphere. Two-way exchanges with the atmosphere also occur from changes in land use. The ocean is the largest reservoir of CO2, and it contains 50 times that for the atmosphere and 19 times that for the terrestrial biosphere (Water Encyclopedia 2005). All of the two way exchanges are considered in this paper to be comprised of both the non-fossil component and the anthropogenic fossil component. Annual changes, DCNF(t) in CNF(t), in the atmosphere relative to the 1750 initial value, C(0), can be positive or negative depending on the net flow of CO2 between the atmosphere and its exchange reservoirs as well as on land use changes. A one-way pathway of anthropogenic fossil CO2 into the atmosphere from fossil fuel combustion and industrial fuel processes since 1750 is represented by annual emissions, DE(t), of anthropogenic fossil CO2 to the atmosphere, which have been increasing each year since 1750. These emissions over time t result in increasing annual mean anthropogenic fossil concentrations, CF(t), that result in specific activities, S(t), of 14C in C(t) that are increasingly lower than the initial value, S(0). This dilution of S(0) in C(0) in 1750 by the presence of CF(t) in C(t) corresponds to what is described as the Suess effect (Suess et al. 1967).
Read the full unrestricted paper here.
This is a very important article
Here is the article in a much easier-to-read format
I have broken down the long paragraphs into short paragraphs
This article was written by:Skrable, Kenneth; Chabot, George; French, Clayton1
1University of Massachusetts Lowell, 1 University Avenue, Lowell, MA 01854.
Health Physics: February 2022 – Volume 122 – Issue 2 – p 291-305
doi: 10.1097/HP.0000000000001485
ABSTRACT
After 1750 and the onset of the industrial revolution, the anthropogenic fossil component and the non-fossil component in the total atmospheric CO2 concentration, C(t), began to increase.
Despite the lack of knowledge of these two components, claims that all or most of the increase in C(t) since 1800 has been due to the anthropogenic fossil component have continued since they began in 1960 with “Keeling Curve: Increase in CO2 from burning fossil fuel.”
Data and plots of annual anthropogenic fossil CO2 emissions and concentrations, C(t), published by the Energy Information Administration, are expanded in this paper.
Additions include annual mean values in 1750 through 2018 of the 14C specific activity, concentrations of the two components, and their changes from values in 1750.
The specific activity of 14C in the atmosphere gets reduced by a dilution effect when fossil CO2, which is devoid of 14C, enters the atmosphere.
We have used the results of this effect to quantify the two components. All results covering the period from 1750 through 2018 are listed in a table and plotted in figures. These results negate claims that the increase in C(t) since 1800 has been dominated by the increase of the anthropogenic fossil component.
We determined that in 2018, atmospheric anthropogenic fossil CO2 represented 23% of the total emissions since 1750 with the remaining 77% in the exchange reservoirs.
Our results show that the percentage of the total CO2 due to the use of fossil fuels from 1750 to 2018 increased from 0% in 1750 to 12% in 2018, much too low to be the cause of global warming.
INTRODUCTION
At an elapsed time of t years since 1750 (the start of the industrial revolution with the onset of the use of fossil fuels in vehicles and power plants), atmospheric CO2 concentrations, C(t), increased along with increases in temperatures.
Atmospheric measurements of C(t) were not available until 1958 at the Mauna Loa, HI, observatory of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which has provided the longest record of atmospheric measurements of the total CO2 initiated by Charles Keeling in 1958 at the Mauna Loa observatory (Keeling 1960).
Based on our knowledge, the anthropogenic fossil component, CF(t), and non-fossil component, CNF(t), in C(t) have never been estimated by NOAA at its observatories or at any other observatory from atmospheric measurements of CO2.
Despite the lack of knowledge of the components of C(t), claims have been made in the scientific literature (CSIRO 2014; Rubino et al. 2013, 2019) that all or most of the increase in C(t) since 1800 has been due to the anthropogenic fossil component, CF(t).
Other atmospheric measurements of C(t) began in 2003 at the NOAA observatory in Niwot Ridge, including measurements of the three isotopes of carbon: 12C, 13C, and 14C. Carbon-14 is a radioactive isotope of carbon having a half-life of 5,730 y.
Carbon-14 atoms are produced in the atmosphere by interactions of cosmic rays, and they have reached an essentially constant steady state activity, i.e., disintegration rate, in the total world environment (Eisenbud and Gesell 1997).
The age of fossil fuels is much shorter than the 5,730 y half-life of the 14C radioactive isotope; consequently, fossil fuels are devoid of the 14C isotope.
When the anthropogenic fossil component of CO2 is released to the atmosphere, the specific activity of 14C,S(t) in C(t), decreases.
The units of S(t) used in this paper are disintegrations per minute per gram of carbon abbreviated as dpm (gC)−1, the common units used in 14C dating.
The ratio RS13 of the (13C/12C) atoms and the ratio RS14 of the (14C/12C) atoms at the Niwot Ridge observatory are used to calculate two statistics designated respectively in this paper as d13C and D14C, both of which are said to decrease when the anthropogenic fossil component, CF(t), increases in the atmosphere.
