Human CO2 Emissions have little Effect on Atmospheric CO2 – Discussion

On July 4, 2019, the International Journal of Atmospheric and Ocean Sciences published my scientific paper, “Human CO2 Emissions have little Effect on Atmospheric CO2.

Because it is easy to read even for non-scientists, I encourage you to download the free PDF of my paper here:

My paper’s 9000 plus words and 17 figures explain much more about why human CO2 does not change climate than I can explain in this short article. If you do not understand the few math equations in my paper, just read the English and you will still understand my paper.

My paper supports Hermann Harde’s paper, published a few weeks before my paper, as well as the excellent book and videos by Murry Salby, and the papers from other authors who have worked to explain this core message:

Human CO2 makes an insignificant increase in the natural level of atmospheric CO2 and, therefore, nature, not human CO2, is responsible for changing the climate.

You can download Harde’s paper here:

The alarmist climate theory fails the scientific method.

Climate alarmists claim human CO2 emissions cause dangerous climate change. They believe a warmer planet causes bad things to happen. Therefore, they say, we must severely reduce human CO2 emissions to save the planet. Recently, they say it is a “climate emergency.”

Their problem is they have not checked the science. Science does not support their claim. Science shows there is no reason to restrict our CO2 emissions. Climate alarmists are delusional.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) climate alarmist theory is wrong because:

  1. IPCC theory assumes nature treats human CO2 differently than it treats natural CO2. Nature cannot perform such a feat. So the alarmist claims are impossible. 
  2. IPCC theory cannot replicate the carbon-14 CO2 data. So, according to the scientific method, we must reject the IPCC theory. 
  3. IPCC theory contains errors in its foundational physics deserving of getting a big fat “F” on a physics exam.

In contrast, a simple physics model (that should be taught in all schools and universities – but isn’t) shows how both natural and human CO2 flow through the atmosphere. This physics model exactly replicates the carbon-14 data. This replication proves the physics model is valid and the IPCC model is wrong.

How CO2 flows through the atmosphere.

IPCC claims and much of the public believes, human emissions “add” CO2 to the atmosphere as garbage adds to a garbage dump. The truth is just the opposite.

Natural and human CO2 “flow through” the atmosphere. As CO2 flows through the atmosphere, it raises the level of atmospheric CO2 just enough so, from the perspective of the atmosphere, CO2 outflow equals CO2 inflow. Nature balances CO2 in the atmosphere when it sets outflow equal to inflow.

An analogy is how water in a river flows into a lake and then flows out over a dam. If the river inflow increases, the lake level increases until outflow over the dam equals inflow from the river. Thereafter, the water level remains constant so long as inflow remains constant. The river does not “add” water to the lake. Water “flows through” the lake and when outflow equals inflow, the level is constant.

Similarly, human and natural CO2 flow through the atmosphere. The inflow creates a balance level that remains constant so long as inflow remains constant.

How we know that human CO2 is insignificant to atmospheric CO2.

The physics model is now the only valid model of how CO2 flows through the atmosphere. Therefore, we must look at the consequences of the physics model.

The physics model shows the ratio of human to natural CO2 in the inflow sets the ratio of human to natural CO2 in the atmosphere. The ratios are the same. This conclusion is not only a physics result, but it is also an intuitive result.

Since the ratio of human to natural CO2 in the inflow is less than 5 percent, then the ratio in the atmosphere is also less than 5 percent. Therefore, of the 410 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere today, human CO2 supports less than 20 ppm, and natural CO2 supports more than 390 ppm.

This proves natural CO2 inflow has increased since 1750 and now is responsible for about 390 ppm of the CO2 in the atmosphere. This contrasts with the IPCC invalid claim that human CO2 caused all the increase in atmospheric CO2 above 280 ppm or about 130 ppm.

Therefore, nature, not human CO2, is responsible for the observed increase in atmospheric CO2. If all human CO2 emissions were stopped, and nature remained constant, then the level of CO2 in the atmosphere would decrease but never go below 392 ppm.

All attempts to legislate the reduction of human CO2 emissions in order to save the planet are delusions caused by the inability or refusal to understand science.

A conflict in the climate “skeptics” community.

Real scientists in the skeptic community work to explain why human CO2 is not a significant cause of the rise in atmospheric CO2.

Meanwhile, others in the skeptic community argue that “human CO2 saved the planet by providing more CO2 for plants.” The “CO2 is good” argument assumes human CO2 causes all the rise in atmospheric CO2 above 280 ppm. Otherwise, they would have to share the glory with natural CO2. Therefore, those who argue that human CO2 saved the planet use IPCC’s invalid science to support their claim. So, these people are really on the side of the alarmists. 

