The Impact of Human CO2 On Atmospheric CO2 – Summary

Edwin X Berry, Montana, USA – 2022-08-02

Copyright (c) 2022 by Edwin X Berry. Permission granted to republish with link to Berry (2021).

Introduction

This summary of Berry (2021) shows the main points without the math.

1. How CO2 flows out of the atmosphere.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) correctly assumes the outflow of CO2 from the atmosphere is proportional to the CO2 level divided by a time constant.

This time constant – that the IPCC calls “turnover time” and we call “e-time” – describes how fast CO2 flows out of the atmosphere.

IPCC (2007, p. 948) defines “turnover time” equal to the first power of the carbon level divided by the outflow of carbon from the reservoir,

“Turnover time (T) is the ratio of the mass M of a reservoir (e.g., a gaseous compound in the atmosphere) and the total rate of removal S from the reservoir: T = M / S. For each removal process, separate turnover times can be defined.”

IPCC (2007, p. 948) says the turnover time (T) for natural CO2 is about four years.

“Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an extreme example. Its turnover time is only about four years because of the rapid exchange between the atmosphere and the ocean and terrestrial biota.”

IPCC’s data for its natural carbon cycle (IPCC, 2013, p. 470-471) show the e-time for atmospheric CO2 is 3.5 years, supporting IPCC’s statement of “about four years.”

Simple physics shows when outflow is proportional to the first power of level, natural and human carbon cycles are independent. So, we can calculate these carbon cycles independently and then add them up to get the total. We need only to calculate the human carbon cycle over time to see how human CO2 changes atmospheric CO2.

2.  The first approximation conflicts with IPCC claims.

IPCC’s data show the inflow of human CO2 into the atmosphere is about 5% of the total CO2 inflow and natural CO2 is about 95%.

Since human and natural CO2 molecules are identical, their e-times are identical. Therefore, to the first approximation, the composition of today’s atmospheric CO2 is about 5% human and 95% natural.

Yet, IPCC (2013, p. 467, Executive Summary) says,

“With a very high level of confidence, the increase in CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning and those arising from land use change are the dominant cause of the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.”

IPCC (2013, pp. 470-471) assumes the natural CO2 level remained at 280 ppm after 1750 and, therefore, human CO2 caused all the CO2 increase since 1750. This would make human CO2 about 32% of 415 ppm as of 2020.

How can a 5% inflow cause 32% of the CO2 level?

It can’t. Even the IPCC realizes this problem. So, to support its claim that human CO2 causes dangerous climate change, the IPCC incorrectly claims human CO2 stays in the atmosphere longer than natural CO2.

IPCC (2013, p. 469) incorrectly claims:

“The removal of human-emitted CO2 from the atmosphere by natural processes will take a few hundred thousand years (high confidence). … about 15 to 40% of emitted CO2 will remain in the atmosphere longer than 1,000 years. This long time required … to remove anthropogenic CO2 makes climate change caused by elevated CO2 irreversible on human time scale.”

This IPCC claim violates IPCC’s own data-based e-time and ignores that human and natural CO2 molecules are identical, and therefore their e-times are identical.

3.  The second approximation proves the IPCC is wrong.

The first approximation considered only the atmosphere. The second approximation uses IPCC’s four-reservoir carbon cycle model. The physics model, using outflow proportional to level and IPCC’s e-times, replicates IPCC’s natural carbon cycle, shown in Figure 1.

Then, this same model calculates a human carbon cycle compatible with IPCC’s natural carbon cycle, using recursive, annual time steps from 1750 to 2020, shown Figure 2.

This compatible human carbon cycle shows human CO2 has added only 33 ppm (8%) while nature has added 100 ppm (92%) to IPCC’s 280 ppm level in 1750, as of 2020.

According to the scientific method, the physics model has proved IPCC’s claim – that human CO2 caused all the CO2 increase above 280 ppm – is false.

Good high-school students can learn how the physics model works.

4.  IPCC’s natural carbon cycle

Figure 1 shows IPCC’s natural carbon cycle at equilibrium with atmospheric CO2 at 280 ppm (589 PgC). The boxes show reservoirs and arrows the flows between reservoirs.

Figure 1. Levels and flows for IPCC’s (2013) natural carbon cycle.

Figure 1 shows 1.4% of natural carbon is in the atmosphere and 90% is in the deep ocean. This is an equilibrium fingerprint that human carbon will approach.

5.  Physics model applied to human carbon.

Figure 2 shows the physics carbon cycle model with IPCC’s four reservoirs and six outflows, where the arrows are all positive numbers.

Figure 2. The human carbon cycle model uses the same physics as IPCC’s natural carbon cycle but adds the annual inflow of human carbon.

Human carbon has added only one percent to the total carbon in the natural carbon cycle.

Figure 3 shows how the reservoir levels change with time for human carbon.

The purple dashed line shows the cumulative human carbon since 1750. The solid bold line shows the measured atmospheric carbon level above 280 ppmv.

Data alone prove natural CO2 increased the CO2 level above 280 ppm. The cumulative “New Human carbon added” before 1955 is less than measured “atmospheric carbon,” making it impossible for human carbon to have caused all the CO2 increase.

Figure 3. How human carbon levels change with time.

The red dashed line shows human CO2 added to the atmosphere is much less than the “New Human carbon added” because the CO2 e-time of 3.5 years lets CO2 flow out of the atmosphere much faster than it can accumulate.

6.  The Bern model uses IPCC’s assumption.

Figure 4 compares the physics model with the Bern model.

Figure 4. Pulse decay by the physics model and the Bern model.

The key difference between the Bern model and the physics model is the Bern model uses IPCC’s invalid assumption that human CO2 causes all the CO2 increase while the physics model uses IPCC’s e-time of 3.5 years.

7.  Isotope data show CO2 increase is natural.

Figure 5 shows

  • 14C data (black solid line) and its curve fit after 1970 (black dashed line).
  • 14C data relative to the δ14C value in 1970 (blue sawtooth line) and its curve fit.
  • 12CO2 data in ppmv (red sawtooth line).

δ14C is a measure of the 14/ 12C ratio. The natural level of δ14C is zero.
Human CO2 has no 14C, so its δ14C is -1000. If human CO2 were 32% of the CO2 in the
atmosphere, it would dilute the natural δ14C level from zero to -320.
Data show δ14C has returned to its natural level of zero even as 12C (red line) has increased, showing that natural CO2 has dominated the increase in atmosphere CO2.
The 14C curve fit shows 14CO2 e-time is 10.0 years (Hardy and Salby, 2021; Berry, 2021).
The 12CO2 e-time is smaller than the 14CO2 e-time because the atom is heavier than
the 12C atom. This confirms that the e-time for 12CO2 is less than 10.0 years.

Figure 5. δ14C data (black line) and its curve fit (black dashed line), relative (blue sawtooth line) and its curve fit (black dashed line), and 12CO2 ppmv (red line).

Conclusions

The simple physics model – using IPCC’s outflow proportional to level and e-times –proves natural CO2 controls atmospheric CO2. As of 2020, natural CO2 has added about 100 ppm, and human CO2 only 33 ppm, to IPCC’s CO2 level of 280 ppm in 1750.

References

Berry, E. X, 2021: The impact of human CO2 on atmospheric CO2. Science of Climate Change, December 14, 2021, The impact of human CO2 on atmospheric CO2 – SCC (klimarealistene.com); https://doi.org/10.53234/scc202112/212

Harde, H. and Salby, M. L., 2021: What Controls the Atmosphere CO2 Level? Science of Climate Change, August 2021. https://doi.org/10.53234/scc202111/28. https://scc.klimarealistene.com/produkt/what-controls-the-atmospheric-CO2- level/

IPCC, 2013: Ciais, P., Sabine, et al. 2013: Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles. The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press, UK and New York, NY, USA.

IPCC. 2007: Climate Change 2007 – The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group 1 to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Annex 1: Glossary: Lifetime. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg1-annexes-1.pdf

4.6 41 votes
Article Rating
533 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
August 16, 2022 2:11 pm

“IPCC (2013, pp. 470-471) assumes the natural CO2 level remained at 280 ppm after 1750 and, therefore, human CO2 caused all the CO2 increase since 1750.”

It’s a very good assumption. Here is the plot of total C in the air over the last thousand years, as measured by Law Dome ice core and Mauna Loa, versus the cumulative total of our emissions (source):

comment image

It shows the amount in the air was very stable until industrial emissions began, and then increased proportional to the emissions, with stable factor about 0.5 (the airborne fraction).

Editor
Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 16, 2022 2:24 pm

LOL, using YOURs and the IPCC’s argument you show that CO2 doesn’t drive large temperature swings up and down during the last 11,000 years at all.

LINK

This has always been a massive problem for the AGW conjecture.

Reply to  Sunsettommy
August 16, 2022 2:31 pm

” you show that CO2 doesn’t drive large temperature swings up and down during the last 11,000 years at all”

That is true, and it isn’t a problem at all. The AGW proposition is that adding a whole lot of new carbon to the air will cause warming. It doesn’t say that all past warming was caused by adding new carbon to the air. Which it obviously wasn’t; until we started digging, there was no new source at all. Now there is.

ps your link also shows how stable CO2 was before we got to work on it.

Editor
Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 16, 2022 2:41 pm

You missed the glaring point here since if CO2 for 11,000 didn’t do diddly squat in generating LARGE warming and cooling swings that lasted for hundreds of years at a time.

Then it doesn’t have a demonstrated power to cause any large temperature swings since it HAPPENED without CO2 for 11,000 years which means SOMETHING else caused it and it is still operating today and has been for hundreds of million years into the past.

CO2 has NEVER been shown to be the main driver of temperature changes because its postulated warm forcing power is too small and way too small at the standard doubling rate from 1750 which is negligible AGW conjecture is utter nonsense when it comes to being a driver of temperature change.

Last edited 1 month ago by Sunsettommy
Reply to  Sunsettommy
August 16, 2022 3:17 pm

“Then it doesn’t have a demonstrated power to cause any large temperature swings since it HAPPENED without CO2 for 11,000 years”

Of course it doesn’t have a demonstrated power. It is change in CO₂ that causes warming, and as your graph shows, CO₂ didn’t change.

Eating arsenic will kill you. That doesn’t mean that if you stay off arsenic, you’ll be immortal (other things can cause warming). The analogy of your argument is that if you haven’t been killed by arsenic in sixty years, it must be harmless.

Editor
Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 16, 2022 3:45 pm

Your arsenic argument is absurd which I shouldn’t have to explain here.

The Change in CO2 warm forcing effect at the 400+ ppm level is too small it doesn’t even stop Earth from increasingly shedding its energy into space which is going at a far greater rate than CO2 feeble warming effect rate at the 430 ppm level could produce.

All this while YOU and AGW supporters are ignoring that something else cause all those large temperature swings for the 11,000 years while CO2 took a long vacation as per the chart.

This avoidance of reality is problem of the warmist/alarmists for many years now which is why focusing on just CO2 is a sign of pseudoscience which is WHY I reject the AGW conjecture as it is.

Recall this point Willis made in his Where is the climate emergency post:

Next, here is the radical change in downwelling radiation at the surface from the increase in CO2 that is supposed to be driving the “CLIMATE EMERGENCY!!!” What I’ve shown is the change that in theory would have occurred from the changes in CO2 from 1750 to the present, and the change that in theory will occur in the future when CO2 increases from its present value to twice the 1750 value. This is using the generally accepted (although not rigorously derived) claim that the downwelling radiation change from a doubling of CO2 is 3.5 watts per square metre (W/m2). The purpose is to show how small these CO2-caused changes are compared to total downwelling radiation.

LINK

The current 1.8 W/m2 is feeble!

Last edited 1 month ago by Sunsettommy
Reply to  Sunsettommy
August 16, 2022 4:10 pm

“Your arsenic argument is absurd which I shouldn’t have to explain here.”

OK, I’ll spell it out
Digging up and burning carbon will cause warming
Eating Arsenic will kill you

But temperatures have varied for other reasons
But people have died from other causes

But CO₂ was stable for 11000 years and it was not correlated with warming. It does not have “demonstrated power”.
But arsenic didn’t kill me for sixty years (I didn’t eat any). So no demonstrated harmfulness.

Editor
Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 16, 2022 4:25 pm

LOL,

Meanwhile once again you ignore the main point which you do over and over in the thread:

The Change in CO2 warm forcing effect at the 400+ ppm level is too small it doesn’t even stop Earth from increasingly shedding its energy into space which is going at a far greater rate than CO2 feeble warming effect rate at the 430 ppm level could produce.

You ignored this.

All this while YOU and AGW supporters are ignoring that something else cause all those large temperature swings for the 11,000 years while CO2 took a long vacation as per the chart.

You ignored this.

This avoidance of reality is problem of the warmist/alarmists for many years now which is why focusing on just CO2 is a sign of pseudoscience which is WHY I reject the AGW conjecture as it is.

You ignored this as well which is why you are looking foolish as you are continually avoiding the main point that CO2 isn’t a climate driver at all and never has in the 11,000 years or in millions of years.

Then it doesn’t have a demonstrated power to cause any large temperature swings since it HAPPENED without CO2 for 11,000 years which means SOMETHING else caused it and it is still operating today and has been for hundreds of million years into the past.

