# Humanoids And CO2 Levels

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

For the usual totally obscure reasons, I got to thinking about the increase in atmospheric CO2. I thought I’d compare it with population growth. Here’s that graph.

Figure 1. Atmospheric CO2 levels, and population growth, 1800 – 2020

When I looked at that graph, I noticed that the CO2 rose in general agreement with the population growth, but with a delay. Now, this made perfect sense to me. The population increases when a baby is born … but the baby doesn’t get involved in CO2-producing activities until the baby is an adult.

So I decided to see if I could use the standard formula for lagging and resizing that I used in my recent post about CO2, “Feeling The Bern“, to see if the CO2 levels could be emulated using just the population growth. Here’s the result of that calculation.

Figure 2. Atmospheric CO2 levels as calculated as a lagged and resized version of the population growth.

There are a few interesting points about this result. First, the fit is remarkably good. The residual standard error, which is the average difference between the calculated value and the actual CO2 level, is only one ppmv. That’s about a third of one percent error … very small.

Next, the half-life of the calculation is 30 years, a reasonable value for a child growing up and becoming involved in CO2-producing activities.

Next, over the last 170 years, there’s been no change in lambda, the amount of atmospheric CO2 increase per each additional billion people …

Most curious.

Having seen all of that, I got to thinking about the future. Here’s the UN population projection. They say that the population is likely to peak at around 11 billion people in the year 2100.

Figure 3. UN population projection to 2100.

So … assuming the population stays level at the 2100 level until 2200, and other things remain constant, two assumptions that are rarely true … here’s the CO2 projection out to the year 2200.

Figure 4. CO2 projection to 2200, using the method of Figure 2 with the same tau and lambda values.

And to complete the circle, here are temperature projections based on that estimate of future CO2 changes.

Figure 5. Past and future temperature anomalies based on the CO2 projections in Figure 4. Please be clear that I do not think that global average surface temperature is a function of CO2 levels, so this is done purely as a theoretical exercise.

And at the end of all of that, I’m reminded of Mark Twain’s comment regarding the length of the Mississippi River.

The Mississippi between Cairo and New Orleans was twelve hundred and fifteen miles long one hundred and seventy-six years ago. Its length is only nine hundred and seventy-three miles at present.

In the space of one hundred and seventy-six years the Lower Mississippi has shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles. That is an average of a trifle over one mile and a third per year. Therefore, any calm person, who is not blind or idiotic, can see that in the Old Oolitic Silurian Period, just a million years ago next November, the Lower Mississippi River was upwards of one million three hundred thousand miles long, and stuck out over the Gulf of Mexico like a fishing-rod.

And by the same token any person can see that seven hundred and forty-two years from now the Lower Mississippi will be only a mile and three-quarters long, and Cairo and New Orleans will have joined their streets together, and be plodding comfortably along under a single mayor and a mutual board of aldermen.

There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.

Now, back to pressure-washing …

w.

Como De Costumbre: I can defend what I write. I choose my own words very carefully, and I’m often asked and always prepared to defend them. However, I can’t defend someone else’s interpretation of my words … so please, when you comment, quote the exact words you are referring to.

Article Rating
Inline Feedbacks
Ron Long
February 19, 2022 10:05 am

Thanks, Willis. I’m happy to see my contribution to atmospheric plant food being recognized.

Tom Halla
February 19, 2022 10:05 am

Remarkable relationship.

DMacKenzie
February 19, 2022 11:44 am

Any 2 functions that are exponentially increasing can be plotted on top of each other, using different left and right y-axes, and possibly convince a reader that a spurious correlation is valid. For example, either CO2 or Temp anomaly versus “drug overdose deaths” yield a spurious “causation”….

My paper on “drug overdose deaths at RPC 8.5” has not yet been peer reviewed!

Last edited 3 months ago by DMacKenzie
Steve Case
February 19, 2022 2:25 pm

That’s a ditto for me.

Pat from kerbob
February 19, 2022 2:28 pm

Drug overdose deaths due to propagation of doomsday predictions based on RCP8.5.

Now that would be a very high correlation and causation

Rick C
February 19, 2022 3:47 pm

OK, let’s ignore that correlation is not proof of causation for a moment. Then does the increase in population cause the increase in CO2, or does the increase in CO2 cause the increase in population? Or maybe this is a case of common cause – the increasing use of fossil fuels is the cause of both. Certainly the wide availability of inexpensive energy has allowed increases in health, life span, food production and prosperity which all allow for the substantial population growth.

That would, of course, also mean that a big reduction in affordable energy availability could result in a large reduction in population. Who gets to stay and who has to go and who decides?

DMacKenzie
February 19, 2022 4:27 pm

Thinking on that RCP 8.5 Opioid paper……Most likely higher CO2 causes greening of the planet, followed by people taking opioids for sore backs due to pushing their lawn mowers more often…awaiting article acceptance in the Grauniad….

Last edited 3 months ago by DMacKenzie
Duane
February 19, 2022 5:17 pm

It is not necessary that either parameter control the other. It is plausible if not probable that both are co-related to a third parameter.