As discussed later in Table 1, values of the annual mean specific activity, S(t), are calculated in this paper from annual mean values of the D14C statistic.
Both the d13C and D14C statistics represent 1,000 times the relative deviations of their respective (13C/12C) and (14C /12C) atom ratios from those of a 1950 standard (Karlen et al. 1964) when expressed in per mil, given by the symbol ‰.
This magnification increases their underlying relative deviations and slopes in plots by a factor 1,000. While such amplification techniques often are useful for displaying very small changes in quantities of interest, the interpretation of such magnified changes must be attended with some care.
In the cases of concern here, the resultant steep slopes in plots likely have led persons throughout the world to conclude that the anthropogenic component has dominated the increase of CO2 and caused global warming.
We believe that both statistics have been misused to validate the anthropogenic fossil component, CF(t), as the major cause of the increase of C(t).
Global carbon cycle and its effect on CO2 quantities
The global carbon cycle for CO2 is described by the Energy Information Administration (EIA 2020). Natural, two-way exchanges of CO2 occur between the atmosphere and its two exchange reservoirs, the oceans and terrestrial biosphere.
Two-way exchanges with the atmosphere also occur from changes in land use. The ocean is the largest reservoir of CO2, and it contains 50 times that for the atmosphere and 19 times that for the terrestrial biosphere (Water Encyclopedia 2005).
All of the two way exchanges are considered in this paper to be comprised of both the non-fossil component and the anthropogenic fossil component.
Annual changes, DCNF(t) in CNF(t), in the atmosphere relative to the 1750 initial value, C(0), can be positive or negative depending on the net flow of CO2 between the atmosphere and its exchange reservoirs as well as on land use changes.
A one-way pathway of anthropogenic fossil CO2 into the atmosphere from fossil fuel combustion and industrial fuel processes since 1750 is represented by annual emissions, DE(t), of anthropogenic fossil CO2 to the atmosphere, which have been increasing each year since 1750.
These emissions over time t result in increasing annual mean anthropogenic fossil concentrations, CF(t), that result in specific activities, S(t), of 14C in C(t) that are increasingly lower than the initial value, S(0).
This dilution of S(0) in C(0) in 1750 by the presence of CF(t) in C(t) corresponds to what is described as the Suess effect (Suess et al. 1967).
Click to see the entire article, including tables, equations, graphs, and references
Read the full unrestricted paper here.
“Our results show that the percentage of the total CO2 due to the use of fossil fuels from 1750 to 2018 increased from 0% in 1750 to 12% in 2018, much too low to be the cause of global warming.”
The alarmists are not going to like that conclusion.
They already don’t and are screaming ‘heretic!’.
I don’t get the point of the paper? We emit CO2. As a result of that, there’s more CO2 in the atmosphere. That is pretty well understood. We can black box it and have done that. This level emissions increases atmospheric CO2 this much. Arguing over where it came from doesn’t change the black box results.
All of it is mixed into the annual variations. But so what? If you do this, this other thing happens. Turn on the tap of a half full sink. At the same time, open the drain. What caused the sink level to do whatever? Jesus. One of the two things you did, hardly did a thing. Is that the point?
What if the you didn’t open the drain, and let the faucet drip? So after 12 hours the level only went up an inch. But most of the water was all ready there. So, what caused the level to rise? What if the drain leaked at half the rate the faucet drips? So it rose a 1/2 inch. What caused it to rise? Was it the leak? No. But the water hardly turned over.
Let’s say you place a bowling ball in the sink and then take it out every hour. What does that change? Nothing. That’s a cancelling variation. Does the bowling ball change your attribution? If it does, give up.
There is an apparent relationship between annual change in CO2 concentration and annual change in the global temperature.
There are other charts at climate4you showing annual CO2 change in relation to other natural events.
They had me until the last sentence of the Abstract.
“Our results show that the percentage of the total CO2 due to the use of fossil fuels from 1750 to 2018 increased from 0% in 1750 to 12% in 2018, much too low to be the cause of global warming.”
They produce a paper which nicely attempts to show burning fossil fuel’s contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere. But then they assume that CO2=Global warming is a given fact and then use the paper to make a claim about global warming. The paper gets downgraded by 2 letter grades based on that very last sentence.
It makes sense. If you have multiple fairly stable sources and sinks in a dynamic system that tends towards equilibrium (i.e. every real physical system), over time the concentration will tend towards reflect their relative net magnitude.
So in the long run, if the “23% of the total emissions since 1750” figure is correct, then you would expect the stable point to be around 23%. I happen to think 23% is quite high, since human emissions only account for ~4% of of the emissions in the carbon cycle, but given the slop in the system 12% is certainly not unreasonable.
What is often forgotten in this whole exchange is that natural sources and sinks are not static quantities to begin with. It’s not like increasing the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has no effect on air-sea gas exchange.
The alternative is that would have to prove that some other equilibrium exists, and the long term geological record just doesn’t support such a claim.
Cloud reduction and consequent increase in insolation will raise the CO2 emitted from the oceans. How long it takes to restore equilibrium will confound the balance calculations.
Jim, the ocean surface is a net absorber for CO2, not a source.
