The Impact of human CO2 on atmospheric CO2

by Edwin X Berry

My 2021 paper shows IPCC’s assumption – that human CO2 is the dominant cause of the CO2 increase – contradicts IPCC’s own data, contradicts 14C data, and violates physics. In addition, 14C data indicate nature is the dominant cause of the CO2 increase.

I will add the link to my paper as soon as it is published. Meanwhile, my Preprint #3 has the same essentials without as much explanation that is in my paper.

After you read my published paper, you may discuss it here.

Below are the Contents, Abstract, Data, Conclusions, and References.

Contents

Abstract         

1. Introduction

1.1 Definitions     

1.2 The IPCC basic assumption   

1.3. The IPCC ice-core assumption         

1.4 Isotope data show CO2 increase is natural    

2. Method      

2.1 The data         

2.2 The basics      

2.3 The physics carbon cycle model        

2.4 Data contradict IPCC’s basic assumption      

2.5 The Bern model         

3. Carbon data review

3.1 IPCC’s carbon cycle data      

3.2 IPCC’s natural carbon cycle  

3.3 IPCC’s human carbon cycle  

4. Physics model        

4.1 Physics model for one reservoir         

4.2 Physics model properties       

4.3 Physics carbon-cycle model  

4.4 RC Network analogy 

4.5 Method of calculation

5. Physics model results         

5.1 The physics human carbon cycle       

5.2 Values at IPCC’s extreme error bounds        

5.3 Physics model carbon cycle pulse decay       

5.4 The physics model vs the Bern model           

6. Discussion  

6.1 δ14C data show the CO2 increase is natural 

6.2 How nature may have increased its CO2 level          

6.3 COVID-19 CO2 data suggest the increase is natural

6.4 The physics model will help future research 

Conclusions    

Data and Calculations Availability    

Acknowledgments:    

References     

Abstract

A basic assumption of climate change made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is natural CO2 stayed constant after 1750 and human CO2 dominated the CO2 increase. IPCC’s basic assumption requires human CO2 to stay in the atmosphere longer than natural CO2. But human CO2 and natural CO2 molecules are identical. So, human CO2 and natural CO2 must flow out of the atmosphere at the same rate, or e-time.

The 14CO2 e-time, derived from δ14C data, is 10.0 years, making the 12CO2 e-time less than 10 years. The IPCC says the 12CO2 e-time is about 4 years and IPCC’s carbon cycle uses 3.5 years.

A new physics carbon cycle model replicates IPCC’s natural carbon cycle. Then, using IPCC’s natural carbon cycle data, it calculates human carbon has added only 33 [24-48] ppmv to the atmosphere as of 2020, which means natural carbon has added 100 ppmv. The physics model calculates if human CO2 emissions had stopped at the end of 2020, the human CO2 level of 33 ppmv would fall to 10 ppmv in 2100. After the bomb tests, δ14C returned to its original balance level of zero even as 12CO2 increased, which suggests a natural source dominates the 12CO2 increase.

Non-technical overview

A basic assumption of climate change made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is natural CO2 stayed constant after 1750 while human CO2 dominated the CO2 increase. IPCC’s basic assumption requires human CO2 to stay in the atmosphere longer than natural CO2. But human CO2 and natural CO2 molecules are identical. So, human CO2 and natural CO2 must flow out of the atmosphere at the same rate. Carbon-14 data confirm this rate is less than 10 years. The IPCC says this rate, which it calls turnover time, is about 4 years and IPCC’s natural carbon cycle uses 3.5 years. The IPCC acknowledges this fast turnover time means human CO2 cannot play a major part in causing the CO2 increase. So, IPCC’s own data contradict IPCC’s basic assumption of climate change.