In this case, the harnessing of abundant fossil fuel energy leads to a higher standard of living for the average human, thus supporting a higher human population, which in turn leads to higher total energy use, which in turn leads to higher carbon releases to the atmosphere.

Bill Everett
February 20, 2022 6:41 pm

Or is the increase in vegetation caused by the warming the cause of the increased CO2 level. Some of the OCO-2 data mapping indicates this.

Bill Treuren
February 19, 2022 10:07 am

And the UN is wrong it seems and the current population projections are far lower at 7.8B in 2100.
The original UN number was 15B so lets be pleased that the come to reality over time

David S
February 19, 2022 1:13 pm

It’s already over 7.9 billion according to https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

February 19, 2022 10:10 am

Bingo!

Vuk
February 19, 2022 11:29 am

Lets put things in perspective with some approximate numbers
One person exhales  daily around 500 litres (1kg in mass)
Currently planet population is just under 8 billion, that is about 6 billion kg (reduced to account for children)  every day, or 2,200 billion kg,  i.e 2.2 Gt of CO2 annually.
In 2019 (before pandemic), worldwide flights released 959 million tonnes (0.95 Gt) of CO2.
Let’s get rid of on half of the world population by getting it down to what it was in 1974 (4 billion) when the current bout of ‘global warming’ started, and keep flying.
It would suit me just fine, how about you doc?

February 19, 2022 12:20 pm

Agenda21 aims for that.For some, even more drastically: down to 5 million with an M, not with a B.

Vuk
February 19, 2022 12:30 pm

Looks like they overdone it a bit and ‘cancelled’ themselves in the process
United Nations Conference on Environment & Developmenthttps://sustainabledevelopment.un.org ›

Thomas
February 19, 2022 9:52 pm

Vuk. It says “This site is currently unavailable.” Did you just break the UN?

Sturmudgeon
February 19, 2022 12:49 pm

You beat me to it… Klaus & Co. are working overtime towards it.

MarkW
February 19, 2022 1:55 pm

I thought griff has assured us that Agenda 21 is nothing more than a right wing fable?

Thomas
February 19, 2022 9:51 pm

Let’s send all Progressives to Mars. They can do as much social engineering experimentation as they want, without affecting my taxes, and we can see if the large reduction in population makes a difference in Earth’s climate.

My model predicts a more civil and agreeable climate. : )

eo
February 19, 2022 2:26 pm

vuk,

The estimated carbon dioxide exhaled by an average human has been studied to range from a little of 1 kg/day or .36 tons per year to 2 tons per year. Here is the link
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101102131108.htm#:~:text=2-,Every%20person%20emits%20two%20tons%20of%20carbon%20dioxide,through%20eating%2C%20Spanish%20study%20finds&text=Every%20person%20emits%20the%20equivalent%20of%20approximately%20two%20tonnes%20of,20%25%20of%20total%20yearly%20emissions.

The alarmist neglects this huge emission for the simple reason that the emission is from food that in the first place is the result of the fixation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere forgetting that food today is a produce using lots of energy other than from the sun. Most often the energy is from fossil fuel.

Bob Weber(@coolclimateinfo)
February 19, 2022 1:46 pm

His causation is backwards. Population grew in proportion to the CO2-based food supply.

His extrapolation isn’t valid as the ocean temperature controls atmospheric CO2, not the number of humans.

Pat from kerbob
February 19, 2022 2:29 pm

I don’t think he said anything about causation, just interesting correlation

Clyde Spencer
February 19, 2022 6:29 pm

ML CO2 is driven by outgassing

Then why is the seasonal NH ramp-up phase in the Fall-Winter-Spring (Sept.-May) when the surface waters are coolest? And, why is the peak greatest in the Arctic?

Thomas
February 19, 2022 9:56 pm

And what is ML CO2?

Trying to Play Nice
February 20, 2022 5:37 am

There is a wonderful glossary in the Reference Pages of this site. “ML CO2”, and probably many other useful acronyms and abbreviations, is not on the list. I’m not sure how to go about it, but it would be great if that glossary could be reviewed and updated by someone who knows the topic.

HotScot
February 19, 2022 10:14 am

Occam’s razor?

Time to trot out my little bit of straightforward arithmetic.

This is the calculation, using internationally recognised data, nothing fancy, no hidden agenda, just something we can all do by taking our socks and shoes off.

Assuming increasing atmospheric CO2 is causing the planet to warm:

Atmospheric CO2 levels in 1850 (beginning of the Industrial Revolution): ~280ppm (parts per million atmospheric content) (Vostok Ice Core).

Atmospheric CO2 level in 2021: ~410ppm. (Mauna Loa)

410ppm minus 280ppm = 130ppm ÷ 171 years (2021 minus 1850) = 0.76ppm of which man is responsible for ~3% = ~0.02ppm.

That’s every human on the planet and every industrial process adding ~0.02ppm CO2 to the atmosphere per year on average. At that rate mankind’s CO2 contribution would take ~25,000 years to double which, the IPCC states, would cause around 2°C of temperature rise. That’s ~0.0001°C increase per year for ~25,000 years assuming population remained unchanged. Increasing it from current levels to 11m people – I can’t be bothered to do the extra calculation to cut 25,000 years to something less but equally ridiculous.