That the “CO2 is good” argument uses the IPCC model is rather silly because the physics model gives more human CO2 to plants than the IPCC model does. The IPCC model traps 15 percent of human CO2 in the atmosphere and leaves 85 percent of human CO2 available to provide more CO2 for plants. The physics model provides 100 percent human CO2 to provide more CO2 for plants. Yet, the “CO2 is good” people won’t budge on their love of the IPCC theory and opposition to the physics theory. Go figure.

The two arguments are incompatible. We can’t overcome the climate alarmist theory if a dominant force among us agrees with the climate alarmist theory. The “CO2 is good” argument is a dead-end road. It is losing the science debate because it is anti-science at its core.

Those dispute the physics theory because it conflicts with their “CO2 is good” argument are among the gate-keepers to what science receives “consensus.” That is the problem.

The fact is we must thank Mother Nature, not human CO2, for most of the increase in atmospheric CO2. If nature had stayed constant as the IPCC claims then human CO2 would have caused atmospheric CO2 to increase by only 18 ppm, or from 280 ppm to 298 ppm.

A house divided cannot stand.

The only way we can counter the climate alarmists is with the scientific truth described by Salby, Harde, Berry, and other authors.

I ask you to help resolve this problem by promoting the work of Salby, Harde, and Berry.

If you have not already done so, please sign up to receive my emails focused on how we can best support good climate science.

8 thoughts on “Human CO2 Emissions have little Effect on Atmospheric CO2 – Discussion”

  1. David Osborne

    I would like to offer some financial support for your project. Is there a page I can use to make a donation?

    David O.

  2. I read one scientist that said, The effect that man made CO2 has on the on global Warming is about the same as going out in a Hurricane and Farting Twice. Do you agree?
    I live on Lake Talquin 20 miles west of Tallahassee, When Michael was coming in to Panama City, 80 miles west of us. I went out on my deck and farted westward and Michael missed us by about 30 miles. I believe in the power of a fart more than I believe man-made CO2 in effecting our climate.

  3. Dennis Gerald Sandberg

    Most readers here understood this 10 years ago. The important thing is to stop wasting $capital On the wind and solar hoax. This paper should give pause to the regulators who have been approving the uneconomic and unsightly trash.

  4. Talis Forstmanis

    It is my understanding that all available IR radiation that CO2 can absorb is absorbed at much lower CO2 levels than exist today. More cannot absorb more than 100%.
    See April 2014 issue of American Thinker.

  5. “The “CO2 is good” argument requires as its premise that human CO2 causes all the rise in atmospheric CO2 above 280 ppm. Therefore, those who argue that human CO2 saved the planet use IPCC’s invalid science to support their claim. So, these people are really on the side of the alarmists. ”
    In my opinion, the message that “more CO2 is good” sits on good science and sound reasoning but the acceptance of humans being the source is in error. I have repeatedly pointed this out on several sites and am now seeing some commenters that agree with me. I think the resistance to understanding the source of the CO2 is because of its relatively new prominence as well as the strong effort to refute it. The “knowledge” that we are “polluting” our atmosphere is so widely proclaimed and accepted that it will be an uphill battle to get it changed.

    1. Dear DMA,
      Thank you for your comment. The problem was in the structure of my paragraph. So, I replaced the paragraph you quoted from with a paragraph that says what I intended to say.

    2. Relying on beneficial aspects of CO2 is an argument that is defective and, once recognized, fatal. Were increasing CO2 due to the accumulation of human emissions, as has been assumed, then CO2 would eventually attain levels that are injurious, with any benefits replaced by damages. This is the basis of the Endangerment Finding, which is woefully
      in need of repeal. Hence, the beneficial argument merely postpones the position
      that’s already being argued: CO2 is dangerous and therefore a pollutant.

      The beneficial argument cannot prevail.
      There’s only one way to slay this dragon: Expose the truth.

  6. “If we are to converse, let us first define our terms”-Voltaire.
    That is how I usually introduce my argument.
    Define “Global warming”. Although average temperatures are meaningless and the concept of an “annual average global temperature is impossible mathematically and thermodynamically, it is generally accepted that Earth is about 1.8 degrees warmer than the Little Ice Age. It is also accepted in most knowledgeable circles that the urban heat island effect on reported temperatures (not measured temperatures) is about 1.7 degrees. WHAT global warming???
    Define “climate change”. Climate is a regional parameter. In order to determine change a metric is necessary There is no metric for climate other than a classification system. Very few, if any, regions have experienced a significant net change in climate classification in the past hundred years. WHAT climate change????
    Define “greenhouse gas”. How is the planet’s atmosphere similar to a greenhouse, and in what way does it differ. There are NO similarities, and numerous differences. WHAT greenhouse gas is anything but a figment of the imagination.
    And so on.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.