You keep ignoring the reality that something else is the DOMINANT driver of weather and climate change that is what YOU and stupid warmist/alarmists ignore all the time.

You ignored Willis Eschenbach’s point on how feeble CO2 is as a warm forcer.

AGW conjecture is stupid and feeble and that Positive feedback poop never shows up outside of 30 years of modeling guesses.

Last edited 1 month ago by Sunsettommy
Reply to  Sunsettommy
August 16, 2022 5:23 pm

“you ignore the main point”

Well, I could go into all those things at greater length. But what you are ignoring is that this post is about the CO₂ in the air and its origins. It says nothing about temperature.

Macha
Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 16, 2022 5:35 pm

There is this manmade CO2 growth fraction after sinks.
https://budbromley.blog/2022/08/03/do-the-math-reject-the-wef-global-resetters/
But how can anyone prove beyond theory that CO2 makes it “warmer than otherwise” and by how much? Many experiments have been tried with many rebuttals.
https://www.academia.edu/resource/work/31305328 might be close.

As recently posted by Dr. Roy Spencer at WUWT, the rate of global warming based on satellite-based temperature data is the same now as it was 30 years ago +0.13C/decade  (see https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/03/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2022-0-00-deg-c/ ).
So despite the progressively larger annual increases in human emissions of CO2 that occurred over those 30 years, there has been ZERO change in the rate of global warming due to these mankind-originated emissions.

Fundamental thermal physics makes atmospheric CO2 incapable of warming earth surfaces, because its absorption/emission wavelength of 15 microns corresponds to a Planck black body radiation temperature of -80C, about the same temperature as dry ice.

To date there has been no provable mechanism illustrating how LWR from CO2 can heat or even slow cooling of anything near the surface.
Still looking..

Last edited 1 month ago by Macha
Reply to  Macha
August 16, 2022 6:26 pm

To date there has been no provable mechanism illustrating how LWR from CO2 can heat or even slow cooling of anything near the surface.

There is lots of evidence that the atmosphere contains a lot of manmade CO2 — about 33% — and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. There is lots of evidence that increased greenhouse gases inhibit earth’s ability to cool itself by some unknown amount. There is lots of evidence that downwelling infrared radiation is increasing, as evidence of an increasing greenhouse effect (although that would not identify which greenhouse gas is the cause).

You apparently reject 100% of BASIC climate science claimed by the world’s climate scientists, including almost all “skeptic” scientists. So either you are right, and they are all wrong, or they are right, and you are wrong. I’m betting that you are wrong.

You are doing nothing to help those of us who are climate realists trying to refute CAGW. The existence of some amount of AGW does not prove CAGW exists. But the false claim that AGW does not exist, marks one as a science denier.

Last edited 1 month ago by Richard Greene
Macha
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 17, 2022 12:41 am

RGreene. Firstly, a “lot” is highliy subjective but in line with IPCC nonsense terminology.
Secondly, energy is not all heat and so the logic thread you stitched up does not mean surface temps rise.
Many, I am one, reject the claim LW single spectrum 10.5um can be interchanged with full spectrum frequency and translated to temperature. At best, by some, it’s -80C.
Temperature is not additive quantity and that appears to occur in the math when switching with radiation. Can’t only get 6% LW from sun hit surface, but then get amplified by same gas as DW emission back to heat surface again. It’s already warmer than that spectrum intensity has available.
Like a microwave oven not heating the container…energy there (W/m2) but is not manifest as temperature.
Of these 7 climate change theories, CO2 theory #1 is least convincing, just look at the supporting sources…#1 political (Gore, IPCC) rather than specialists in other 6.
https://www.academia.edu/resource/work/14330776

Last edited 1 month ago by Macha
Joao Martins
Reply to  Macha
August 17, 2022 3:06 am

Excellent answer! It addresses most of the key thermodynamic points!

Reply to  Joao Martins
August 17, 2022 8:55 am

Actually it’s illiterate nonsense!

Reply to  Macha
August 17, 2022 4:29 am

Greenhouse gases inhibit cooling
More greenhouse gases have a larger effect.
Your nonsense does not change those facts

Mike
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 18, 2022 1:04 am

Greenhouse gases inhibit cooling”
In theory. In practice, it is a meaningless statement.

Reply to  Macha
August 17, 2022 1:24 pm

Macha, single frequency LW indeed is not the same as full spectrum LW, but still it is energy. If it hits an object and is absorbed (which is for ALL frequencies for a black body), it adds to the total energy of that object.

If that leads to more warming or not, depends of the total balance of energy in and energy out. But you can’t say that a beam of 10.5 micron can’t heat an object above -80 C, as that is certainly not true: you can melt steel at 1200 C with such a beam, thanks to a CO2 laser…

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
August 17, 2022 3:31 pm

Hmmm….. Just how much does that CO2 laser heat the entire piece of steel? why doesn’t the whole of the piece of the steel melt into a puddle?

Reply to  Tim Gorman
August 17, 2022 10:10 pm

Tim, the CO2 lasers that are used to cut steel have a capacity of one to several kW in their beam. The beam is very concentrated in a fraction of a mm2 and at the place where it hits the steel surface all that energy is absorbed and steel is melting at that point. Of course that heat will be distributed to the rest of the steel block with some time delay, but that is not enough to melt the whole block.

If you use a magnifying glass to concentrate sun rays, you can put a paper on fire at the point where the rays are concentrated, but what is around it is hardly increasing in temperature either.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
August 18, 2022 4:58 pm

. But you can’t say that a beam of 10.5 micron can’t heat an object “

You tried to make it sound as if a low-powered CO2 laser could cut steel plate. I’m sorry, it won’t. And it depends on VERY LOCALIZED heating (how tight can you focus a laser beam?) Right down to the microscopic level.

And it takes multi-KW CO2 lasers to cut thick steel. Even then the entire steel plate (i.e. the object) is not really heated very much.

Reply to  Tim Gorman
August 18, 2022 7:06 am

Take a 1 gram piece of steel and you’ll quite easily melt it!

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Phil.
August 19, 2022 11:12 am

ROFL!!

Macha
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
August 17, 2022 5:52 pm

Indeed, by collision with cold helium atoms, thus maintaining population inversion. The resulting hot helium atoms must be cooled in order to sustain the ability to produce a population inversion in the carbon dioxide molecules.
And your point…in a natural air environment context?

Last edited 1 month ago by Macha
Reply to  Macha
August 17, 2022 10:23 pm

My point is that a laser at 100°C can melt steel at 1200°C with a beam of around 10 micron.
Thus independent of the temperature of the source or the frequency of the beam.

CO2 absorbs and emits CO2 at the same around 10 micron frequency, regardless of its own temperature or of the surroundings, from near ground to high in the stratosphere.

If it captures some photon from the surface at that frequency and emits that again, hitting the surface, that will add to the energy balance of the surface. Regardless of the surface temperature at that moment.

If that results in heating or less cooling depends of the overall energy balance of the surface, but compared to an atmosphere without GHGs, the surface must get warmer, as the sum of sun energy and downwelling LW energy is larger than of sun energy alone.
The only way the surface can get rid of the extra energy is by heating up (even if that results in more convection…).

Macha
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
August 18, 2022 3:07 am

But it doesn’t melt steel..on its own.
Also emissivity and intensity are important.

Last edited 1 month ago by Macha
Reply to  Macha
August 20, 2022 1:03 am

Come on Macha, you wrote:

“Many, I am one, reject the claim LW single spectrum 10.5um can be interchanged with full spectrum frequency and translated to temperature. At best, by some, it’s -80°C.”

The laser beam is from CO2 alone and nothing else, whatever the other gases in the laser to enhance the intensity of the beam.

The laser beam is at 10.5 micron. According to some, it is not possible to melt even ice, as that is the peak frequency of a solid object at -80°C. But it does melt steel every day at millions of places on earth.

The simple conclusion is that neither the temperature of the sender (or its surroundings), neither the temperature of the receiver are important to absorb IR energy of any frequency: it is just energy and adds to the energy budget of the receiver…

No matter if that is CO2 within a laser at 100°C or CO2 at 20 km up in the stratosphere at -50°C.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
August 18, 2022 9:24 am

Typical CO2 lasers work by heating a small spot to melting in the presence of oxygen. Their main use is in engraving. It takes a 1000w CO2 laser to cut 1/2″ steel and a 4000w CO2 laser to cut 1″ steel. Those are high powered lasers.

ATheoK
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 17, 2022 5:29 am

There is lots of evidence that the atmosphere contains a lot of manmade CO2″

Nope!
All claims to prove it, to date, are specious.

You’ve not refuted the article above nor provided proof of your hilarious claim.

Patrick Harcourt
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 17, 2022 9:14 am

I accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that the increases in CO2 should – all things being equal – cause warming. What we – and the IPCC – do not know is how much. It may be very small (say, if feebacks were smaller (or negative such as clouds). I do not believe (but cannot prove this) that CAGW exists but I believe AGW does but may be very small and not worth worrying about.

Reply to  Patrick Harcourt
August 17, 2022 10:01 am

You are intelligent
Please comment as much as possible.

Mike
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 18, 2022 1:07 am

Patrick said increased co2 ”should” cause warming. He is correct.
You said does cause warming. You are a believer.

Mike
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 18, 2022 1:02 am

 There is lots of evidence that increased greenhouse gases inhibit earth’s ability to cool itself by some unknown amount.

So an untestable hypothesis is evidence of this is it?

Reply to  Macha
August 17, 2022 8:51 am

“Fundamental thermal physics makes atmospheric CO2 incapable of warming earth surfaces, because its absorption/emission wavelength of 15 microns corresponds to a Planck black body radiation temperature of -80C, about the same temperature as dry ice.”

Anyone who posts this nonsense indicates they have zero knowledge of the fundamental physics involved. The Planck temperature refers to the temperature at which a blackbody has a maximum at a particular wavelength. A gas such as CO2 emits/absorbs at wavelengths which cause vibrational/rotational transitions. Photons emitted at 15microns have no temperature, just wavelength, a blackbody absorber will absorb a 15micron photon whether it is emitted at -80ºC or 40ºC.

Reply to  Macha
August 17, 2022 1:14 pm

Macha,

Several remarks on what you wrote:

Bud Bromley makes the same error as Dr. Berry, we had the same discussion with him… The main difference: Dr. Berry is always polite in his answers, while Bud isn’t…

Even Harde did find 0.7 K warming for each CO2 doubling, if you read his work. Not much, but not zero either.

The effect of CO2 is already saturated in the main absorption bands, therefore any warming effect is by filling the side bands, which is a logarithmic process, thus decreasing, if the CO2 was linearly increasing. But as CO2 levels increase more or less slightly quadratic, the effect is linear… Which is what see happening…

IR of 10 micron can even melt steel at 1200 C, see what a CO2 laser can do:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-dioxide_laser

Gases are no black bodies and non-GHGs are even nobodies: they don’t emit or absorb in the IR bands.
Any body that can emit IR in some bands can absorb the same wavelengths, regardless of its own temperature or that of the sender. An IR photon doesn’t contain any temperature information from the sender…
A photon is just a package of energy, completely defined by its wavelength and if absorbed adds to the energy of the receiver, or you are destroying energy…

Further: back radiation is exactly measured with full spectra and amounts to over 300 W/m2. If that doesn’t increase the energy content of the surface, where goes that energy?

https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/07/17/the-amazing-case-of-back-radiation/
Here specific for CO2:
https://escholarship.org/content/qt3428v1r6/qt3428v1r6.pdf

Macha
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
August 17, 2022 5:55 pm

Replied to another..
by collision with cold helium atoms, thus maintaining population inversion. The resulting hot helium atoms must be cooled in order to sustain the ability to produce a population inversion in the carbon dioxide molecules.
And….where are these artificially cooled helium atoms in nature.

Reply to  Macha
August 17, 2022 10:32 pm

The helium and other gases in CO2 lasers are only necessary to maintain the enormous amount of energy that the laser emits. Even without the other gases, CO2 would emit IR at around 10 micron, but a lot less.

My point is that your -80°C peak frequency is only true for solid and liquid materials, not for gases.
Even so, any black body object does absorb all frequencies, regardless of its own temperature or that of the sender. Any photon at 10 micron simply adds to the energy balance of that object.

Macha
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
August 18, 2022 3:11 am

No not at all. Energy at wrong frequency is transparent.

Last edited 1 month ago by Macha
Reply to  Macha
August 20, 2022 1:12 am

Macha, you are violating about all physical laws…

A black body can emit radiation at every frequency and equally can receive radiation at every frequency.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body

IR at 10.5 micron get absorbed by near all materials…

Reply to  Macha
August 18, 2022 7:00 am

Helium is used in a CO2 laser to maintain the inversion because the emission from the lower layer is a forbidden transition, that is not the case in the atmosphere. Helium is used because it’s very efficient at depopulating that layer. In the atmosphere because the excited level has an allowed transition to the ground state and there are many molecules colliding with the excited molecule at the rate of ~10 per nanosecond.