One hundred (100) generations from now (assuming ~25 years per generation) would experience warming of ~0.25°C more than we have today. ‘The children’ are not threatened!

Furthermore, the Mauna Loa CO2 observatory (and others) can identify and illustrate Natures small seasonal variations in atmospheric CO2 but cannot distinguish between natural and manmade atmospheric CO2.

Hardly surprising. Mankind’s CO2 emissions are so inconsequential this ‘vital component’ of Global Warming can’t be illustrated on the regularly updated Mauna Loa graph.

Mankind’s emissions are independent of seasonal variation and would reveal itself as a straight line, so should be obvious.

Not even the global fall in manmade CO2 over the early Covid-19 pandemic, estimated at ~14% (14% of ~0.02ppm CO2 = 0.0028ppm), registers anywhere on the Mauna Loa data. Unsurprisingly.

In which case, the warming the planet has experienced is down to naturally occurring atmospheric CO2, all 97% of it.

That’s entirely ignoring the effect of the most powerful ‘greenhouse’ gas, water vapour which is ~96% of all greenhouse gases.

commieBob
February 19, 2022 10:53 am

Yep.

The CO2 budget they usually trot out claims an accuracy that is completely bogus. It’s the only way they can pretend that anthropogenic CO2 lasts for hundreds of years in the atmosphere, and it’s the only way they can pretend that we’re responsible for the recent increase in CO2.

The amount of CO2 in the oceans dwarfs that in the atmosphere. At the temperatures and pressures in the deep ocean, CO2 is liquid. Its solubility is exquisitely sensitive to temperature. As far as I can tell, an increase of a tenth of a degree in the temperature of the deep ocean would change the solubility enough to explain the modern rise in atmospheric CO2.

It’s not that people haven’t put a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere. It’s just that atmospheric CO2 is controlled by the oceans and not vice versa.

Mind you, when El Nino burps up some extra CO2, the North American terrestrial biosphere mops it up. link

We really don’t understand the CO2 budget as well as some folks purport.

My current mantra: If it were really about science, CAGW would be just a dim disturbing memory.

menace
February 21, 2022 9:12 am

I’m skeptical of ideas that ocean outgassing drives CO2 rise. I think the idea is that the 0.7-1.0 C rise in temps over last 100 years is enough to cover the CO2 rise observed. Also note that it is only near the surface that warms, the deep ocean warming is minuscule.

The ocean is clearly not a classic CO2 partial gas equilibrium. This is because ocean microscopic and macroscopic plant life is constantly taking up much the CO2 that is absorbed from the atmosphere.

So between the complexities of the near surface layered warming and activity of life constantly taking up CO2 from the ocean it is no simple task to calculate how much actual CO2 thermal outgassing occurs. Maybe some smart people have done this already but I have not really put much effort into the search.

In my other reply I mention the 30Gt of annual man made emissions, half of it gets absorbed by plant growth. Well of that amount, about half is absorbed by oceans and half absorbed by land plants. So up to 7.5 Gt CO2 per year is absorbed by life in the oceans. I suspect this dwarfs any actual thermal outgassing that is occurring due to the slightly warmer upper ocean temperatures.

Scissor
February 19, 2022 10:59 am

You won’t convince any climate change fanatic with that argument. Their rough claim is that all the CO2 increase is due to humans and that its growth rate is increasing to about 2.5 ppm/year.

The seasonal variation, which is roughly cyclic with a full amplitude of about 7 ppm, along with local variations and measurement noise, make it impossible to detect mankind’s contribution over the short term. That’s basically why the COVID slowdown can’t be detected.

whiten
February 19, 2022 2:52 pm

“The seasonal variation, which is roughly cyclic with a full amplitude of about 7 ppm, along with local variations and measurement noise, make it impossible to detect mankind’s contribution over the short term. That’s basically why the COVID slowdown can’t be detected.”
——-

Then pray tell how actually the mankind’s contribution over long term is detected, or happen to be detected!
Any idea at all how!?

Besides when you referring to short term detection,
actually the only one possible up to present under the circumstances, the OCO2 monitoring,
then please pray tell how comes that it keeps being ignored, from ppl like you!
Does it happen to be only simply ignorance and lack of knowledge?
Or is there some more?

Crystals too.

(it is not simpler to consider that what is not there in reality; it can not be detected, and or the other way around… if it can not be detected it can not be considered as real.)

Scissor
February 19, 2022 3:46 pm

It adds up like pennies in a piggy bank.

whiten
February 19, 2022 4:16 pm

And up to now, all detection points out clearly that none of the pennies added in the piggy bank is due to human CO2 emissions…
none of them pennies adding in the piggy bank is due to anthropogenic effect, according to the detection… if we have to put it that way.

And also for each penny added to that bank, a “ton” of “metal” “shoots” up (due to the thermal flux) to that bank and a “ton” of “metal” sinks down from it (mainly due to gravity).
Human CO2 emissions lack the luxury of the support from that thermal flux.

cheers

HotScot
February 21, 2022 1:13 am

Prove it.