2.1 The data

This paper uses these data,

  • IPCC’s natural carbon cycle data (IPCC, 2013, pp. 470-486)
  • δ14C data (Turnbull et al., 2017)
  • 14C data (Turnbull et al., 2017)
  • 12C data before 1960 (Etheridge et al., 1996; Jaworowski, 2007)
  • 12C data after 1960 (Keeling et al., 2001)
  • Human carbon emissions data (Gilfillan et al., 2020)

Conclusions

IPCC’s basic climate change assumption is natural CO2 stayed constant after 1750 as human CO2 causes all (or dominates) the increase in atmospheric CO2.

To support its basic assumption, the IPCC claims “The removal of human-emitted CO2from the atmosphere by natural processes will take a few hundred thousand years (high confidence).” But the human-carbon e-time must equal the natural-carbon e-time because human and natural CO2 molecules are identical.

The 14CO2 e-time, derived from δ14C data, is 10.0 years, making the 12CO2 e-time less than 10 years. The IPCC says the 12CO2 e-time is about 4 years and IPCC’s carbon cycle uses 3.5 years.

After the bomb tests, δ14C returned to its original balance level of zero even as 12CO2 increased. This suggests the added 12CO2 came from a natural source.

The physics model calculates, deductively, the consequences of IPCC’s natural carbon cycle data. The physics model first replicates IPCC’s natural carbon cycle. Then, using the same IPCC data, it calculates that human carbon has added only 33 [24-48] ppmv to the atmosphere as of 2020, which means natural carbon has added 100 ppmv. The physics model further calculates if human CO2 emissions had stopped at the end of 2020, the human CO2 level of 33 ppmv would fall to 10 ppmv by 2100.

The IPCC argues the absence of ice-core data – that might show the natural CO2 level was greater than 280 ppmv before 1750 – supports its basic assumption. But the physics model shows IPCC’s basic assumption, and therefore IPCC’s ice-core assumption, contradict IPCC’s natural carbon cycle data.

References

Andrews, D.E. 2020: Correcting an Error in Some Interpretations of Atmospheric 14C Data, Earth Sciences, 9(4), pp. 126-129, https://doi:10.11648/j.earth.20200904.12. http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/j/earth

Ballantyne, A.P., Alden, C.B., Miller, J.B., Tans, P.P., and White, J.W.C. 2012: Increase in observed net carbon dioxide uptake by land and oceans during the past 50 years, Nature 488, pp. 70-73. doi:10.1038/nature11299. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature11299  

Beck, E. 2007: 180 years of atmospheric CO2 gas analysis by chemical methods. Energy & Environment. Volume 18, No. 2. https://21sci-tech.com/Subscriptions/Spring%202008%20ONLINE/CO2_chemical.pdf https://doi.org/10.1260/095830507780682147

Berry, E.X. 2019: Human CO2 emissions have little effect on atmospheric CO2. International Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences. Volume 3, Issue 1, June, pp 13-26. http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/journal/paperinfo?journalid=298&doi=10.11648/j.ijaos.20190301.13

Berry, E.X. 1967: Cloud droplet growth by collection. J. Atmos. Sci. 24, 688-701. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1967)024<0688:CDGBC>2.0.CO;2

Berry, E.X. 1969: A mathematical framework for cloud models. J. Atmos. Sci. 26, 109-111. https://moam.info/a-mathematical-framework-for-cloud-models-edberrycom_59a6a1c81723dd0c40321bda.html

Berry, E. X and Reinhardt, R.L. 1974a: An analysis of cloud drop growth by collection. Part I. Double distributionsJ. Atmos. Sci.31, 1814–1824. https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/31/7/1520-0469_1974_031_1814_aaocdg_2_0_co_2.xml

Berry, E. X and Reinhardt, R.L. 1974b: An analysis of cloud drop growth by collection. Part II. Single initial distributions. J. Atmos. Sci.31, 1825–1831. https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/31/7/1520-0469_1974_031_1825_aaocdg_2_0_co_2.xml

Berry, E. X and Reinhardt, R.L. 1974c: An analysis of cloud drop growth by collection. Part III. Accretion and self-collectionJ. Atmos. Sci.31, 2118–2126. https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/31/8/1520-0469_1974_031_2118_aaocdg_2_0_co_2.xml 