Editor
Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 16, 2022 5:42 pm

Really you are that clueless about the IPCC’s business model and that the Author Berry did say the following in the article:

It can’t. Even the IPCC realizes this problem. So, to support its claim that human CO2 causes dangerous climate change, the IPCC incorrectly claims human CO2 stays in the atmosphere longer than natural CO2.

and,

IPCC (2013, p. 469) incorrectly claims:

“The removal of human-emitted CO2 from the atmosphere by natural processes will take a few hundred thousand years (high confidence). … about 15 to 40% of emitted CO2 will remain in the atmosphere longer than 1,000 years. This long time required … to remove anthropogenic CO2 makes climate change caused by elevated CO2 irreversible on human time scale.

Climate change/global warming is what warmist/alarmists and the IPCC use many times in their scribblings.

You want to ignore it because it makes AGW conjecture look weak and irrelevant.

Ooops.

Reply to  Sunsettommy
August 16, 2022 6:39 pm

You and Berry are missing the main IPCC point:
In 1995 the IPCC arbitrarily declared that all natural causes of climate change were “noise”, Therefore, any climate change must be almost entirely blamed on humans. That is junk science. But that is exactly what the IPCC political organization was set up to do. And that is what they do with every report. They assume that global warming is manmade and dangerous, and then predict futire global warming will be manmade and dangerous. A perfect example of circular reasoning.

Editor
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 16, 2022 9:28 pm

Did you read my comment since I wasn’t supporting Berry at all it was to answer Nicks statement he made:

Well, I could go into all those things at greater length. But what you are ignoring is that this post is about the CO₂ in the air and its origins. It says nothing about temperature.



Then I duly showed that the IPCC is indeed involved by asserting increasing CO2 emissions causes warming and Berry as the AUTHOR refers to climate change twice in conjunction to CO2 emissions.

Try slowing down and read slower.

Last edited 1 month ago by Sunsettommy
Reply to  Sunsettommy
August 16, 2022 11:53 pm

Try communicating more precisely

Patrick Harcourt
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 17, 2022 9:18 am

Agreed. Ben Santer and the US State Dept have a lot to answer for with what happened in 1995 when the Science Report was altered retrospectively after Madrid to state that they could decern a human influence.

Dennis G. Sandberg
Reply to  Sunsettommy
August 16, 2022 7:57 pm

Nick is bright and well informed, but he’s acting like a classic liberal. Liberals confuse cause and effect, it’s not just about CO2 and temperature. It’s what they do. If it’s because the facts don’t fit their world view (that’s not how I want it to be) or because the facts don’t fit their agenda (We need the grant money and/or wind and solar sales) is irrelevant. The damage is the same.

Low information voters unknowingly slip into the precautionary principle trap, “well that’s what an esteemed scientist and The President (or the IPCC) say, so it must be true. We better not take the chance of destroying the planet”.

We end up with an economy crippling misallocation of limited capital resources being wasted on sunshine and breezes. It’s not complicated.

Reply to  Dennis G. Sandberg
August 17, 2022 4:42 am

(he) “is bright and well informed, but he’s acting like a classic liberal.”

That’s a contradiction

Wes Warner
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 17, 2022 5:07 am

So perhaps not bright or well informed?

Dennis G. Sandberg
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 17, 2022 2:58 pm

Richard, I understand your position but there are a lot of very high IQ liberals, don’t doubt it. Just because their stated positions defy logic doesn’t distract from their obvious intellect. What a person claims to believe, and what that person actually believes can be 180 degrees apart. World views and agendas get in the way, But yes, their confusing cause and effect temps one to believe they may simply be “less than wise”.

Reply to  Sunsettommy
August 17, 2022 4:41 am

“to support its claim that human CO2 causes dangerous climate change, the IPCC incorrectly claims human CO2 stays in the atmosphere longer than natural CO2.”

Wrong again.
The primary reason that the IPCC predicts CAGW, rather than AGW, is their claimed water vapor positive feedback, that allegedly multiples the effect of CO2 by 2x to 4x.

There are observations that a warmer troposphere will hold more water vapor — a positive feedback,

But the positive feedback has never caused runaway global warming in the past 4.5 billion years, with CO2 levels up to 10x higher than today.

That means something limits the water vapor positive feedback.

My logical guess is that more water vapor in the troposphere leads to more clouds, blocking more incoming sunlight.

Some process keeps our planet from overheating, and changes in clouds seems like a logical guess.

Correctly claiming that humans have added a lot of CO2 (+50%) to the atmosphere, and assuming that is likely to inhibit Earth’s ability to cool itself by some unknown amount, DOES NOT prove that CAGW exists.

CAGW does not exist and has never existed, so far. However, CAGW has been predicted for over 50 years. Proving that humans do not have the ability to predict the future climate.

ATheoK
Reply to  Sunsettommy
August 17, 2022 5:33 am

You want to ignore it because it makes AGW conjecture look weak and irrelevant.”

Because that is exactly what the agw conjecture is!

  • It’s why agw adherents refuse debate.
  • It’s why, after agw claims are refuted, they resort to yelling the same nonsense again and again.
  • It contributes to agw models running hot to very hot.
  • etc. etc.
KevC
Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 17, 2022 1:19 am

It seems that you accept that ice cores have been valuable in providing atmospheric CO2 levels in the past and have shown quite some variation in atmospheric CO2 levels as the earth has gone in and out of ice ages etc. Not sure how it was done, but those studying the ice cores were also able to determine temperature and charting temp vs CO2 shows that they are very much in sync over the long haul.. However, and here’s the cruncher, on closer inspection of the data, it revealed that while both charts seemed to be in sync, there was a slight time shift difference between them of about 600-800 years.. Which occurred first ?? ………… Temperature went up, followed by CO2. NOT the other way around. i.e. a warmed ocean degassed CO2 and further in the cycle, a cooled ocean then again began absorbing CO2… so here’s solid evidence that in the past, as recorded in the ice cores from different places on earth, high CO2 levels were CAUSED by increased temperature, NOT that CO2 caused higher temperatures. ( and arsenic doesn’t get a mention !)

Reply to  KevC
August 17, 2022 2:07 am

high CO2 levels were CAUSED by increased temperature, NOT that CO2 caused higher temperatures”
Yes. I’ve been through that many times, on this thread and elsewhere. AGW says that if we dig up and burn fossil carbon, there will be warming. It doesn’t say that past temperature variations were caused by adding C to the atmosphere. And they weren’t; no-one was digging up carbon then.

Glacial temperature fluctuations were caused by orbital effects, and the warming caused fairly small CO2 variations. That is not relevant to the fact that putting masses of new carbon in the air will cause warming.

CoRev
Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 17, 2022 4:08 am

Nick, thinking that C = CO2 is just liberal, wrong, fuzzy and lazy thinking. They are not the same.

I am still awaiting that refutation of my claim that solar can never fulfill peak electricity demand.

Last edited 1 month ago by CoRev
Reply to  CoRev
August 17, 2022 4:46 am

Especially at night

Paul Stevens
Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 17, 2022 5:43 am

Before you can definitively say that present warming is caused by CO2 you need to determine what caused past warming, and why it isn’t still operating. Until you can do that, you only have a theory, not proof of anything. The charts showing CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere, as compared to the significant variations in global temperature need an explanation of why temperature varies so much and what is causing it. The IPCC has already claimed solar influence is not sufficient to cause the temperature increase since 1870. So what caused it, and why did it stop.

Reply to  KevC
August 17, 2022 4:45 am

You are conflating natural causes of climate change, where CO2 levels change as a result of temperature changes of the oceans, with manmade causes of climate change, where manmade CO2 emissions inhibit Earth’s ability to cool itself.

They are different processes that can happen at the same time.

You’ve got to learn that before you can effectively fight CAGW propaganda and scaremongering.

Reply to  Sunsettommy
August 16, 2022 6:25 pm

“you are continually avoiding the main point that CO2 isn’t a climate driver at all and never has in the 11,000 years or in millions of years.”

Mr Stroker may be ignoring that statement because you obviously don’t know what you are talking about. You keep conflating natural and manmade causes of climate change that are DIFFERENT.
Of course manmade CO2 was not a climate driver BEFI ORE THERE WAS MANMADE CO2. You are stating the obvious. Have you been drinking and posting?

Editor
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 16, 2022 6:44 pm

You are suggesting that CO2 is a climate driver during those millions of years or during the 11,000 or 1,800 years’ time frames?

I made clear that if CO2 is sitting around the 280 ppm during the entire 1,800 or 11,000 years before 1750 came around it has to be caused by something else since there are no human emissions and no increase in CO2 in all that time to generate a warming trend.

That finally sink in Richard?

Julian Flood
Reply to  Sunsettommy
August 16, 2022 11:02 pm

SunsetTommy, have a look at the ability of oil/lipid from oleaginous plankton to smooth and warm the ocean surface. I have seen a smooth, provenance unknown, that covered literally tens of thousands of square miles of the North Atlantic. Natural, nutrient run-off feeding plankton blooms, oil spills, synthetic surfactants?

If CO2 is a trivial driver it would be handy to have an alternative to explain the undoubted post-1910 warming. And the blip.

My inbox is always open (!). BTW, could someone give Willis a nudge.

JF
The Earth is not ruled by Gaia but by Oceana.

Robert Wager
Reply to  Julian Flood
August 17, 2022 10:50 am

And another La Niña is upon us.

Jim Ross
Reply to  Robert Wager
August 17, 2022 12:24 pm

That’s good. Lower atmospheric CO2 growth – must be good, yes? – and δ13C ‘flat-lining’ despite the extra fossil fuels with a much lower δ13C dominating the atmospheric decline. Just as well the models can tells us why. /s

Reply to  Sunsettommy
August 16, 2022 11:51 pm

“AGW conjecture is stupid and feeble and that Positive feedback poop never shows up outside of 30 years of modeling guesses.”

AGW is a reasonable assumption with good evidence. A warmer troposphere holds more water vapor — there is a positive feedback — you are wrong again.

Your concluding sentence, that I quoted, is an embarrassment for climate realists — you sound like Floyd R. Turbo — an old Johnny Carson comic character.

Editor
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 17, 2022 9:36 am

Where is the “hot spot”, where is the rapidly increasing warming trend?

You seem to suggest that endless escalating positive feedback is possible and maybe developing right now.

You sound like someone falling for that never seem before endless positive feedback loop propaganda since that utter nonsense ignores basic meteorology of the movement of water vapor upward into clouds (this would mean clouds would increase over time increasing albedo) which is a cooling agent via the precipitation cycle.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 17, 2022 4:47 pm

AGW is a reasonable assumption with good evidence. A warmer troposphere holds more water vapor — there is a positive feedback — you are wrong again.”

Then why is the IPCC and the CAGW advocates saying that we will see increased desertification from climate change?

More WV also means more rain – less desertification.

Editor
Reply to  Tim Gorman
August 17, 2022 5:02 pm

He vanished on me when I asked him a couple of questions:

Where is the “hot spot”, where is the rapidly increasing warming trend?

You seem to suggest that endless escalating positive feedback is possible and maybe developing right now.

Still waiting for someone to show we are in a climate emergency.

This PF Loop idea seems open ended since if it warms up then we get more water vapor which in turn generate more warming which in turn increase more water vapor in turn more warming till it reaches 212 F…..

The whole thing is STUPID!

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Sunsettommy
August 17, 2022 5:24 pm

It’s why the climate models are so un-physics based. y = mx + b forever. Positive feedback leading ultimately to the boiling point.

The modelers say they have to include factors to prevent the climate models from “blowing up”. Sure looks to me like they blow up anyway!

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 16, 2022 4:31 pm

False analogy.

Mr.
Reply to  Chris Hanley
August 16, 2022 5:17 pm

yeah even a science ignoramus like me can call bullshit on CO2 = arsenic.

Scissor
Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 16, 2022 4:52 pm

Trace levels of arsenic in the diet are actually essential to metabolism.

CO2 is the basic building block of life.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 17, 2022 2:56 am

Going by your logic:
Drinking milk doesn’t kill me. Hence producing CO2 will not cause me any harm.

Nelson
Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 17, 2022 3:41 am

Nick, your statement is false. CO2 increased from 180 ppm at the end of the last interglacial to 280 just before the industrial revolution according to the ice cores. The 50% increase should have massive positive feedbacks according to those believing in high ECS estimates. What we know is that temperatures have cooled. Do you have an explanation.

Reply to  Nelson
August 17, 2022 4:51 am

Some other factor limits positive feedback
That has been true for 4.5 billion years
Or else we would not be alive today to read Berry’s claptrap.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Nelson
August 17, 2022 4:51 pm

Nelson,

You didn’t really expect a reply, did you?

Robert Wager
Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 17, 2022 10:34 am

Perhaps you can explain how 5000 ppm (historical level) did not cause runaway global warming but 420 ppm will? I will wait.

Reply to  Sunsettommy
August 16, 2022 6:21 pm

“The Change in CO2 warm forcing effect at the 400+ ppm level is too small … “

CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas above 400ppm, but a strong greenhouse gas for the first 100ppm.
“Too small” is data-free personal speculation.

“something else cause all those large temperature swings for the 11,000 years while CO2 took a long vacation as per the chart.”

There was no manmade CO2 for almost the entire 11,000 year period. Is that what you mean by “taking a vacation”? So of course something else caused the estimated temperature variations — it definitely was not manmade CO2 BECAUSE THERE WASN’T ANY — Insignificant manmade CO2 emissions before 1900 and relatively small CO2 emissions before 1940.