Clyde Spencer
February 19, 2022 6:37 pm

… how actually the mankind’s contribution over long term is detected, or happen to be detected!

It isn’t detected. It is asserted that because the annual increase is about half of the annual anthropogenic flux, it must be from humans. It is however, just a coincidence. If I can get it published here, I can demonstrate that there is no actual correlation to establish causation.

whiten
February 19, 2022 6:57 pm

So, no long term detection there…
Thank you.

And no short term detection either.
All assertions and speculations.

When in the same time all considered as a matter of fact.

While also in reality, factual conclusive evidence shows clearly no detection of such, because it does not exist even to the noise level.

According to OCO2 data, the estimated result of human population size, calculated via Human CO2 emission potential, it will end up to be a zero point zero… as the human CO2 emission signal in that data consist as with the value of zero point zero… not even noise… as a matter of fact… regardless of any assertions, assumptions or speculations.

cheers

HotScot
February 19, 2022 3:36 pm

When all the highbrow science in the world can’t convince fanatics, there’s no harm in trying a little straightforward Arithmetic and logic.

The fact is, 90% of the worlds population don’t understand science, so why talk to them in a scientific language. It’s not going to convince them any more than a straightforward, evidence based bit of counting.

In any event, my real reason for posting it is to see how many people shoot genuine holes in it.

So far, either no one can be bothered or no one can. If they can’t be bothered I can be written off as a simpleton, which consigns me to the 90% of the world who aren’t scientists.

It’s also true, however, that 90% of the Democratic world who don’t understand science have the same voting rights as the 10% of scientists. If your belief is that convincing the scientific community is the right way to go, you will only ever capture 10% of the publics vote.

And as we all know, climate science is no longer the domain of scientists, it’s the playground of politics. Best go for the 90% and talk to them in their language.

Scissor
February 19, 2022 3:51 pm

Nothing wrong with trying to understand something with simple math, but it’s behavior is not linear, so there’s that.

Now I think the Bern model has problems, but its accounting method leads to an accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere.

PMHinSC
February 19, 2022 11:25 am

HotScot: February 19, 2022 10:14
“Atmospheric CO2 levels in 1850 (beginning of the Industrial Revolution):”

All references I find show the Industrial Revolution beginning as early as 1760 and no later than 1840. 1850-1900 is typically cited as the end of the little Ice Age.

HotScot
February 19, 2022 3:24 pm

Yep, the dates are conservative. Take them out to 1760 and it gets even more ridiculous.

Rainer Bensch
February 20, 2022 5:14 am

I recalculated them from 1950. Even then are they just a joke.

Trying to Play Nice
February 20, 2022 5:48 am

And I posit that whatever CO2 man adds to the atmosphere is taken up by plants and causes the greening of the globe noticed by NASA. So whatever CO2 is left in the atmosphere is natural and any warming is therefore natural. I have just as much experimental evidence for my theory as the climastrologists have for theirs.

PMHinSC
February 20, 2022 6:32 am

By incorrectly saying 1850 is the beginning of the industrial revolution, we psychologically link Climate Change to industrialization. Although we don’t understand the causes of Climate Change, we do know that temperatures start rising between 1850 and 1900 which corresponds to the end of the Little Ice Age. It is hard to win a debate when we don’t challenge our opponent’s pejorative terminology.

Steen Rasmussen
February 20, 2022 5:19 am

Where have you got your 3% man made contribution from? Even 6% won’t be accepted
by the alarmist, therefore it is always good with new peer reviewed evidence, in my ongoing conversations with the “evergreens”

HotScot
February 21, 2022 1:18 am

Try the calculation with 6%. It’s still silly.

joe
February 20, 2022 5:32 am

I have read this post from you before, and like fine wine, gets better with age. i have one question though. “0.76ppm of which man is responsible for ~3% = ~0.02ppm.”

the 3% / 0.02ppm value, is there an organization that generates/calculates this value? and do they have a name? (sorry two questions)

HotScot
February 21, 2022 1:24 am

3% – 4% is the accepted norm I believe. But alter the calculation with more if you wish and see what happens.

The fact is I’m assuming CO2 is wholly responsible for warming but according to a paper by Will Happer, any warming effect of CO2 is reduces as it’s volume increases (crude description). By the time it’s doubled its effects are virtually zero.

whiten
February 20, 2022 6:29 am

“Occam’s razor?”

If it, does correlate so well with atmospheric CO2 concentration trend, then it can not with human CO2 emission trend.
Therefore, it and the atmospheric CO2 concentration trend respond and follow or lag indirectly the same, the climatic signal… where it, seems to respond quicker.

Interesting. 🙂

cheers

menace
February 21, 2022 8:34 am

That’s every human on the planet and every industrial process adding ~0.02ppm CO2 to the atmosphere per year on average.

What is your source on this? I found some math…

Per The Mass of the Atmosphere: A Constraint on Global Analyses (Trenberth, Smith), the total mean mass of the atmosphere is 5.1480 × 10^18 kg

Per “Global Carbon Budget 2019” human activity released just over 30 Gigatons of CO2.

About half of this (15Gt) is reabsorbed by new plant growth so a net +15Gt is added by humans each year.