Berry, E. X and Reinhardt, R.L. 1974d: An analysis of cloud drop growth by collection. Part IV. A new parameterization. J. Atmos. Sci.31, 2127–2135. https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/31/8/1520-0469_1974_031_2127_aaocdg_2_0_co_2.xml 

Caillon, N., Severinghaus, J.P., Jouzel. J., Barnola, J., Kang, J., and Lipenkov, V.Y., 2003: Timing of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature changes across Termination III. Science, Vol. 299, No. 5613. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1078758

Courtney, R.S. 2008: Limits to existing quantitative understanding of past, present and future changes to atmospheric CO2 concentration. International Conference on Climate Change, New York. https://www.heartland.org/multimedia/videos/richard-courtney-iccc1https://edberry.com/blog/climate/climate-physics/limits-to-carbon-dioxide-concentation/ 

Courtney, R.S. 2019: Public email communication to global-warming-realists@googlegroups.com, 21 November 2019. https://edberry.com/blog/climate/climate-physics/preprint3/

Essenhigh, R.E. 2009: Potential dependence of global warming on the residence time (RT) in the atmosphere of anthropogenically sourced CO2. Energy Fuel 23, pp. 2773-2784. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef800581r 

Etheridge, D.M., Steele, L.P., Langenfelds, R.L., Francey, R.J., Barnola, J.-M., and Morgan, V.I. 1996: Natural and anthropogenic changes in atmospheric CO2 over the last 1000 years from air in Antarctic ice and firn. Journal of Geophysical Research. 101:4115-4128. https://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/law/law_CO2.txt 

Fischer, H., Wahlen, M., Smith, J., Mastroianni, D., and Deck, B., 1999: Ice core records of atmospheric co2 around the last three glacial terminations. Science, Vol. 283, No. 5408. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.283.5408.1712

Gilfillan D., Marland, G., Boden, T., and Andres, R. 2020: Global, Regional, and National Fossil-Fuel CO2 Emissions: 1751-2017CDIAC-FF, Research Institute for Environment, Energy, and Economics, Appalachian State University. doi:10.15485/1712447. https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/view/doi:10.15485/1712447 

Global Monitoring Laboratory. 2020a: Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide: Monthly Average Mauna Loa CO2. Earth Systems Research Laboratories. https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ 

Global Monitoring Laboratory. 2020b: Can we see a change in the CO2 record because of COVID-19?Earth Systems Research Laboratories. https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/covid2.html 

Gruber, N., Clement, D., Carter, B., Feely, R., van Heuven S., Hoppema, M., Ishii, M., Key, R., Kozyr, A., Lauvset, S., Lo Monaco, C., et al. 2019: The oceanic sink for anthropogenic CO2 from 1994 to 2007. Science, 15. March (363) pg. 1193. https://www.sciencemagazinedigital.org/sciencemagazine/15_march_2019_Main/MobilePagedArticle.action?articleId=1472451#articleId1472451 

Happer, W., and van Wijngaarden, W.A. 2020: Physics Rate Equations. Princeton U. Princeton, NJ, USA. (Unpublished Work)

Harde, H. 2017: Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO2 residence time in the atmosphere. Global and Planetary Change. 152, 19-26. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921818116304787 

Harde, H. 2019: What Humans Contribute to Atmospheric CO2: Comparison of Carbon Cycle Models with Observations. International Journal of Earth Sciences. Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 139-159. http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/journal/paperinfo?journalid=161&doi=10.11648/j.earth.20190803.13 

Harde, H. and Salby, M. L. 2021: What Controls the Atmosphere CO2 Level? Science of Climate Change, Vol. 1, No. 1, August 2021, pp. 54-69. https://doi.org/10.53234/scc202111/28. https://scc.klimarealistene.com/produkt/what-controls-the-atmospheric-CO2-level/