Editor
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 16, 2022 6:37 pm

I wrote that bothers you since you missed the key section:

“The Change in CO2 warm forcing effect at the 400+ ppm level is too small”

Since the human emissions are considered the cause of the rise of CO2 in the air starting at the 280 ppm level, I will safely ignore your first 100 ppm argument since no one here is disputing it and not material to the topic since it starts at the 280-ppm level and going upward since around the 1800’s time.

It is indeed a small a warm forcer at the 430-ppm level thus you are mistaken.

YOU just like Nick miss the point since there were near ZERO change of CO2 for the 11,000 years yet still have a lot of large temperature swings warm to cold and back anyway which clearly show that CO2 isn’t causing it as it is just sitting there at the 280 ppm all that time as Nick and myself showed.

I wrote and noticed I am talking about the 280-ppm static level NOT todays CO2 level for the 1,800- and 11,000-years’ time frames:

You missed the glaring point here since if CO2 for 11,000 didn’t do diddly squat in generating LARGE warming and cooling swings that lasted for hundreds of years at a time.

Then it doesn’t have a demonstrated power to cause any large temperature swings since it HAPPENED without CO2 change for 11,000 years which means SOMETHING else caused it and it is still operating today and has been for hundreds of million years into the past.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Sunsettommy
August 16, 2022 8:46 pm

That is the deductive fallacy of ‘affirming a disjunct’, because the temperature of the planet has change due to a multitude of factors in the past excluding CO2, it does not necessarily follow that CO2 cannot be contributing to current warming.
That’s not science but simple logic.

Last edited 1 month ago by Chris Hanley
Editor
Reply to  Chris Hanley
August 16, 2022 9:12 pm

I didn’t make the claim in that way Chris, I am stating that SOMETHING ELSE caused large temperature swings during the 11,000 years while CO2 was hovering around the 280 ppm level.

Factually true.

Now I never once stated that because CO2 didn’t contribute to the large temperature swings in those 11,000 years to saying because of that reasoning it doesn’t generate current warming.

I never did that.

Factually true.

However, I do state that at the 430-ppm level the postulated warm forcing of CO2 today has become too little to generate warming because the rate of energy leaving the planet is greater than CO2 current warm forcing capability.

Recall that I stated this:

It is indeed a small a warm forcer at the 430-ppm level thus you are mistaken.

Last edited 1 month ago by Sunsettommy
Chris Hanley
Reply to  Sunsettommy
August 16, 2022 10:28 pm

Point taken.

Reply to  Chris Hanley
August 17, 2022 4:57 am

Simple logic does not work on beliefs based on faith.

ATheoK
Reply to  Chris Hanley
August 17, 2022 5:42 am

That is the deductive fallacy of ‘affirming a disjunct’, because the temperature of the planet has change due to a multitude of factors in the past excluding CO2, it does not necessarily follow that CO2 cannot be contributing to current warming.
That’s not science but simple logic”

That is Argumentum ad Ignorantium, appeal to ignorance, you don’t know so it must be true.

Reply to  Sunsettommy
August 16, 2022 11:57 pm

“The Change in CO2 warm forcing effect at the 400+ ppm level is too small”

Too small for what?
The exact effect of CO2 emissions and feedbacks is unknown. You speculate the effect is “too small”, whatever that means. Since the correct answer is “No one knows”, your answer is merely a personal opinion, not a fact.

whatlanguageisthis
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 17, 2022 10:05 am

In the settled science field of climate change, how can the answer be “No one knows”?

Reply to  Sunsettommy
August 17, 2022 4:56 am

“The Change in CO2 warm forcing effect at the 400+ ppm level is too small”

The climate change from more CO2 including positive feedbacks is unknown. Therefore, you are speculating. “Too small” to do what? You jump ro a conclusion when the correct answer is “no one knows”. Observations in the past 70 years suggest rising CO2 is not dangerous in any way. That does not mean rising CO2 does nothing.

Last edited 1 month ago by Richard Greene
ATheoK
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 17, 2022 5:44 am

Richard Greene Reply to Sunsettommy

 August 17, 2022 4:56 am

“The Cha…”

At this point this is pure thread bombing.

Julian Flood
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 16, 2022 11:13 pm

Changes in ocean ecology would do it. Breaching a previously isolated oil reservoir would do it. Changes in the amount of dissolved silica would do it.

Using the PETM as a thought experiment is a worthwhile exercise.

JF

mal
Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 16, 2022 4:01 pm

Nick you need arsenic to live, granted it a small amount. Yet without it you die.

Reply to  mal
August 16, 2022 6:41 pm

Speculation:

Trace quantities of arsenic are an essential dietary element in rats, hamsters, goats, chickens, and presumably other species. A role in human metabolism is not known. However, arsenic poisoning occurs in multicellular life if quantities are larger than needed.

Enough with the arsenic analogy already.

Julian Flood
Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 16, 2022 10:44 pm

Nick, when anthropogenic CO2 levels were, according to the IPCC, insufficient to cause a detectable warming pre-1975, there is a very onvious warming from 1910 to 1945. What caused that warming? Is that cause still operating?

JF

Graemethecat
Reply to  Julian Flood
August 16, 2022 11:08 pm

Indeed, and there was cooling from 1940 to 1980, just when CO2 levels were increasing. It’s almost as if CO2 had nothing to do with temperature…

Reply to  Julian Flood
August 17, 2022 2:12 am

“according to the IPCC”
Quote, please. But yes, CO2 was probably a lesser contributor then. As I’ve said many times (with arsenic etc), the fact that adding C to the air causes warming doesn’t mean that nothing else can.

Is that cause still operating?”
Probably not. It seemed to peter out around 1945.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 17, 2022 4:01 am

What was it that petered out? If you don’t know what it was you can’t claim it’s still not operating now.
This is really weak stuff, even for you Nick.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Julian Flood
August 17, 2022 3:59 am

Is that cause still operating?

According to Nick, it just switched itself off and handed the warming over to us.
I’ve presented your exact point to many thermageddonists and they never have a valid answer.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 17, 2022 4:30 am

NS –>

other things can cause warming”

And can you show that those “other things” disappeared and are no longer affecting the “global climate”?



whatlanguageisthis
Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 17, 2022 9:34 am

Isn’t the CAGW argument, using the arsenic analogy, that other things caused people to die (temperature to change) up to 1850, but any increase in deaths (increase/change in temperature) since 1850 is solely the cause of arsenic (CO2)? Does it not zero out all other causes and attribute any variance to a single cause?

The counter argument here is that, yes, there is some human caused inflow of carbon into cycle, but the cycle still continues with all natural processes and those processes do not care what the source is, they continue and incorporate any human caused input the same as they would a natural input. Every time a volcano erupts and adds a large step input to the atmosphere, does the global average move up by the step and stay higher? No, the cycle processes it through. Why would it treat car exhaust differently? How does it know to exclude it from the natural cycle?

Reply to  whatlanguageisthis
August 17, 2022 6:05 pm

“Does it not zero out all other causes and attribute any variance to a single cause?”
No, it doesn’t. Where did you get that from?

Eating arsenic doesn’t cure all your other health problems. You could still catch, say, a norovirus. But your hospital will focus on the arsenic, even though a virus might cause similar symptoms. 

Likewise it has long been foretold that putting CO₂ in the air will cause warming. We did it, and got warming. At first you can’t be sure that it isn’t something else. But if it keeps on…

whatlanguageisthis
Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 18, 2022 1:25 pm

“The key difference between the Bern model and the physics model is the Bern model uses IPCC’s invalid assumption that human CO2 causes all the CO2 increase while the physics model uses IPCC’s e-time of 3.5 years.”

This statement says that all CO2 increase in the atmosphere is due to human activity. That, coupled with the position that CO2 drives the temperature results in the logical conclusion that it is the position of the IPCC and CAGW crowd that all other potential causes of climate change result in a net zero at most, but potentially negative, temperature impact.

I ask again – how does the carbon cycle know to treat human emissions different from natural emissions?

Additionally, someone suggesting long ago that CO2 might drive up the temperature, doesn’t make them correct just because it got warmer. It got warmer and cooler before the CO2 increased. It has varied since it increased. If CO2 was the driver, how has it not been a steady increase? If there are factors that can match CO2, shouldn’t we understand those just as much?

TallDave
Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 17, 2022 9:56 am

no Nick, the problem is that the IPCC simultaneously argues temperature for 11,000 years varied widely despite flat CO2, and that the small .14 degree/decade satellite-era trend is driven entirely by CO2

it’s like arguing that no one was ever killed by arsenic before, but we’re sure you’re dying of arsenic poisoning anyway even though it looks more like a mild flu

Last edited 1 month ago by TallDave
Reply to  Sunsettommy
August 16, 2022 6:12 pm

“CO2 for 11,000 didn’t do diddly squat in generating LARGE warming and cooling”

I assume you meant for the last 11,000 years?
There were no manmade CO2 emissions until the late 1800s, so before then, manmade CO2 emissions and AGW are moot points.

Manmade CO2 is one of many climate change variables. Its exact effect can not be known because that would require knowing the exact effect of every other variable.

It is safe to assume the effect of CO2 emissions has been mild and harmless so far, even if you assume all warming since 1975 was caused by CO2 increases, as a worst case estimate.

My own personal list of climate change variables: (I’m sure other lists will vary)

The following variables are likely to influence Earth’s climate:

1)   Earth’s orbital and       
    orientation variations
 
2)   Changes in ocean circulation
       Including ENSO and others 
 
3)   Solar activity and irradiance,
including clouds, volcanic and manmade aerosols, plus possible effects of cosmic rays and extraterrestrial dust

4)   Greenhouse gas emissions

5)   Land use changes
      (cities growing, logging, crop irrigation, etc.) 

6)    Unknown causes of variations of a
       complex, non-linear system

7)  Unpredictable natural and 
       manmade catastrophes
 
8) Climate measurement errors
    (unintentional or deliberate)

9) Interactions and feedbacks,
     involving two or more variables.

Last edited 1 month ago by Richard Greene
Editor
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 16, 2022 6:48 pm

Yawn you are so far off in understanding what I have been talking about.

Reply to  Sunsettommy
August 16, 2022 6:50 pm

Then you are not communicating clearly
And that is YOUR fault.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Sunsettommy
August 16, 2022 7:17 pm

CO2 stays at 280ppm for 11,000 years, yet the temperatures climb and fall during that time period, so CO2 has little effect on the temperature swings during that time period.

Natural CO2 and human-derived CO2 behave the same way in the Earth’s atmosphere.

I thought it was explained very well.

KevC
Reply to  Tom Abbott
August 17, 2022 1:54 am

to be fair, with CO2 levels remaining at 280ppm for 11,000 years, then any contribution to temperature swings would have been constant, meaning that temperature swings over that time must have been caused by something else. It doesn’t mean that CO2 doesn’t cause a temp change, it just means that whatever effect CO2 has, it was constant. That being said, the BIG question is, what caused the temp changes, if it wasn’t from CO2.

DrDweeb
Reply to  KevC
August 19, 2022 1:38 pm

There are known unknowns and unknown unknowns yet the CAGW “theory” assumes a single partially known is causal in tiny observed temperature changes, despite overwhelming evidence of the previous (and likely current) existence and effects of the known and unknown unknown factors.

It’s all bollocks before we even get into the actual data issues

Dennis G. Sandberg
Reply to  Tom Abbott
August 17, 2022 3:08 pm

Can it really be that simple? Yes, it really is.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 17, 2022 4:45 pm

There were no manmade CO2 emissions until the late 1800s, so before then, manmade CO2 emissions and AGW are moot points.”

Wow! Your arrow just flew completely over the target, missing everything.

Julian Flood
Reply to  Sunsettommy
August 16, 2022 10:36 pm

SunsettTommy, CO2 changes are not alone in causing temperature changes. The most obvious example of non-co2 driven climate forcing (to use a sufficiently scary way of putting it) is the Sea of Marmara which is warming much faster than the models can explain. The Black Sea, Baltic, Lake Tanganyika etc etc also warm in a way that this simple model’s assumption that we have not changed the gas flows through the marine/atmospheric boundary layer fails to address.

The 1910-1945 warming cannot be explained by CO2. I suggest this was a result of pollution. WWII and the Battle of the Atlantic even suggest an answer to Professor Tom Wigley’s question ‘why the blip?’

Balance models provide part of the answer, but are insufficient.

JF

Reply to  Sunsettommy
August 16, 2022 11:47 pm

“You missed the glaring point here since if CO2 for 11,000 didn’t do diddly squat in generating LARGE warming and cooling swings that lasted for hundreds of years at a time.”

The only point is your head.
What happened in the past 11,000 years before the 1900s is irrelevant for determining the effects of manmade CO2 emissions after 1900. You are comparing 100% natural causes of climate change with a relatively new manmade cause of climate change. Your lack of logic is that CO2 emissions did not drive large climate change in the past 11000 years, so manmade CO2 emissions can not drive large climate changes now. You do not define “large” and diddly squat is not a scientific term. Your logic fails.

Macha
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 17, 2022 12:58 am

Warming seems flat despite CO2 growth. Or would it jusy be colder otherwise?

Screenshot_20220719-065354_DuckDuckGo.jpg
Last edited 1 month ago by Macha
TheFinalNail
Reply to  Macha
August 17, 2022 3:25 am

Struggling to follow or replicate this chart. What is it showing? Certainly isn’t the monthly temperature anomalies for the respective periods.