DIC (CO2 + (bi)carbonates) increased with 1.5% in the ocean surface layer over the past 30 years, while CO2 increased 15% in the atmosphere.
See Figure 3 in:
https://tos.org/oceanography/assets/docs/27-1_bates.pdf
Beeze, the authors make the same error as many before them: a balance is not only emissions, it also contains sinks…
While 5% of the emissions is from fossil fuel burning and 95% is natural, 0% of the sinks is by humans and 97.5% is natural, leaving 2.5% -temporarily- in the atmosphere. All from the 5% human emissions, as the natural balance is 2.5% more sink than source.
Not the same molecules, but that is not of the slightest interest: it is the one-way addition in CO2 mass by humans that increases the total CO2 mass in the atmosphere and nothing else, besides a very small extra from the warming ocean surface.
The geological record over the past 800,000 years shows a change of maximum 16 ppmv/K, that is 13 ppmv since the LIA for a warming ocean surface. The real increase is over 120 ppmv…
14C cannot be used to accurately measure the fraction of fossil fuel 14C in the atmosphere, and past attempts have varied around several percent. The analysis in this paper, like that of some others, ignores a very important geochemical process, namely continual exchange of CO2 among the major reservoirs: atmosphere, oceans and plants/soil. The quantity of such CO2 exchange exceeds the rate of fossil fuel addition of CO2.
When those fossil fuel CO2 molecules enter the atmosphere (without 14C) they then exchange with CO2 molecules in oceans & plants/soil that contain varying amounts of 14C, depending on how long that CO2 has been isolated from the atmosphere. (Most plants not long; soil longer, ocean varying times, depending on depth.) Such CO2 exchange totally negates any effort to calculate how much total fossil fuel CO2 has been added to atmosphere because most of that FF CO2 added has gone elsewhere and been replaced with CO2 from other reservoirs and containing different fractions of 14C.
I have often wondered about whether all the 120ppm can be from human activity.
3,000Gt x 120/400 = 900Gt.
So can humans have out this there if in fact Henry’s Law takes a few j hundred years to equalise concentrations between atmosphere and oceans?
Possibly, witb 100 years if gradual increase to 34Gt pa current rate. Will now read the paper and see if it addresses this basic maths.
Of course the key point, in addition to the lag between Temperature change, and CO2 change, is that natural change in terms of range, rate and period, 2 deg, 1deg pc, 1Ka, is no different in this current warming phase to the prior cycles of the geological record, cycles that are well reported od hundreds og geological papers and classic text books, that the IPCC deny to justify their attribution of this natural effect to AGW to as the basis of their demonstrably false claims..
So there is no anomaly for the IPCC CMIP models to be forced to account for. Any actual small effect is probably cancelled by natural oceanic controls of evaporation and albedo as it always has been. Nothing to account for/attribute to CO2, or any other of yer anthropogenic effects. BUT, these are only the observed facts that we have measured. We must prefer belief in models and the words of politicians and money men, and the “science” of their retained “experts” to old fashioned deterministic science yoiu can test by observation of nature. CPhys, CEng.
I’m an engineer. It is shocking to me that the bulk of dialogue on here (and everywhere else) is on temperature when it is net energy flow that is the core concern.
Are we in radiative balance? That is the boundary condition that matters. All of the back and forth about the innards of our system is like the three blind mice describing an elephant.
Wouldn’t it be useful to measure the flux in enough precision to answer this question? Nothing else matters!
I mostly agree with the sentiment, but we can’t measure the global energy balance to such accuracy, it is estimated to be 1 W per sq m. But we can measure a temperature rise, which implies an energy imbalance.
Why? We are twisting science into pretzels to guesstimate a global temperature with a thousand assumptions as to data validity. It seems to me that a satellite network could easily measure outbound IR to at least enough repeatability to demonstrate a trend. We’ve been pissing around with thermometers for a hundred years and know nothing.
The paper is one of the worst written papers I’ve ever seen. It’s almost hopeless to follow their logic or derivations. Here was my answer to the Lord MoB showing how the 14C Bomb Spike data can be described mathematically. We get a 5 year half-life for atm CO2.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/21/on-co2-residence-times-the-chicken-or-the-egg/#comment-1142053
Of course, I like the result of the paper, but almost nobody is going to follow that chaos. And the figures are nearly worthless. My analysis back then, reported to WUWT, was given the natural loss of anthopogenic CO2, the human emissions from 1750 could not explain the rise in atm CO2. The growth of human emissions less losses to other reservoirs could not explain the observed rise in atm CO2 using data from Mauna Loa.
You’d think that isotope tracer data was clear but evidently it’s not.
That would be too simple, too testable, too Popperian, too old-fashioned.
Climate science now seems to be “look what you’ve made me do” science.
That trace of CO2 in the atmosphere just makes all that water vapour warm the whole earth.
That added CO2 – labelled by isotope – disappears but makes a whole lot more – unlabelled – CO2 just jump into the atmosphere in response – “look what you made me do”.
It’s almost like the miracle of the 5 loaves and two fishes feeding the multitude of 5000 people.
It really is the miracle gas. Except its bad, of course.