How many Gt of CO2 equates to 1ppm of CO2? I found a reasonable answer…

The composition of the atmosphere makes its molar mass 28.97 g/mol, so the atmosphere consists of 5.1480/.02897 = 177.7 x 10¹⁸ moles. Hence 1 ppm is 177.7 x 10¹² moles. A mole of CO2 has a mass of 44.01 g, so the mass of 1 ppm of CO2 is 177.7 x 44.01 = 7821 x 10¹² grams or 7.821 billion metric tons

So 15Gt of human CO2 emissions equates to about 2 ppm annual rise in CO2. This is two orders of magnitude more than what you claim.

Last edited 2 months ago by menace
Danley Wolfe
February 19, 2022 10:29 am

I have gone down this plant several times, the greens always counter that the amount of carbon based CO2 exhaled by living creatures is equivalent to the amount of carbon contained in foods they eat. Is it true? And do UN study reports cover this?

Scissor
February 19, 2022 11:05 am

That would be true based on the conservation principle, but carbon is excreted in urine and feces also. Most is exhaled, though there is variation based on the concentration of dietary fiber, etc.

Of course, if one consumes carbonated beverages, a burpage factor would need to be accounted for.

Gordon A. Dressler
February 19, 2022 11:54 am

Since human bodies do not create carbon, they only utilize the carbon that naturally exists in the biosphere. Human bodies are, by nature, “net carbon neutral” in terms of metabolism and respiration.

Right-Handed Shark
February 19, 2022 1:01 pm

Every cell in your body contains carbon compounds that were once in the air as CO2, and will be again when you are gone. Had you never existed, the total mass of carbon in your body would still be in the air as CO2.

Gordon A. Dressler
February 21, 2022 9:01 am

What? . . . no carbon compounds in humans as a result of ingesting carbohydrates (e.g., food or alcohol)? . . . who knew?

Also, no carbon compounds on the Earth that never existed as atmospheric CO2? . . . I think not.

99+% of the carbon that was present as Earth formed into a solid planet still exists as carbon compounds in Earth’s crust. ” . . . it might come as quite a shock to know that the 43,500 billion tonnes of carbon present in our atmosphere represents just 0.2% of the total carbon on Earth.”
https://www.envirotech-online.com/news/environmental-laboratory/7/breaking-news/how-much-carbon-is-on-earth/50473

Coeur de Lion
February 19, 2022 10:34 am

The sawtooth rise of the Moana Loa CO2 read out has a very idiosyncratic shape, the same every year. Do look at the magnified version. Our recent ‘experiment’, the Thunbergian economic catastrophe caused by the COVID pandemic has made not a whit of difference, What does this tell us about human emissions?

Scissor
February 19, 2022 11:09 am

This tells us that the change was insignificant compared to natural variability and measurement noise over the short term.

People who are involved in measuring real things, even if they are not taught it, quickly learn that it is difficult to measure small changes in properties that are measured in big values.

For instance, I can weigh a single peanut and measure its mass to a tenth or even a hundredth of a milligram. But put a bag of peanuts in an elephant’s mouth on a scale and unless he opens his mouth you will not know they are there.

Last edited 3 months ago by Scissor
Trying to Play Nice
February 20, 2022 5:51 am

Which proves the point that man’s contribution to atmospheric CO2 is what accountants would call “not material”.

Rud Istvan
February 19, 2022 10:34 am

Nicely done, WE. Makes sense.
I think the UN is wrong about 2100 global population. For complicated carrying capacity reasons laid out in my ebook Gaia’s Limits, it probably peaks at around 10.2-10.5 billion about 2050 or so. So even less cause for CO2 alarm.

February 20, 2022 12:31 pm

Indeed the pandemic is likely to have brought earlier “peak human” by a few decades and reduced its number by up to a billion.

Not from the virus itself but its economic consequences.

Last edited 3 months ago by Phil Salmon
Chic Bowdrie
February 19, 2022 10:37 am

Good stuff, as usual.

“Please be clear that I do not think that global average surface temperature is a function of CO2 levels, so this is done purely as a theoretical exercise.”

I’m glad you added that qualification, Willis. Your last two posts using the standard formula for lagging are basically curve fitting, no? However, it makes sense that population would contribute to CO2 production in addition to that produced from fossil fuels, land use, and concrete. The more people, the more grass cutting, etc.

One can produce a model that includes both the fossil fuel and population contributions without using the lag formula. I am working on one now that will use only one rate constant for the CO2 sinks. It will also contain a contribution from temperature. It won’t be today, unfortunately, as I have my own housework to finish.

Scissor
February 19, 2022 11:26 am

Sounds like you need a pressure washer.

Clyde Spencer
February 19, 2022 6:44 pm

However, it makes sense that population would contribute to CO2 production in addition to that produced from fossil fuels, land use, and concrete.

But, the best estimates available for the Carbon Cycle indicate that anthropogenic emissions from fossil fuels and calcination amount to less than 4% of the total source flux.