Reply to  Macha
August 17, 2022 3:39 am

Fake plot. Here is HAD4 for that period, via WFT. It has an uptrend of 1.45°C/Century from 2001-2022

comment image

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 17, 2022 5:06 am

Lovely, now let’s compare that to a 1920-1941 (just before our emissions were supposed to make any difference to global temps)
Hmmm… can you spot much of a difference?

20to41.png
Dennis G. Sandberg
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
August 17, 2022 3:11 pm

Andrew, I don’t see where Nick has replied to your posting. Me thinks he can’t.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Dennis G. Sandberg
August 17, 2022 4:39 pm

Yes, I can’t see his reply either.
The mods must have deleted it 😉

Reply to  Sunsettommy
August 17, 2022 9:59 am

 “if CO2 for 11,000 didn’t do diddly squat in generating LARGE warming and cooling swings that lasted for hundreds of years at a time.”

There were no large warming and cooling swings in the past 11,000 years. You are delusional. The Holocene Climate Optimum from 5000 to 9000 years ago, for example, may have a been a degree or two C. warmer than the past decade. Or similar — local climate proxies are never precise. Large warming and cooling swings in the past 11,000 years exist only in your imagination,
Unless you consider a degree C, or two to be “large”.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 16, 2022 3:16 pm

The AGW proposition is that adding a whole lot of new carbon to the air will cause warming.

‘Ceteris paribus’ all else unchanged.
FIFY.

Last edited 1 month ago by Chris Hanley
Reply to  Chris Hanley
August 16, 2022 6:43 pm

CO2 does not cause “warming” directly.
It inhibits Earth’s ability to cool itself by an unknown amount that so far appears to be small and harmless.

b.nice
Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 16, 2022 4:58 pm

“The AGW proposition is that adding a whole lot of new carbon to the air will cause warming”

Relegated to a “proposition” now, is it. ! 🙂

Certainly not backed by any actual real science.

Editor
Reply to  b.nice
August 16, 2022 5:18 pm

What he and other AGW supporters does is IGNORE the rate of energy leaving the planet is greater than the postulated warm forcing effect of CO2 thus can’t drive any warming trend.

Reply to  Sunsettommy
August 16, 2022 6:45 pm

CO2 and other greenhouse gases form a partial barrier between Earth’s surface and the infinite heat sink of space Basic climate science.

Editor
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 16, 2022 9:17 pm

Never disputed CO2 slowing some of the OLWR but you didn’t address the part about total energy is leaving the planet at a greater RATE than CO2 is stopping/slowing down or generating warm forcing.

This means that some other causes of warming is operational.

Reply to  Sunsettommy
August 17, 2022 12:03 am

There are lots of causes of climate change
Manmade CO2 emissions is one of many.
More CO2 has the ability to inhibit Earth cooling itself by some unknown amount. Your claim that the amount is zero is your personal speculation, not science.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 17, 2022 6:24 am

Slowing down cooling *raises* the temperature of the earth AT NIGHT, not during the day. Meaning we should be seeing more radiation from the earth (S-B you know) toward space and we should be seeing minimum temps going up far more than max temps – which would also raise the GAT.

What is the catastrophic event we will see from minimum temps going up but not max temps?

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 17, 2022 6:22 am

Ummmm……

Doesn’t more CO2 in the atmosphere also mean more CO2 and water vapor shedding more energy to space?

Somehow it seems to the CAGW crowd that the energy lost to space never changes because of an increase in GHG’s – meaning all that extra CO2 *must* be radiating solely back toward earth!

I don’t think Planck would agree with that assumption!

Reply to  Sunsettommy
August 17, 2022 12:00 am

Baloney

Mr.
Reply to  b.nice
August 16, 2022 5:20 pm

I prefer “conjecture”.

A “proposition” usually has some believable substance to it.

Even Bernie Madoff knew this.

Reply to  b.nice
August 16, 2022 6:43 pm

Backed by a lot of science.
Mainly in laboratories, but also in the atmosphere.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 17, 2022 2:53 am

So what you are saying is that nature produced all the previous temperature swings, then in 1950 it switched itself off and handed it all over to our CO2 production?
Don’t you realise how stupid this is?

Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
August 17, 2022 3:29 am

Nothing was switched off. Our CO2 production was added, and came to dominate.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 17, 2022 4:57 am

Hmmm…
I went and had a little gander at the HADCRUT trend lines for 1924-1945 ( just before our CO2 emissions were supposed to be having any effect) and 2000-2021 (when our CO2 emissions are supposed to be sending us to hell in a handcart) I’m struggling to see much of a difference. So, if our emissions are currently dominating, how come the trend hasn’t increased? What turned itself off in 1945?
NB Please excuse my efforts to visually match-up the graph scales – I’ve done my best!

Trend compare.png
Last edited 1 month ago by Andrew Wilkins
Editor
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
August 17, 2022 9:45 am

DR. Jones made a similar observation 12 years ago,

BBC

A – Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?

An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I’ve assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.

Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).

I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.

So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

Here are the trends and significances for each period:

Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

Macha
Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 17, 2022 7:29 am

And yet it doesn’t dominate.

Screenshot_20220622-092022_Drive.jpg
ATheoK
Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 17, 2022 5:24 am

The AGW proposition is that adding a whole lot of new carbon to the air will cause warming”.

😂 🤣 😂 🤣 😂 🤣

Nick’s strawman ==> “It doesn’t say that all past warming was caused by adding new carbon to the air. Which it obviously wasn’t; until we started digging, there was no new source at all. Now there is.

b.nice
Reply to  Sunsettommy
August 16, 2022 4:57 pm

I like the Vostok graph.

They clearly show that every time CO2 was at a peak, global COOLING followed. !

Reply to  b.nice
August 16, 2022 6:47 pm

Atmospheric (and ocean) CO2 level changes, although not very large in the ice core proxies, were a result of relatively large changes to ocean temperatures from 100% natural causes.

Reply to  Sunsettommy
August 16, 2022 6:01 pm

You are an “editor” here?
You are conflating natural causes of climate change
with manmade causes of climate change.
They can happen at the same time but are different
AGW has nothing to do with natural causes of climate change. That’s why they are called AGW.
You weren’t joking, were you?
Apparently basic knowledge of climate science is not required to be an “Editor” here.

Last edited 1 month ago by Richard Greene
Editor
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 16, 2022 6:21 pm

You sure missed a lot of postings starting with post ONE where Nick shows an 1,800 yearlong flat CO2 level at the 280 ppm level which I then responded in the very next post by showing a 11,000 yearlong CO2 flat level while temperature swings were large and regular showing that CO2 couldn’t have caused any of it because it stayed around the 260-280 pmm level for 11,000 years.

I never once claimed that AGW controls or cause NATURAL climate to change I keep pointing out this in several subsequent posts such as this one:

You missed the glaring point here since if CO2 for 11,000 didn’t do diddly squat in generating LARGE warming and cooling swings that lasted for hundreds of years at a time.

Then it doesn’t have a demonstrated power to cause any large temperature swings since it HAPPENED without CO2 for 11,000 years which means SOMETHING else caused it and it is still operating today and has been for hundreds of million years into the past.

CO2 has NEVER been shown to be the main driver of temperature changes because its postulated warm forcing power is too small and way too small at the standard doubling rate from 1750 which is negligible AGW conjecture is utter nonsense when it comes to being a driver of temperature change.

You need to catch up.

Reply to  Sunsettommy
August 16, 2022 6:58 pm

I have caught up long ago
You need to learn BASIC CLIMATE SCIENCE.
And logic.
You keep bloviating about the past 11000 years where causes of climate change were 100% natural for close to
99% of the period. Then you claim those years prove something about manmade CO2 in the past 100+ years. That is ridiculous.

You claim manmade CO2 is not the main driver of climate changes. That is your speculation. We only know that manmade CO2 caused from 0% to 100% of the global warming since 1975.

We do not know if CO2 CAUSED OVER 50% OF THE WARMING SINCE 1975, OR NOT. NO ONE KNOWS THE CORRECT PERCENTAGE. Which means that YOU don’t know. But you pretend to know.

Last edited 1 month ago by Richard Greene
Editor
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 16, 2022 7:25 pm

Bwahahahahahahaha!!!

Never have I made that claim now you are simply LYING since all I was pointing out during those 11,000 years while CO2 rested around the 280 ppm level there were repeated large temperature swings, it is a fact you can’t dispute, which means CO is doing little in all that time.

You write:

That is your speculation. We only know that manmade CO2 caused from 0% to 100% of the global warming since 1975.

Between 0% to 100%?

Was that speculation or a wild guess…..

Haw haw haw haw haw haw…. you don’t have the answer either.

You write:

We do not know if CO2 CAUSED OVER 50% OF THE WARMING SINCE 1975, OR NOT. NO ONE KNOWS THE CORRECT PERCENTAGE. Which means that YOU don’t know. But you pretend to know.

Then you don’t really know how much is natural or anthropogenic I never claimed to know how much either I repeatedly stated CO2 is NOT a climate driver which no one here has been able to address at all.

How come no one here has yet to address what I said early on that CO2 at the 430 ppm level doesn’t generate enough warm forcing rate to counter the greater rate of energy leaving the planet?

Reply to  Sunsettommy
August 17, 2022 12:05 am

Over one dozen comments and you are still explaining yourself. Learn to communicate clearly in plain English.

ATheoK
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 17, 2022 6:14 am

Pure projection.

DrDweeb
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 19, 2022 1:50 pm

“I know nothing” – Sgt. Shultz

Reply to  Sunsettommy
August 17, 2022 9:54 am

 “CO2 doesn’t drive large temperature swings up and down during the last 11,000 years at all.”

There were no large temperature swings up and down during the past 11,000 years and the changes of CO2 were small. If there were no large temperature swings in those 11,000 years, then we have no information available in those years on CO2 and large temperature swings. You fascination with the past 11,000 years makes absolutely no sense.

Editor
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 17, 2022 9:58 am

I posted the link at post TWO that you clearly never read where it shows those large temperature swings in the 11,000 years 100% supported by fully available data.

Mr.
Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 16, 2022 2:36 pm

Nick, as we all know, we can find correlations in just about any developments when we have a dog in the fight.

Not being an academic numbers man as you are, I’m nonplussed however about the proposition that when Nature twigged to the manmade creation of steam to power industry, Nature up and said to They-self :

“Well, if they’re going to start competing with me for CO2 production, that’s it – I’m done.
Bugger you all, mankind, make your own CO2 from now on.
And don’t go mixing up any of your shit with mine.”

dk_
Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 16, 2022 2:49 pm

This IPCC claim violates IPCC’s own data-based e-time and ignores that human and natural CO2 molecules are identical, and therefore their e-times are identical.”

So, the opposite of a good assumption.

Reply to  dk_
August 17, 2022 5:23 am

The residence times are exactly the same for natural and human emitted CO2, but residence time (about 4 years) and e-time (about 50 years) are different things, which are conflated by Dr. Berry (and even the IPCC…).

The residence time is how much CO2 is exchanged over a year between the different reservoirs (air, oceans, vegetation), that doesn’t change the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere at all.
The e=fold time is how long it takes to remove an extra amount of CO2 when added above the equilibrium (about 295 ppmv for the current ocean surface temperature)…

HotScot
Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 16, 2022 3:15 pm

Isn’t there a statement somewhere that refers to correlation and causality?

I’ll forgo the obvious temptation to refer to the correlation between the number of kitchen aprons bought and the erosion of the space time continuum.

I’ll also refrain from referring to the life expectancy increase/child mortality decline/poverty decline/increased food etc. since 1750 or so which saw the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.

I’ll even not expand on humanity surviving a hitherto unrecognised global pandemic with the extraordinary survival rate of some 99.8% which wouldn’t have happened without modern, fossil fuel derived drugs and technology.

I can’t expand on the greening of the planet, because it is happening, nor that the IPCC don’t consider ‘extreme weather’ a threat, as it just ain’t happening.

I could go on but it’s seriously depressing discussing anything with someone obsessed with science.

Go into your garden Nick, or go to the beach, and tell me what’s changed from 50 years ago, other than plants are flourishing with the small CO2 increase we have had.

Science is about observation. That means looking at the world around you, not graphs and numbers, they are not science because science is not in the predictions game. No theory, no matter how good, can be demonstrated as sound until the event has passed.

Was it Feynman who said “An hypothesis is a guess, a theory is an educated guess”? (paraphrasing).

Smell the flowers Nick. You’ll learn far more than from fiddling with predictive numbers in an Excel spreadsheet, it’s not real life.

And then there’s this. the relationship between atmospheric CO2 and temperatures, as an illustrative overlay.

19-899b452276.jpg
TheFinalNail
Reply to  HotScot
August 16, 2022 4:02 pm

Amazing how you can change the look of a chart just by messing around with the y-axis max and min values, isn’t it?

According to Excel, the correlation coefficient for annual UAH LT and ML CO2 is +0.77, which for a sample size of 43 is very strong.

UAH vrs CO2.JPG
HotScot
Reply to  TheFinalNail
August 16, 2022 5:32 pm

Amazing how you can change the look of a chart just by messing around with the y-axis max and min values, isn’t it?