Hua, Q., Barbetti, M., and Rakowski, A.Z. 2013: Atmospheric radiocarbon for the period 1950–2010. Radiocarbon. Vol 55, pp. 2059–2072. Table S2c. https://doi.org/10.2458/azu_js_rc.v55i2.16177 

Humlum, O., Stordahl, K., and Solheim, J.E. 2013: The phase relation between atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures. Global and Planetary Change, 100, pp 51-69. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921818112001658 

IPCC, 2013: Ciais, P., Sabine, C., Bala, G., Bopp, L., Brovkin, V., Canadell, J., Chhabra, A., DeFries, R., Galloway, J., Heimann, M., Jones, C., Le Quéré, C., Myneni, R.B., Piao, S., and Thornton, P. 2013: Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., Qin, D., Plattner, G.-K., Tignor, M., Allen, S.K. Boschung, J., Nauels, A., Xia, Y., Bex, V., and Midgley, P.M. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter06_FINAL.pdf

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

Jaworowski, Z. 2007: CO2: The greatest scientific scandal of our time. 21st CENTURY Science & Technology. https://21sci-tech.com/Articles%202007/20_1-2_CO2_Scandal.pdf

Joos, F. 2002: Parameters for tuning a simple carbon cycle model. UNFCCC. https://unfccc.int/resource/brazil/carbon.html 

Joos, F., Roth, R., Fuglestvedt, J.S., Peters, G.P., Enting, I.G., von Bloh, W., Brovkin, V., Burke, E.J., Eby, M., Edwards, N.R., et al. 2013: Carbon dioxide and climate impulse response functions for the computation of greenhouse gas metrics: a multi-model analysis. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 13, 2793-2825. doi:10.5194/acpd-12-19799-2012, https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/13/2793/2013/acp-13-2793-2013.pdf 

Keeling, C.D., Piper, S.C., Bacastow, R.B., Wahlen, M., Whorf, T.P., Heimann, M., and Meijer, H.A. 2001: Exchanges of atmospheric CO2 and 13CO2 with the terrestrial biosphere and oceans from 1978 to 2000. I. Global aspects, SIO Reference Series, No. 01-06, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, San Diego. 88 pages. https://scrippsCO2.ucsd.edu/data/atmospheric_CO2/primary_mlo_CO2_record.html 

Kohler, P., Hauck, J., Volker, C., Wolf-Gladrow, D.A., Butzin, M., Halpern, J.B., Rice, K., and Zeebe, R.E. 2017: Comment on ‘Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO2 residence time in the atmosphere’ by H. Harde. Global and Planetary Change. 2017. https://www.soest.hawaii.edu/oceanography/faculty/zeebe_files/Publications/KoehlerGPC17.pdf

Kouwenberg, L.L.R. 2004: Application of Conifer Needles in the Reconstruction of Holocene CO2 Levels. Ph.D. Thesis. Univ. Utrecht, Netherlands. https://dspace.library.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/1874/243/full.pdf 

Kouwenberg, L., Wagner, R., Kürschner, W., and Visscher, H. 2005a: Atmospheric CO2 fluctuations during the last millennium reconstructed by stomatal frequency analysis of Tsuga heterophylla needles. Geology, 33 (1): 33–36. https://doi.org/10.1130/G20941.1

Kouwenberg, L., Wagner, R., Kürschner, W., and Visscher, H. 2005b: CO2 fluctuations during the last millennium reconstructed by stomatal frequency analysis. https://plantstomata.wordpress.com/2019/03/18/CO2-fluctuations-during-the-last-millenium-reconstructed-by-stomatal-frequency-analysis/

Kuo, C., Lindberg, C., and Thomson, D. 1990: Coherence established between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature. Nature 1990, 343, 709–714. https://www.nature.com/articles/343709a0 

MacRae, A. 2008: CO2 is not the primary cause of global warming: the future cannot cause the past. Icecap. http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2vsTMacRae.pdf  )