Peter W
February 19, 2022 10:44 am

There is another obvious mitigating factor which needs to be taken into account. As any horticulturist knows, increasing CO2 in the atmosphere increases plant growth. As our plants, especially trees, grow bigger and faster, they create more shade, and everybody knows it is colder in the shade. Given the amount of CO2 being produced and the increases in plant growth, plants will soon take over most of the world and crowd us out of the green areas. We will end up spending years wandering in the deserts.

Gordon A. Dressler
February 19, 2022 12:01 pm

Peter W posted: “. . . everybody knows it is colder in the shade.”

Personally, I have found that NOT to be true, when shaded from starlight on a cold winter night having a clear atmosphere that otherwise permits body radiation directly to space.

🙂

Dave Fair
February 20, 2022 11:07 pm

The same for low clouds. However small, what happens when that radiation energy from your body is kept from radiating directly into space? Did it not go into warming that intervening space?

The atmospheric warming properties of GHGs are scientifically well know. It is the feedback assumptions, misunderstanding of the huge energy transfers of the ocean/atmospheric systems, overreliance on modeling and allowing politics to corrupt the science that ruin CliSciFi.

People, please don’t pick fights with accomplished atmospheric physicists with crackpot “gravity done it” theories.

Rainer Bensch
February 20, 2022 5:31 am

It’s not just the shade. Photosynthesis isn’t for nothing. It consumes about 6% of the incoming photons IIRC. (No, I dont calculate the effect on temperature for you… it’s almost nothing.)

oebele bruinsma
February 19, 2022 10:54 am

At 600 ppm CO2 the greening of the earth will thrive even more. So what’s the problem? It is not in the numbers it is in its perception, i.e. the culture.

February 19, 2022 11:11 am

This looks like a Bode’s Law effect, a remarkable arithmetic coincidence with no predictive capacity over a wider range than the observations in hand.

whiten
February 19, 2022 5:53 pm

If I may say.

The atmospheric CO2 concentration lags mainly physically directly (and only) the CO2 emissions…
and does not really lag either the temperatures or the human population growth or any other human behavior.

Life dictates not the climate, Willis…
Something that still stand as such and not being shown yet otherwise, even in the case of humans and the human civilization potential…
and whatever value the point you brink has, still it does not even amount to circumstantial merit.

So when it comes to CO2 emissions, how does human CO2 correlates with human population growth, you think?
Any idea?

Dr. Jimmy Vigo
February 19, 2022 11:19 am

Gracias por la info. I like when you say, in my words, that temperatures are not necessary a function of [CO2]; that’s true! That issue is not clear in atmospheric thermodynamics, and if it does, it is not necessary linear, could be exponential, quadratic, logarithmic, power series,…who knows!, and this will affect a lot the real role of CO2 in the atmosphere, in which the unexpected can turn out to be the reality. None of this is cleared in science. I have tried to communicate here that I have done research, yet unpublished for business reasons, of a method I use in pharma analysis of data that goes beyond your method here of analysis that can show better hidden information of long term behavior (trends) that you can’t see when raw data is used in graphs. I apply a method of analysis that we chemists teach in university to analyze the dynamics of chemical reactions. This creates rates of changes from the data and uses geometrical analyses of lineal, exponential, quadratic, logarithmic, and power series, including polar coordinates that show a novel geometrical method of analyzing hidden info in raw data. If anyone is interested in teaming up to analyze this form of tada into something further, let me know, I can show the method and the results is does for me. Thanks. Dr. JBVigo

Willem Post
February 19, 2022 11:20 am

Willis,

It appears you are putting the folks producing upward sloping squiggly lines to shame and out of business

Will they suffer the fate of the buggy whip?

Because all sorts of more or less nonsense temperature data can be collected, at great expense, from many more or less objective places of the world, does not mean we should actually USE the data to create squiggly lines.

Dr. Jimmy Vigo
February 19, 2022 11:25 am

Gracias por la info. I like when you say, in my words, that temperatures are not necessary a function of [CO2]; that’s true! That issue is not clear in atmospheric thermodynamics, and if it does, it is not necessary linear, could be exponential, quadratic, logarithmic, power series,…who knows!, and this will affect a lot the real role of CO2 in the atmosphere, in which the unexpected can turn out to be the reality. None of this is cleared in science. I can say from your “S” shaped graphs that you could further discuss the flat areas versus the steep incline. The graphs look like a titration curve of acid/base reaction with a buffer and a significant changing area. This are places of important info. I have tried to communicate here that I have done research, yet unpublished for business reasons, of a method I use in pharma analysis of data that goes beyond your method here of analysis that can show better hidden information of long term behavior (trends) that you can’t see when raw data is used in graphs. I apply a method of analysis that we chemists teach in university to analyze the dynamics of chemical reactions. This creates rates of changes from the data and uses geometrical analyses of lineal, exponential, quadratic, logarithmic, and power series, including polar coordinates that show a novel geometrical method of analyzing hidden info in raw data. If anyone is interested in teaming up to analyze this form of tada into something further, let me know, I can show the method and the results it does for me. Thanks. Dr. JBVigo

Last edited 3 months ago by Dr. Jimmy Vigo
Gordon A. Dressler
February 19, 2022 11:45 am

Great post, Willis, especially including the warning from Mark Twain about the dangers of extrapolation of trends, either backward or forward . . . a classic!