LOL, yes truly amazing, as you have ably illustrated.

“According to Excel” 🤣 🤣 🤣

Who is this bloke “Excel” anyway? Attributions, papers, studies? Please enlighten us.

F’kn Richard head. Buzz off back to skeptikalscience and wallow in your ignorance.

TheFinalNail
Reply to  HotScot
August 17, 2022 3:28 am

I would say Excel, or similar, was the medium used to make the chart you initially posted. Maybe you just drew it by hand, based on your ‘observations of the world around you’?

HotScot
Reply to  TheFinalNail
August 17, 2022 3:21 pm

Judging by science today, my hand drawing is sufficient.

HotScot
Reply to  TheFinalNail
August 16, 2022 5:39 pm

On what basis?

Riiiighhhhtttt You caught a graph representing UHI influenced surface temperatures, which don’t represent most of the world, nor the oceans.

In other words, what you have shown in your natty little graph is grossly inaccurate BS.

pages-from-christyjr_epa_2014_publiccomment 2.jpg
TheFinalNail
Reply to  HotScot
August 17, 2022 3:32 am

It’s a simple representation of global annual UAH_TLT and ML_CO2 over their common period of observation.

Same as what you posted, only without manipulating the y-axes to minimise the obvious correlation between the two (oh, and using data that isn’t 3-years out of date).

HotScot
Reply to  TheFinalNail
August 17, 2022 3:22 pm

Three years out of date. LOL

Like anything has changed in those three years.

Utterly pathetic, don’t waste my time.

Reply to  TheFinalNail
August 16, 2022 7:15 pm

That’s a dishonest chart
It makes 1 degree C. appear to be a huge change when in fact, humans would have trouble noticing +1 degree c.

There are honest charts at the following link.
I call my climate science and energy blog “The Honest Global w Warming Chart Blog”. I celebrated 333,000 page views today:

Honest global warming chart Blog: This blog home page temperature chart is not visible on the smart phone version of this blog + two more honest charts (elonionbloggle.blogspot.com)

Reply to  Richard Greene
August 16, 2022 7:34 pm

“It makes 1 degree C. appear to be a huge change when in fact, humans would have trouble noticing +1 degree c”

They won’t notice it where UAH measures, unless they sit on the wings of a plane.

But they won’t notice a 100 ppm rise in CO2 either. So how do you think the scales should relate?

Mr.
Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 16, 2022 8:44 pm

Are you really saying that all these graphs and other such constructs are really irrelevant junk, Nick?

I concur doctor (as the medicos would say).

Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 17, 2022 12:11 am

I did not expect you to like my charts and that confirms they are useful.

UAH measures in a consistent environment where the greenhouse effect occurs.

Very little infilling is required.

The scientists involved are not financed by the government and appear to be unbiased,

They have never made a huge arbitrary revision such as deleting almost all the global cooling in the 1940 to 1975 period as originally t reported in 1975.

They do not present haphazard pre-1900 measurements as global when in fact they are very rough measurements almost entirely of the Northern Hemisphere.

They do not present bucket and thermometer sea temperature measurements, primarily in Northern Hemisphere sea lanes, as accurate global average sea surface temperatures.

TheFinalNail
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 17, 2022 3:44 am

They have never made a huge arbitrary revision such as deleting almost all the global cooling in the 1940 to 1975 period as originally t reported in 1975.

The trend revision between version UAH_TLT5.6 to version 6.0 resulted in a far bigger trend change than any that came from the various surface data version updates.

RSS isn’t funded by the government either and gets starkly different (warmer) results from the same satellite data used by UAH.

UAH still shows statistically significant warming over the course of its data.

Last edited 1 month ago by TheFinalNail
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 17, 2022 9:16 am

They have on several occasions had to make corrections to the errors that they have made.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 17, 2022 3:43 pm

*Everyone* is noticing the CO2 impacts! It has caused significant greening of the earth. Lot’s of papers on that impact. More and more papers are noticing the almost constant record growth in levels of grain harvests every year. More and more papers from agricultural scientists are noticing the increased growing season length due to higher minimum temperatures.

Freeman Dyson stated the climate models were useless because they were not holistic and didn’t account for the minuses *and* pluses from CO2 growth. Fewer and fewer people are dying from cold and starvation every year – at least partially due to minimum temps going up.

How do the climate models account for this?

TheFinalNail
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 17, 2022 3:37 am

That’s a dishonest chart. It makes 1 degree C. appear to be a huge change when in fact, humans would have trouble noticing +1 degree c.

As Nick points out above, it is necessary to use a secondary axis when comparing data series with such widely fluctuating values. It is also legitimate, so long as the secondary axis is shown. Hot Scot did this also in his initial post (though he used out of date data and increased the max/min values on the UAH series to flatten it out as far as possible). Unfortunately this somehow escaped your skeptical eye.

ATheoK
Reply to  TheFinalNail
August 17, 2022 6:19 am

Specious correlation.

Might as well be correlations to toilet flushes, or bumble bee flights, sales of brooms, whatever.

Correlation without causation is a fantasy graph.

Dave Fair
Reply to  TheFinalNail
August 17, 2022 5:46 pm

What effect does the ending Super El Niño have on the correlation of LT temperatures with CO2 concentrations?

Macha
Reply to  HotScot
August 16, 2022 4:26 pm

My favourite.

Screenshot_20220719-065527_DuckDuckGo.jpg
HotScot
Reply to  Macha
August 16, 2022 5:40 pm

👍

Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 16, 2022 4:23 pm

And where is the analysis that the CO2 is LOCKED in the ICE and not escaping. To believe this is show that you are not using your brain. It is a known fact that Freon leaks out of hermetically sealed refrigeration systems that have all joints brazed or welded. Same is true for many other gases. Look at the molecular structure of CLEAR Ice and compared it to that of ice collected from these “Ice Cores” They are almost gray, numerous impurities, periods of freezing and thawing as this old ice formed. The Ice in these cores have been subjected to flowing and compression from the kilometers of ice on top of it. This pressure of compressing and flowing is also going to change the structure.
I have tested 1/4 inch thick stainless steel cylinders at ten times the design storage pressure with air to confirm they hold test pressure for 24 hours. Yet this same cylinder will show a loss of pressure at the design pressure after just a few months. I have no doubt that after a few hundred or thousand years these cylinders would probably be near empty. Definitely after a few hundred thousand years.

Reply to  Richard Lentz
August 16, 2022 5:32 pm

If CO₂ is escaping, then how would it happen that over huge lengths of core, and over many cores drilled in many places, the CO₂ in bubbles just happened to be 280 ppm.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 16, 2022 5:47 pm

MISINFORMATION
Citations for graphs showing that.
Many graphs show values ranging from 0 to over 1000. WHY?

Last edited 1 month ago by usurbrain
Reply to  Richard Lentz
August 17, 2022 5:33 am

Citations?

antarctic_cores_010kyr.jpg
Reply to  Richard Lentz
August 17, 2022 5:32 am

Richard,

Nick is right in this: you can’t measure 280 ppmv after one or more years of relaxation of the ice in pits after drilling when the surroundings are above 350 ppmv, if there was any connection with the atmosphere at all.

Melt layers are quite seldom: in coastal ice (average -23 C) one such layer in 70 years (Siple Dome), none in Law Dome (-22 C) and none in Vostok or Dome C (-40 C).

As there is no pressure difference between the air bubbles in the ice (about 10% of total volume) after relaxation, there is no driving force to push air with CO2 out of the ice, or reverse…

Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
August 17, 2022 10:20 am

@Ferdinand Engelbeen

Please Explain to me how snowflakes along with the surrounding air can be compressed into rock hard ice with a pressure of the weight of several kilometers/miles of ice and snow on top of it would remain at “Atmospheric Pressure”?
The pressure would be ~30,000 Psi for just 2 Kilometers/1 mile would also be at ~30,000 PSI and the pressure of the air inside it not increase to at lease 30,000 PSI? Then when the ice core is removed, refrigerated and stored as a 6 or 8 inch diameter ice cylinder that the air would not leak out. The advanced, Graduate Level, physics and engineering courses I took to get a degree in Nuclear Engineering tell me that it is just not possible. Keep in mind every one of those little bubbles giving the ice a milky color will be at 30,000 +++ PSI. Keep in mind that Ice in a glacier. like glass, actually a liquid. That is how it flows down the valleys.

Reply to  Richard Lentz
August 17, 2022 2:14 pm

Richard, below a certain depth, there are not even air bubbles left: all CO2, N2, O2 are pressed into clathrates…

Then, I said “after relaxation”. When the ice cores are drilled, they are put in a pit for at least a year at below -20 C. During that year the ice expands and the total volume may double. From that moment on, inside and outside air pressure should not differ that much.

Even if part of the air would leak out, that doesn’t explain that CO2 would get out preferentially, to lower the CO2/air ratio below what is in the atmosphere. To the contrary: the affinity of CO2 to the ice surface is a lot higher than for N2 or O2. When measuring CO2 under vacuum, one would see much higher CO2 levels, not lower if that was a real problem.

Moreover, CO2 levels of ice cores with enormous differences in accumulation (thus differences in depth/pressure for the same average gas age) show the same CO2 levels within +/- 5 ppmv.

Further, ice cores are repeatedly reused when new techniques are available or other gases/isotopes need to be measured. Sometimes with many years in between. They show the same CO2 levels as in the first runs…

Renee
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
August 17, 2022 2:55 pm

Moreover, CO2 levels of ice cores with enormous differences in accumulation (thus differences in depth/pressure for the same average gas age) show the same CO2 levels within +/- 5 ppmv.
Ferdinand,
The CO2 measurements between Antarctic ice cores with different accumulation rates can be up to 20 ppm. Low accumulation sites in reds, orange, and high accumulation sites in blues, greens shown in the attached plot.

C9E0334A-1957-461C-913D-1A005AA5697D.jpeg
Last edited 1 month ago by Renee
Reply to  Renee
August 17, 2022 11:14 pm

Okay, 20 ppmv then…

It seems that especially Siple Dome has a lot of outliers, it is also the one with some reported melt layers (1 in 70 years) and drilling fluid problems (both reported by Neftel).

Anyway, far less variability than the recent 120 ppmv increase accompanied with a enormous drop in δ13C of nowadays 1.8 per mil, compared to a few tenths of a per mil over the past 800,000 years even during glacial-interglacial transitions…

Renee
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
August 18, 2022 12:22 pm

The 120 ppm increase is not comparable to ice core CO2 values unless you apply Fick’s law of diffusion as you well know. Diffusion will also alter the associated δ13C value. The highest CO2 value that I can find documented in ice cores not within the firn diffusion zone is 330 ppm in Law Dome. That suggest only an increase of 50 ppm documented in ice cores above a 280 ppm baseline.

Reply to  Renee
August 20, 2022 1:18 am

Renee,

The youngest ice of Law Dome was from around 1980, thus indeed not 120 ppmv, but there is a 20 year overlap between the ice core measurements and the direct measurements at the South Pole, which is within the accuracy of both measurements…

law_dome_sp_co2.jpg
Reply to  Richard Lentz
August 18, 2022 6:14 am

In your cylinders the pressure is much higher than outside so the gas would tend to flow to the outside. In the case of air frozen in ice any air remaining will have the same composition as it had when trapped, if it escaped there would be no air to analyze! Because of the pressure differential air would not diffuse into the ice.

Reply to  Phil.
August 18, 2022 8:26 am

Phill

any air remaining will have the same composition as it had when trapped, “

That assumes that Oxygen just sits there, dormant, for tens of thousands of years, and does not oxidize anything around it, including all of the common contaminants in the air and thus in the snowfall that will be trapped in those bubbles. Oxygen + moisture + a long list of other chemicals = oxides of those chemicals. Many of those chemicals are reactive with O2, Dust from the Sahara Desert provides most of the iron found in the Atlantic Ocean, How many other chemicals are in those bubbles, or in the water vapor that made the snow flakes? Many other chemicals in the air.
More than fifty years ago I got tired of cleaning the silver set my mother gave me [fifty years ago] and placed them in vacuum seal bags. They no longer turn black, but they still need shined. Even the ones in bags I have never opened.

Reply to  Phil.
August 18, 2022 9:11 am

There is also the problem of ignoring the effects of bacteria. Assuming there is none is a mistake.

Bacteria, like animals, grows and evolves, and it can actually evolve much, much faster. It’s possible for bacteria to evolve to a completely new type of itself within a matter of days. So, scientists probably had a field day when they discovered bacteria specimens in some of the oldest ice that’s known to exist on Earth. They dated the samples all the way back to 8 million years ago. That’s way older than anything else we’ve come across so far!”

Reply to  Richard Lentz
August 20, 2022 1:44 am

Richard,

Dust is a problem in Greenland ice cores, because you have both sea salts (carbonates) and frequent highly acid dusts from nearby Icelandic volcanoes. That can give in-situ CO2 production, even during measurements with the old wet methods.

Antarctic ice has far less dust problems and mostly within the coldest part of glacial periods, when there is hardly any rain or other precipitation to rain out the dust.
The composition of the dust was traced back to places in the south of South America.

That doesn’t hinder the CO2 levels there so much, because the dust is not strongly acidic.