Munshi, J. 2015a: Responsiveness of Atmospheric CO2 to Anthropogenic Emissions: A Note (August 21, 2015). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2642639 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2642639 

Munshi, J. 2015b: Decadal Fossil Fuel Emissions and Decadal Warming: A Note (September 19, 2015). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2662870 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2662870

Quirk, T. 2009: Sources and sinks of CO2. Energy & Environment. Volume: 20 Issue: 1, pp. 105-121. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1260/095830509787689123 

Quirk, T. and Asten, M. 2022: Atmospheric CO2 source analysis. Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. (Preprint to be submitted) https://edberry.com/blog/climate/climate-physics/preprint-atmospheric-co2-source-analysis/

Revelle, R., and Suess, H. 1957: CO2 exchange between atmosphere and ocean and the question of an increase of atmospheric CO2 during past decades. Tellus. 9: 18-27. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1957.tb01849.x 

Rorsch, A., Courtney, R.S., and Thoenes, D. 2005: The Interaction of Climate Change and the CO2 Cycle. Energy & Environment. Volume 16, No 2. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1260/0958305053749589

Salby, M.L. 2012: Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate. Cambridge University Press. 666 pp. https://www.amazon.com/Physics-Atmosphere-Climate-Murry-Salby/dp/0521767180/ref=mt_hardcover?_encoding=UTF8&me=

Salby, M.L. 2013: CO2 follows the Integral of Temperature, video. http://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/agw-hypothesis/murry-salby-CO2-follows-integral-of-temperature/

Salby, M.L. and Harde, H. 2021: Control of Atmospheric CO2: Part I: Relation of Carbon 14 to the Removal of CO2. Science of Climate Change, 1, no.2. https://doi.org/10.53234/scc202112/210

Segalstad, T.V. 1998: Carbon cycle modelling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO2: on the construction of the Greenhouse Effect Global Warming dogma. In: Bate, R. (Ed.): Global warming: the continuing debate. ESEF, Cambridge, U.K. (ISBN 0952773422): 184-219. http://www.CO2web.info/ESEF3VO2.pdf 

Siegenthaler, U. and Joos, F. 1992: Use of a simple model for studying oceanic tracer distributions and the global carbon cycle. Tellus, 44B, 186-207; https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1034/j.1600-0889.1992.t01-2-00003.x 

Skrable, K., and French, C.G. 2022: World atmospheric CO2, its 14C specific activity, anthropogenic-fossil component, non-fossil component, and emissions (1750 – 2018). (Accepted for Publication in the Health Physics Journal in 2022)

Starr, C. 1992: Atmospheric CO2 residence time and the carbon cycle. Science Direct, 18, 12, pp. 1297-1310; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0360544293900178

Strassmann, K.M., Joos, F. 2018: The Bern Simple Climate Model (BernSCM) v1.0: an extensible and fully documented open-source re-implementation of the Bern reduced-form model for global carbon cycle-climate simulations. Geosci. Model Dev, 11, 1887-1908. https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/11/1887/2018/

Stuiver, M. and Polach, H. 1977: Discussion: Reporting of 14C data. Radiocarbon, 19(3), 355-363. extension://bfdogplmndidlpjfhoijckpakkdjkkil/pdf/viewer.html?file=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.imprs-gbgc.de%2Fuploads%2FRadiocarbonSchool%2FReading%2Fstuier_polach.pdf

Turnbull, J.C., Mikaloff Fletcher, S.E., Ansell, I., Brailsford, G.W., Moss, R.C., Norris, M.W., and Steinkamp, K. 2017: Sixty years of radiocarbon dioxide measurements at Wellington, New Zealand: 1954–2014. Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, pp. 14771–14784. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-14771-2017 

Van Langenhove, A. 1986: Isotope effects: definitions and consequences for pharmacologic studies. J. Clinical Pharmacology. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1552-4604.1986.tb03545.x 

Leave a Reply

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

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

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