Just in case anyone is concerned about the increase in human population directly contributing to the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration from the simple act of respiration (i.e., breathing out more CO2 than is in the air breathed in, due to metabolism), here is a great analysis showing why this is NOT a realistic concern:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2009/08/are-you-heating-the-planet-when-you-breathe.html

Mr.
February 19, 2022 12:09 pm

Should we all stop posting Mark Twain’s observations before all his literature gets cancelled?

(or should we instead just credit his words to one Samuel Langhorne Clemens? That will go unnoticed by the woke literature censors, because um – they’re mostly university-educated)

Chaswarnertoo
February 20, 2022 2:53 am

AKA woke indoctrinated.

February 19, 2022 12:45 pm

So all we need is a couple of world wars to solve our “CO2 problem”, On the other hand maybe its automobiles and not people,

Chaswarnertoo
February 20, 2022 2:59 am

Termites. Kill all the termites!

Dave Fair
February 20, 2022 11:10 pm

Burping cows.

Mike Smith
February 19, 2022 12:59 pm

Despite all of the appropriate warning about predictive value of such an analysis… I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that a significant reduction in population will indeed produce a significant reduction in atmospheric CO2 concentration. If true, we can say that CO2 is a function of population. And then the warmists can say temperature is a function of population. Therefore people suck unless, of course, they’re climate scientologists or enviroloons.

Clyde Spencer
February 19, 2022 6:52 pm

… and suggest that a significant reduction in population will indeed produce a significant reduction in atmospheric CO2 concentration.

Humans produce less than 4% of the total annual source flux of CO2. I’ll go out on a limb and suggest that if ALL humans disappeared tomorrow there would be a 4% reduction in the annual atmospheric CO2 flux.

Dave Fair
February 20, 2022 11:11 pm

Giordano Milton
February 19, 2022 1:04 pm

Isn’t more CO2 released from where it was sequestered during cold periods when the temperature warms?

Disputin
February 19, 2022 2:22 pm

Yep!

Dave Fair
February 20, 2022 11:13 pm

How much of the “extra” CO2 produced by the Medieval Warm Period was sequestered during the Little Ice Age? Think carefully.

Dr. Jimmy Vigo
February 19, 2022 1:18 pm

WANTED TO FIX A FEW MISTAKES IN MY PREVIOUS COMMENT AND FURTHER CLARIFY

Gracias por la info. I like when you say, in my words, that temperatures are not necessarily a function of the concentration of [CO2]; that’s true! That issue is not clear in atmospheric thermodynamics, and if it does, it is not necessarily linear, could be exponential, quadratic, logarithmic, power series,…who knows!, and this will affect a lot the real role of CO2 in the atmosphere, in which the unexpected can turn out to be the reality. None of this is clear in science.

I have tried to communicate here that I have done research, yet unpublished for business reasons, of a method I use in pharma analysis of data that goes beyond your method here of analysis that can show better hidden information of long term behavior (trends) that you can’t see when raw data is used in graphs. The “S” shape of your graphs resemble the curve of acid/base titration chemical reactions. You could further analyze the flat/buffer areas and the steep change of the curve. There are inflection and end points that are important areas of information.

I apply a method of analysis that we chemists teach in university to analyze the dynamics of chemical reactions. This creates rates of changes from the data and uses geometrical analyses of lineal, exponential, quadratic, logarithmic, and power series, including polar coordinates that show a novel geometrical method of analyzing hidden info in raw data.

If anyone is interested in teaming up to analyze this form of tada into something further, let me know, I can show the method and the results is does for me.

Thanks.
Dr. JBVigo

Duane
February 19, 2022 1:47 pm

In the long run, we’re all dead. And that is not even a statistic.

In any event one of the gazillions of weaknesses in the warmunists’ theology is that world temperatures – as if such a thing can even be defined, let alone measured – rose 1.5 deg C in the 172 years since the magical 1850 baseline . 1850 being solely coincidental with the end of the Little Ice Age (cherry picking you say … who, ME?). They refer to that as the “beginning of the Industrial Age” when CO2 emissions suddenly shot up, as if fired from a canon. When every non ignorant history-educated person knows that the Industrial Age began 1-2 centuries earlier, and did NOT just suddenly materialize.

In any event there are numerous public resources documenting that CO2 emissions through the mid 1940s DID drastically increase thereafter, due to the end of the war and the Great Depression that immediately preceded the war … and due to the huge modernization of societies machines, including universal electrification, mass migration to cities from farms, mass ownership of motor vehicles, proliferation of labor saving machines vs like washers, dryers, vacuums, power tools, lawn mowers, etc. Plus the near universal adoption of air conditioning during warm season that coincidentally represents the largest consumer of electrical power. Plus the elimination of subsistence poverty in most of the world today, most especially in China.

In other words, world wide carbon emissions skyrocketed after 1945, increasing by an order of magnitude … yet most of the supposed warming caused by CO2 since 1850 had already occurred by 1945.

Their religion fails every scientific test that matters, especially with respect to empiricism – or “the real world”.