I haven’t seen any findings of the effect from/to O2 for other dust constituents, but as most are already oxidized, I don’t expect much effect.

The effect of bacteria was investigated in different ice cores and highly depends of temperature.
At -40°C (Vostok, Dome C), the only bacteria that survive restrict themselves to DNA damage repair. For the carbon source, they use CO2, with a special cycle and that is used in a fixed ratio to the production of N2O, which provides the necessary energy out of the oxidation of NH3. Even if all N2O was from that mechanism, then not more than 1 ppmv CO2 was used as worst case.

Even so, when reaching the bottom at Lake Vostok (0°C), these bacteria can get alive and multiplicate again.
Very interesting stuff how life can survive even the most harsh environment…

See: https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.0400522101
Chapter K for Vostok.

Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
August 20, 2022 8:50 am

Thanks for the information explaining that an accurate analysis of the factors with a potential to contaminate the measurements are being considered.
My 50 + years in engineering has shown me that many “Scientists”, “Engineers” have not been well trained in the sciences outside of their field of expertise, my self included. We have “Climate Scientists” that calculate the annual predicted “Global” temperature for the next 100 years that can not predict where the jet streams are, are going to be for one week or their effect on the daily global temperature and don’t even incorporate the massive effect that these jet streams have on their mythical prognostications.
And the Global temperature still has not varied as much as the temperature in my house [with heating and AC in operation] over the last 50 years. 70 to 74 while set at 72! Last twenty five years with Heat-pump rated insulation and windows.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Richard Lentz
August 20, 2022 2:02 pm

Bravo!

paul
Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 16, 2022 5:09 pm

assumption ? Is that like a guess ?

HotScot
Reply to  paul
August 16, 2022 5:41 pm

👍

Tom Abbott
Reply to  paul
August 16, 2022 7:28 pm

Yes, an assumption is just like a guess.

That’s what alarmist climate science is made of: a lot of guesses and nothing more.

ATheoK
Reply to  paul
August 17, 2022 6:32 am

Assumptions are guesses!
Explicitly, they are SWAG, scientific wild-ass guess! All the validity of crystal ball gazing or rectal plumbing for answers.

John in NZ
Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 16, 2022 10:43 pm

The person who made that graph should be in prison for crimes against the scientific method.

It is not ok to mix low resolution data like ice core data with high resolution data like the Mauna loa data.

The data points from the ice core data are 100 years apart.

The mauna loa data points are 1 month apart.

Anybody who uses this graph is either thring to decieve, or is ignorant.

John in NZ
Reply to  John in NZ
August 16, 2022 10:44 pm

oops.

trying

Reply to  John in NZ
August 16, 2022 11:12 pm

The data points from the ice core data are 100 years apart.”

No, they aren’t. This is Law Dome data, going back just 1000 years. Resolution is about 20 years.

But the main thing is that in the ice core section, there is very little variation.

Reply to  John in NZ
August 17, 2022 1:22 am

John, the resolution of two ice cores at Law Dome is even only 8 years and have an overlap (1960-1980) with direct measurements in the atmosphere at the South Pole.

Anyway, all ice cores show similar values over the past 10,000 years, no matter their resolution and the highest resolution ones show an enormous growth after 1850:

antarctic_cores_010kyr.jpg
Last edited 1 month ago by Ferdinand Engelbeen
Renee
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
August 17, 2022 3:07 pm

Ferdinand,
One should take into account whether CO2 measurements are from the modern atmosphere, Firn diffusion zone, or sealed in ice below the bubble zone. Any data above the bubble zone is in contact or diffused with present day CO2. The bubble zone represents the first impermeable barrier from the current atmosphere.

F2D9586D-E01A-4734-8DFE-209C46C1D4D2.jpeg
Editor
August 16, 2022 2:20 pm

“As of 2020, natural CO2 has added about 100 ppm, and human CO2 only 33 ppm, to IPCC’s CO2 level of 280 ppm in 1750.”

If correct, then the doubling of the human CO2 emissions of the 33ppm into the long future makes it irrelevant for the warming rate thus their entire AGW modeled edifice crashes into a smoldering ruin.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Sunsettommy
August 16, 2022 3:10 pm

True inference, but I don’t think the statement is factually correct. Proof below.

Editor
Reply to  Rud Istvan
August 16, 2022 3:34 pm

I was making a simple observation of his claim, but I have a problem with CO2 levels being essentially flat for thousands of years during the Holocene which at this point in time badly hurts the AGW narrative where increasing CO2 is suddenly a warm forcing driver today but was a ZERO forcing driver for 11.000 years it is a problem no one seems to bother about it doesn’t make any sense at all was CO2 taking a long vacation for thousands of years?

If Earth can have large temperature swings for hundreds of years at a time with near ZERO CO2 change in the atmosphere in all that time, then that same force of change MUST still be here today, yet AGW supporters are IGNORING it which means their approach to this problem is already wrong as they focus on CO2 as their superman molecule doing all the heating which is utterly impossible as the RATE of energy leaving the planet is far greater than the postulated warm forcing of CO2 produces.

Mr. Berry’s claim may indeed be silly but so is the AGW conjecture since CO2 as a molecule has way too small a warm forcing effect to materially affect the heat budget enough to drive climate change and overcome the clearly powerful ability of the forces of NATURE which was able to generate all those large temperature swings of the last 11,000 years without CO’s help.

Where is the freaking “hot spot”?

Last edited 1 month ago by Sunsettommy
Burl Henry
Reply to  Sunsettommy
August 16, 2022 5:09 pm

Sunsettommy:

“then that same source of change MUST still be here today”

YES, and it is simply the amount of reflective SO2 aerosols circulating in our atmosphere of volcanic origin, up until the start of the industrial revolution, when industrial SO2 aerosols,from the burning of fossil fuels also entered our atmosphere, with the same effect, eventually rising to 136 Megatons in 1979.

The less SO2 there is in our atmosphere, the warmer it will get. It began warming in the 1980’s because of “Clean Air” efforts that reduced industrial SO2 aerosol emissions, and current net-zero efforts will drive temperatures even higher!

The included image shows present global SO2 aerosol levels. During the MWP, the image would have been entirely white, except during the few years of a rare volcanic eruption.

Fluid Feb 2022.png
August 16, 2022 2:24 pm

“the composition of today’s atmospheric CO2 is about 5% human and 95% natural.”
Those are the words of an imbecile
This is an article by a crackpot
Why would it be on the WUWT website?
Was Charles Rotten bribed?
Is he drunk?

This is alt-science conspiracy theory tin hat non-science
Makes NickTheStroker look like a genius
And that’s not good.
The atmospheric CO2 level is up about +50% since 1850.
The increase was entirely manmade
Manmade CO2 emissions were far more than necessary to increase atmospheric CO2 +50%, from an estimated 280ppm in the 1800s to about 420ppm now. Nature is a net absorber of some of the manmade CO2 emissions. That means nature does not add CO2 to the atmosphere.

I have read that Berry was a real scientist at one point in his life.
HE MUST HAVE HAD A BAD ACID TRIP OR A HEAD INJURY.
HE IS NOW A SCIENCE FRAUD.

Editor
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 16, 2022 2:31 pm

You sure are angry maybe you have a reason but so far you haven’t shown that he is wrong at all while Nick at least makes an argument that he is wrong.

A lot of personal attacks of this level hurts you who could do better than this because you first have to SHOW why you believe he is an “__________” and “_________” and so on.

If he is very wrong, it should be easy for you to make a case against it.

Reply to  Sunsettommy
August 16, 2022 7:24 pm

The very few people who REJECT all conventional climate science have to prove THEY are right. That is how science works. I do not have to prove a negative.

The alt-science folks like Berry are up against at least 99.5% of all scientists in the world. Possibly 99.9%. And that includes our best “climate skeptic” scientists. I’ve only read one scientist who makes claims like Berry does in 25 years of climate science reading — and that is Berry himself.

You are right that I am angry.
We climate realists are losing the CAGW propaganda war
Now the Climate Howlers are after our electric grids.
And they want to force electric cars on us

Science frauds like Berry do get some fans, and those fans become counterproductive in the effort to refute CAGW scaremongering. They make climate realists into laughingstocks, by rejecting 100% of basic climate science. Not 90%. Not 95%. But 100%.

Last edited 1 month ago by Richard Greene
Editor
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 16, 2022 7:31 pm

I agree that Barry isn’t helping with his unproductive claims since it doesn’t matter what produced it is how much of the CO2 warm forcing increase there is and it is small which is good because that in itself isn’t a concern, it is the loopy positive feedback loop proposal that is supposed to drive the CAWG stupidity never mind that it doesn’t exist outside of 30 years old climate models is what warmist/alarmist scientists and the IPCC is pushing.

The Satellite data and Radio sone data isn’t showing it developing and neither is the hot spot showing up this after 30 years of looking.

Mr.
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 16, 2022 8:52 pm

up against at least 99.5% of all scientists in the world. Possibly 99.9%.

Wow!

I don’t think even gravity has 99.9% of ALL scientists in the world claiming to know exactly how it works.

But you must obviously be a “settled science” acolyte.

Reply to  Mr.
August 17, 2022 12:17 am

Settled science is not something I favor
Science is never settled
That does not mean climate scientists are 100% wrong !

HotScot
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 16, 2022 3:30 pm

Those are the words of an imbecile

This is an article by a crackpot

LOL…..But your crackpot theories are just fine Richard. And let’s face it mate, most climate theories are crackpot, on both sides.

Whilst I enjoy many of your post’s both here and on Manhattan Contrarian, you are at least as bad as the climate alarmists when it comes to atmospheric CO2 content. They simply will not deviate from their position no matter what any scientific evidence tells them, and nor will you.

And you imagine that making up ‘clever’, ‘novel’ insulting names for anyone who dares disagree with you bolsters your scientific credibility. That’s incredibly juvenile.

Children get frustrated and scream and shout, adults work their way through a problem with humility.

Take a look around mate. You are not ‘right’, none of us are ‘right’ , we are all just guessing and science is now a weapon.

That will be the death of science. You are not helping.

Barry Malcolm
Reply to  HotScot
August 16, 2022 5:40 pm

Well said HotScot. HotScot? Isn’t that a contradiction of terms? Just kidding, I’m told I’m descended from Scottish kings. Not a boast! Hahaha!

HotScot
Reply to  Barry Malcolm
August 16, 2022 5:45 pm

Try wearing The Kilt. You’ll know then what HotScot means.

Nor is my title self chosen. More than one or two ladies coined the term. Many years ago though.

I’m a reformed man. 😉

Barry Malcolm
Reply to  HotScot
August 16, 2022 6:21 pm

How many birds can fit under a kilt? Depends on the length of the perch.

Redge
Reply to  HotScot
August 16, 2022 11:28 pm

Woman: “What’s worn under the kilt?”

Hotscot: “Nothing, madam, it’s all in first-class working order, put your hand up and see for yourself.”

Woman: “Eww, it’s gruesome!”

Hotscot: “{ut your hand up again, it’ll grue some more”

😉

Streetcred
Reply to  Barry Malcolm
August 16, 2022 9:42 pm

Descended from Scottish kings ? Only if you have a chip on both shoulders 🙂

Redge
Reply to  Barry Malcolm
August 16, 2022 11:30 pm

We are all descended from Scottish and English kings and peasants, it’s simple maths

Reply to  HotScot
August 16, 2022 7:35 pm

Thanks for the character attack on me to complain about my character attacks on Berry.

Here are my high level beliefs on climate science, based on 25 years of reading, so no one can make false claims of what I believe in:

I favor more CO2 in the atmosphere to green the planet, providing more food for humans and animals.

If added CO2 causes global warming, it will be less warming than the previous addition of CO2 — the next +100ppm will have less of an effect than the prior +100ppm of CO2. And the prior +100ppm of CO2 was already harmless.

The global warming since the 1970s was mainly in colder climates of the Northern Hemisphere, mainly in the coldest six months of the year, and mainly at night (TMIN). That was good news. Unless you object to warmer winter nights in Siberia

Here in SE Michigan, we love global warming since the 1970s and want a lot more. I assume my plants would prefer a lot more CO2 also.

If there is anything specific I wrote (above) that you object to, please be precise in stating what it was.

Last edited 1 month ago by Richard Greene
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 16, 2022 4:34 pm

Ed Berry’s claims are wrong, but, Richard, your manners are worse. There’s no call for that. I’d much rather have lunch with a completely confused gentleman than with someone who behaves like a jerk to that same gentleman, regardless of who’s the smarter of the two.

Reply to  Dave Burton
August 16, 2022 7:40 pm

Eb Berry deserves ridicule because he has some die-hard believers who need to be shocked out of their alt-science hypnosis. It is not productive to be polite to a science fraud. I treat rapid Climate Howlers the same way. As they call me (us) “science deniers”. Because that strategy works. You ridicule people who makes ridiculous claims because they deserve ridicule. They are usually (obviously) leftists. Berry may be a rare exception

Reply to  Richard Greene
August 17, 2022 12:02 am

Richard, even if I concede that some people deserve ridicule, that doesn’t mean we should engage in it. To have the right to do something does not mean that it is right to do it.

I recommend tempering justice with mercy. I, for one, am grateful that I do not always get what I deserve. If everyone always got what they deserve, this world would be an even harsher place than it is now.