Duane
February 19, 2022 1:51 pm

And of course, carbon emissions follow population increases … which follow all those other developments I listed above.

Funny how all THAT stuff fits a truthful narrative,

Disputin
February 19, 2022 2:27 pm

“…as if fired from a canon.”

There you go, dragging religion into everything.

Chris Hanley
February 19, 2022 1:52 pm

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature record (BEST) is hardly a ‘quality assurance’ brand.
The tidy CO2 – temp. relationship doesn’t work so well for instance using a pre-Hansen reconstruction (NH) or the Rural Unadjusted Temperature Index (RUTI) or even the sea surface record.

Chris Hanley
February 19, 2022 2:18 pm

Replying to myself: physics says CO2 has been a factor possibly not the factor.

Pat from kerbob
February 19, 2022 2:26 pm

What it shows, if CO2 increase was completely due to humans, is that energy is essential to there being more humans, taking it away without a reliable replacement is an invitation to eliminate humans

The Dark Lord
February 19, 2022 2:31 pm

maybe a warming world leads to population growth AND CO2 increases …

Retired_Engineer_Jim
February 19, 2022 4:20 pm

Please don’t tell the Green Folks – since CO2 so closely tracks the population, and CO2 is evil, they’ll want to outlaw population growth.

Chaswarnertoo
February 20, 2022 2:57 am

Certainly need to stop any greentards from reproducing.

JCM
February 19, 2022 5:38 pm

Time to classify humans as a pollutant then. The curves match.

Redge
February 20, 2022 12:30 am

The Club of Rome and The Optimum Trust got there before you

S Browne
February 19, 2022 6:35 pm

The ultimate cause of all environmental problems, from the human perspective, is always humans one way or another. So, every environmental problem correlates with the total population of the world — virtually by definition. Thus, a common solution to almost all environmental problems is fewer people. So, Willis’ observation of the close correlation of CO2 concentration with total population is unsurprising and really pretty much intuitively obvious.

By the way, humans are part of nature. Anything attributed to human activities is natural by definition. Whether or not anything is due to humans, beneficial to humans or harmful to other species is another story

Last edited 3 months ago by S Browne
S Browne
February 19, 2022 6:45 pm

deleted

Last edited 3 months ago by S Browne
February 20, 2022 1:46 am

Wow – that puts a new perspective on reducing CO2.

According to some estimates the covid19 pandemic will bring “peak humans” earlier by a couple of decades, and with nearly a billion less people. It could be sooner than we thought.

Charlie
February 20, 2022 3:07 am

Seeing as we’re on Mark Twain, I’ll leave a little of Twain’s tale of Markiss. Some climate scientists and certainly the media might pay it some regard.

Almost from the very beginning, I regarded that man as a liar.

The line of points represents an interval of years. At the end of which time the opinion hazarded in that last sentence came to be gratifyingly and remarkably endorsed, and by wholly disinterested persons. The man Markiss was found one morning hanging to a beam of his own bedroom (the doors and windows securely fastened on the inside), dead; and on his breast was pinned a paper in his own handwriting begging his friends to suspect no innocent person of having any thing to do with his death, for that it was the work of his own hands entirely. Yet the jury brought in the astounding verdict that deceased came to his death “by the hands of some person or persons unknown!” They explained that the perfectly undeviating consistency of Markiss’s character for thirty years towered aloft as colossal and indestructible testimony, that whatever statement he chose to make was entitled to instant and unquestioning acceptance as a lie. And they furthermore stated their belief that he was not dead, and instanced the strong circumstantial evidence of his own word that he was dead–and beseeched the coroner to delay the funeral as long as possible, which was done. And so in the tropical climate of Lahaina the coffin stood open for seven days, and then even the loyal jury gave him up. But they sat on him again, and changed their verdict to “suicide induced by mental aberration”–because, said they, with penetration, “he said he was dead, and he was dead; and would he have told the truth if he had been in his right mind? No, sir.”

Peter F Gill
February 20, 2022 8:23 am

I noticed the interesting correlation between the Keeling curve and the human population growth curve about 20 years ago. Knowing that in a warming world it is inevitable that atmospheric CO2 will increase (Henry’s Law). Also with the industrial revolution and the explosion in human knowledge, heath improvements, improved agricultural practices etc one would expect increases in human population. What is a real surprise is the strength of the ongoing correlation.

Michael Nagy
February 20, 2022 8:50 am

I just love the way you think Willis, this was entertaining and funny. Made my day for sure, HAHAHA

Thomas Fuller(@thomaswfuller)
February 20, 2022 8:56 am

Actually, IIRC, the IPCC also estimated in one of their reviews that both CO2 and temperature rises would stop/peak at around 2105. They also said that peak population was a major reason for that.

griff
February 20, 2022 9:16 am

But the output of CO2 is not even per head of population… some countries output much more than others.

Dave Fair
February 20, 2022 11:21 pm

Griff, I’m happily a resident of the former. If you aren’t happy with your profligate Western lifestyle, move.

Last edited 2 months ago by Dave Fair
John Hultquist
February 20, 2022 10:21 am

Some say “demographics is destiny”