Reply to  Richard Greene
August 16, 2022 6:24 pm

Dear Richard,

You disagree with the conclusion of my argument without finding any error in my argument. That is not logical.

My whole argument is as follows:

“IPCC’s data show the inflow of human CO2 into the atmosphere is about 5% of the total CO2 inflow and natural CO2 is about 95%.

“Since human and natural CO2 molecules are identical, their e-times are identical.

“Therefore, to the first approximation, the composition of today’s atmospheric CO2 is about 5% human and 95% natural.”

Is there something about my two preceding sentences that require this conclusion that you do not understand?

Ed

Reply to  Ed Berry
August 16, 2022 7:48 pm

IPCC claims about 33% of total CO2 got into the atmosphere by manmade fossil fuel emissions. Those emissions account for more than +140ppm — nature has absorbes some of the extra manmade CO2. Where did those manmade CO2 emissions go,if not into the atmosphere? TO THE MOON?

The IPCC is correct about that subject. You are wrong at 5% — not even close to reality in the neighborhood of 33%. And you are even misinterpreting the IPCC claims. They are talking about total CO2 content in the atmosphere and how it increased from about 280ppm to about 420 ppm. If you can’t get that basic climate science right, then you can not be taken seriously on any subject related to climate science. It’s you against the world. The world is winning.

Last edited 1 month ago by Richard Greene
Reply to  Ed Berry
August 17, 2022 1:37 am

Deart Ed,

We have been there before, already a few years ago…

The essential error you made is that you forgot that a mass balance has two sides: income and expenses. You did the math of the income, but forgot the expenses…

Indeed humans add only 5% of the income, but have zero contribution to the outlets (as mass, not as % of the original molecules).
In 5%, increase in the atmosphere 2.5%, that means that the natural flows have a negative balance of 2.5% more out than in.

That also means that humans are responsible for (near) 100% of the increase in mass, even if most of the original human CO2 molecules now reside in oceans and vegetation…

temp_emiss_increase.jpg
ATheoK
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
August 17, 2022 7:05 am

Fantasy estimates, as usual.

Reply to  ATheoK
August 17, 2022 7:58 am

ATheoK

Fantasy?

For the past years (even including the Covid drop):

Human emissions: 4.5 ppmv/year, based on sales (taxes!) and burning efficiency.
Increase in the atmosphere: 2.25 ppmv/year, based on accurate measurements at Mauna Loa and many other stations.

Both have error bands which are much smaller than the measurements.

So what do we know and what not?

For the mass balance:

atmospheric increase = human emissions + natural ins – natural outs
2.25 ppmv/year = 4.5 ppmv/year + X – Y
X = Y – 2.25

No matter what X and Y are.

If X = 10 ppmv/year, Y = 12.25 ppmv/year
Human emissions then are 30% of the inputs.
Residence time = 29 years

If X = 100 ppmv/year, Y = 102.25 ppmv/year
Human emissions then are 5% of the inputs (IPCC estimate)
Residence time = 4 years

If X = 1000 ppmv/year, Y = 1002.25 ppmv/year
Human emissions then are 0.5% of the inputs
Residence time = 0.4 years

In all cases human emissions are the sole cause of the increase and nature is always more sink than source.
Both the % human input or the residence time are completely irrelevant for the increase…

dco2_em8.jpg
DrDweeb
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
August 20, 2022 12:07 am

In all cases human emissions are the sole cause of the increase and nature is always more sink than source.”

That’s what dogma sounds like

Reply to  DrDweeb
August 20, 2022 1:48 am

Never heard of a mass balance?

Tell that to your accountant if you spend more money than your income allows, I don’t think that he will agree…

chemman
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 16, 2022 8:16 pm

“Nature is a net absorber of some of the manmade CO2 emissions. That means nature does not add CO2 to the atmosphere.”

The process involved is dynamic not static so your statement is nonsense.

Reply to  chemman
August 17, 2022 12:20 am

If nature is absorbing CO2, then it is not increasing CO2. Do you not understand English?

Reply to  Richard Greene
August 19, 2022 2:40 am

Chemman is clearly confused, but I think it might be the word “net” which he does not understand.

Reply to  chemman
August 17, 2022 1:44 am

Indeed it is a dynamic process, but if you add some extra of one of the reactants, the process is disturbed and per Le Chatelier’s principle, the dynamic process tries to restore the balance.
That is by removing part of that extra.

In this case, the removal rate is directly proportional to the extra CO2 pressure above equilibrium (around 295 ppmv). That gives an e-fold time of around 50 years:

acc_co2_t_sink_1960_cur.jpg
August 16, 2022 2:25 pm

“IPCC’s data show the inflow of human CO2 into the atmosphere is about 5% of the total CO2 inflow and natural CO2 is about 95%.

Since human and natural CO2 molecules are identical, their e-times are identical. Therefore, to the first approximation, the composition of today’s atmospheric CO2 is about 5% human and 95% natural.”

“Therefore” is the basic fallacy. Before human emissions, annual inflows and outflows balanced. They had to; there was only a limited amount of carbon in circulation (say about 1500 Gtons) and no source of new carbon. Some of that carbon was reduced by photosynthesis each year, with subsequent respiration and decay. Some was absorbed by the sea each autumn as it cooled, to be released in the summer when the temperature was restored.

Humans provided a source of new carbon. The annual fluctuations are a red herring; they don’t change the arithmetic of the total carbon in circulation, which human emissions permanently increase, having no balancing outflow. It doesn’t matter whether the carbon flux is superimposed on a biological or temperature/solubility cycle. If you add 500 Gtons C cumulatively to the air, some fraction is going to stay there. And it has.

Last edited 1 month ago by Nick Stokes
Mr.
Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 16, 2022 2:58 pm

My bad, I thought this post was about Carbon Dioxide.
Now you’re referring to Gtons of Carbon.
(can Carbon float around in the sky?. I learn something new every day.
Or maybe not.)

Reply to  Mr.
August 16, 2022 3:21 pm

Carbon atoms are conserved. But in the carbon cycle, they can spend a while as CO₂, carbohydrates, carbonates etc. Therefore the accounting is done using mass of carbon.

HotScot
Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 16, 2022 3:45 pm

Good old accounting. Where would we be without accounting?

Definition: “An examination, reckoning, rendering, or balancing of accounts so as to arrive at the true state of any transaction or course of transactions: as, the court ordered an accounting; the parties came to an accounting.”

In other words, a compromise.

A conclusion would be better, but we can’t get there as a conclusion isn’t scientific.

Reply to  HotScot
August 18, 2022 6:41 am

The standard procedure in chemistry where reactions and other processes (diffusion etc) are taking place is to perform an elemental balance. The same applies to the atmosphere/biosphere so one would carry out O, N, S & C balances, in the case of carbon that can be in the form of CO2 in the atmosphere, bicarbonate in the ocean, carbohydrate in plants. Total carbon would be conserved, not the individual forms.

Macha
Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 16, 2022 4:30 pm

Wow..do diamonds count?
Ridiculous chemistry argument .

Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 17, 2022 12:41 am

Nick wrote, “Carbon atoms are conserved. But in the carbon cycle, they can spend a while as CO₂, carbohydrates, carbonates etc. Therefore the accounting is done using mass of carbon.”

Why on earth would anyone downvote THAT? What could be more obviously true, to someone who is, himself, a carbon-based lifeform?

Are you just reflexively downvoting Nick’s comments because you disagree with him about other things? How is that constructive??

Hey, fellow carbon-based lifeforms, nearly every atom of carbon in your body was once the “C” in a CO2 molecule. You and I are walking, talking little carbon reservoirs.

Plants are constantly destroying CO2, to harvest the carbon. They use the carbon to make hydrocarbons: like carbohydrates, proteins, cellulose, etc., and they discard the O2 as a waste product.

Animals (like us) do the opposite: we manufacture CO2 by “burning food” (oxidizing hydrocarbons).

Nick is right: Other than a very tiny amount of radioactive 14C (which was once nitrogen), carbon is conserved. It moves around, between “reservoirs,” but it is neither created nor destroyed.

Atmospheric CO2 is but one of many “carbon reservoirs.” When we make CO2 and release it into the atmosphere, whether in our blast furnaces or in our lungs, the CO2 molecules are new, but the carbon atoms in them are not new: They’re “recycled.” They’ve just being moved from some other carbon reservoir into the air.

Last edited 1 month ago by Dave Burton
Reply to  Mr.
August 16, 2022 3:54 pm

can Carbon float around in the sky?”

Lucy in the sky with …?

Mr.
Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 16, 2022 4:39 pm

Nick, I’m shocked, shocked I tell you, that back in the day at CSIRO, you might have been sampling some of that product the Beatles were singing homage to.

(And can we be sure you aren’t still trying to get your inspiration for comments here from the effects of that product? I often suspect so, but hey, whatever pulls your trolley, I say 🙂 )

Scissor
Reply to  Mr.
August 16, 2022 5:12 pm

There’s something called “brown carbon.”

Mr.
Reply to  Scissor
August 16, 2022 5:27 pm

The Stones sang about “Brown Sugar”, but I’m sure they weren’t alluding to the “brown carbon” you mention.

Reply to  Mr.
August 17, 2022 1:50 am

Quite normal use of the element of interest and not all its forms…
In the atmosphere it is CO2.
In the oceans it is 1% CO2, 90% bicarbonates and 9% carbonates.
In plants it is everything (cellulose, sugars,…) except CO2…

Thus instead of calculating everything again and again (as far as possible), just look at the carbon balance, like one looks at the nitrogen balance or the phosphorus balance in agriculture…

b.nice
Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 16, 2022 5:02 pm

Nick relies on a fantasy song !!.. LOL

HotScot
Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 16, 2022 3:41 pm

(say about 1500 Gtons)

There is an awful lot of “say about” in climate science.

Say about 50% of climate science is wrong (generous as its undoubtedly much more) in line with the editor of The Lancet declaring up to 50% of medical science being junk.

So which 50% of your climate science is right Nick?

Reply to  HotScot
August 16, 2022 7:53 pm

That humans added a lot of CO2 to the atmosphere is right.
Lots of speculation after that.

HotScot
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 17, 2022 3:24 pm

Shut up Richard. You are a bore on the subject even the alarmist’s disagree with you on.

Reply to  HotScot
August 17, 2022 12:55 am

“Say about” is justified in this case, because the 1500 number is very rough, since it depends on what you count as “in circulation.” My guess is that Nick is probably counting CO2 in the air + biomass carbon (plants & animals) + either some of the carbon in soil or else some of the dissolved carbon dioxide, methane, etc. in water.

HotScot
Reply to  Dave Burton
August 17, 2022 3:25 pm

My guess is 

A lot of ‘my guess is’ goes on in climate science as well.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 16, 2022 3:42 pm

Before human emissions, annual inflows and outflows balanced.”

Really? CO2 has been constant for millions of years?

ROFL!!!

Reply to  Tim Gorman
August 16, 2022 3:51 pm

It was constant for thousands of years. Despite the claim that natural emissions are far higher than human.

mal
Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 16, 2022 4:07 pm

It was constant for thousands of years. Despite the claim that natural emissions are far higher than human.” What make you so sure that is true? Oh by the way, all the carbon atoms in your body came from CO2. Without CO2 we all die.

Reply to  mal
August 19, 2022 3:06 am

Nick should have said “nearly constant,” and “nearly balanced.” Other than that nit, his statement is correct.

We know that from measurements of air samples in Antarctic ice cores, from which we can measure past CO2 concentrations. During the Holocene CO2 concentrations hovered around 280 ppmv, and varied only slightly, until about two hundred years ago. (We’re not talking about the Pleistocene & earlier.)

Here are Law Dome (Antarctic) ice core data, back to year 1010. Scroll down to “CO2, 75 Year Smoothed,” then keep scrolling. Watch CO2 levels climb to their peak of 284.1 ppmv circa 1170 (MWP), and fall to their lowest level of 275.3 ppmv circa 1615 (LIA):

https://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/law/law_co2.txt

In this dataset, the decline in temperature from MWP peak to the bottom of the LIA reduced atmospheric CO2 level in Antarctic ice cores by about 9 ppmv, over about 450 years. If you want to be pedantic, that’s not quite “constant.” But it is nearly constant, at least when compared to the 135 ppmv increase in CO2 concentration over the last two hundred years.

Last edited 1 month ago by Dave Burton
Reply to  Dave Burton
August 19, 2022 3:22 am

Correction:

I wrote, “During the Holocene CO2 concentrations hovered around 280 ppmv”

I should have written, “During the last 5000 years of the Holocene CO2 concentrations hovered around 280 ppmv”

During the early Holocene, CO2 concentrations were a bit lower, as you can see:

comment image

Last edited 1 month ago by Dave Burton
Editor
Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 16, 2022 4:11 pm

Yet again YOU ignore all those large temperature swings in those millions of years while as YOU state,

“Before human emissions, annual inflows and outflows balanced.”

If there is no change then CO2 can’t generate a warming trend which increasing CO2 emissions are needed as per the AGW conjecture to generate continuous warming or it will stop at a new level of temperature and stagnate until CO2, the super molecule emission increases some more.

For millions of years something other than CO2 is causing large temperature swings thus if CO2 was a nobody, then it is a nobody now.

Last edited 1 month ago by Sunsettommy