Human CO2 has little effect on atmospheric CO2
Note: Please see my latest version of this paper that will soon be published here.
On April 1, 2019, the American Journal of Climate Change rejected my paper for the following reason:
The conclusion of this paper is completely opposite to the consensus of the academic community.
Yes, it is. But the journal did not forward any evidence that there is an error in my paper and did not acknowledge that my paper proves the “consensus” is wrong. So, if it is unacceptable to publish a paper that contradicts the “consensus” how can there be progress in science?
Richard Courtney and Hermann Harde have sent emails stating they were reviewers and that they strongly recommended publication.
Edwin X Berry, Ph.D., CCM
Climate Physics LLC, Bigfork, Montana, USA
“The formulation of a problem is often more essential than its solution, which may be merely a matter of mathematical or experimental skill. To raise new questions, new possibilities, to regard old problems from a new angle requires creative imagination and marks real advances in science.” – Albert Einstein
Aims: Test the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) theory that human CO2 has caused all or most of the rise in atmospheric CO2 since 1750 or above 280 ppm.
Place and Duration: edberry.com, Bigfork, Montana, USA. First post on this subject was on December 19, 2016. It gathered 244 comments.
Methodology: Derive a simple Physics Model that makes only one assumption: outflow is proportional to the level (or concentration) of CO2 in the atmosphere. Compare and evaluate the Physics Model and the IPCC model.
Results: The Physics Model replicates the decay of 14CO2 after 1970 using a constant e-time of 16.5 years. This replication has significant theoretical consequences. By contrast the IPCC model cannot replicate the data and contains internal inconsistencies that violate physics.
Conclusions: The 14C data validate the Physics Model and reject the IPCC model. Inflows of human and natural CO2 into the atmosphere set balance levels proportional to their inflows. Each balance level remains constant if its inflow remains constant. Continued, constant CO2 emissions do not add more CO2 to the atmosphere. Neither human nor natural CO2 accumulate in the atmosphere. The balance level of present human CO2 is about 18 ppm. The balance level of natural CO2 is about 392 ppm. Human CO2 does not increase atmospheric CO2 enough to cause climate change and restricting CO2 emissions will not stop climate change.
Keywords: carbon dioxide, CO2, climate change, anthropogenic, accumulation
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)  Executive Summary claims human emissions caused atmospheric CO2 to increase from 280 ppm in 1750, to 410 ppm in 2018, for a total increase of 130 ppm.
IPCC claims “abundant published literature” shows, with “considerable certainty,” that nature has been a “net carbon sink” since 1750, so nature could not have caused the observed rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide.
The U.S. Global Change Research Program Climate Science Special Report (USGCRP)  claims,
This assessment concludes, based on extensive evidence, that it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.
IPCC and USGCRP claim there are “no convincing alternative explanations” other than their theory to explain the “observational evidence.”
This paper shows these IPCC and USGCRP claims are incorrect and presents a “convincing alternative explanation” that IPCC and USGCRP claim does not exist. Specifically, this paper shows:
- Why human CO2 has little effect on atmospheric CO2.
- Why carbon isotope data support this conclusion.
- Why human CO2 is less than 5% of today’s atmospheric CO2.
- Why natural CO2 is more than 95% of today’s atmospheric CO2.
- Why nature, not human CO2, causes the climate to change.
IPCC  bases all its climate conclusions on this flawed 3-step argument:
How do we know that in
facthuman activity has been responsible for the well documented 25% increase in atmospheric CO2 since the early 19th century?
First, the observational CO2 records from ice cores … show that the maximum range of natural variability about the mean of 280 ppm during the past 1000 years was small.
Segalstad  and Jaworowski  present evidence that the CO2 level before 1750 was much higher than 280 ppm. Nevertheless, this paper accepts IPCC’s assumption that the CO2 level was 280 ppm in 1750. However, this paper rejects the implication that the ice-core mean of 280 ppm implies nature’s CO2 emissions did not change after 1750.
Second, the observed rate of CO2 increase closely parallels the accumulated emission trends from fossil fuel combustion and from land use changes.
Proper statistics show correlation does not mean causation and time-series correlations must be detrended. Munshi  shows the detrended correlation of annual human emissions with
Third, the observed isotropic trends of 13C and 14C agree qualitatively with those expected due to the CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and the biosphere, and they are quantitatively consistent with results from carbon cycle modeling.
This paper shows the isotropic trends of 14C and 13C support the Physics Model and reject the IPCC model.
For simplicity, this paper uses levels in units of ppm (parts per million by volume in dry air) and flows in units of ppm per year. GtC (Gigatons of Carbon) units are converted into CO2 units in ppm using:
1 ppm = 2.12 GtC
Authors who conclude human CO2 adds only a minor increase in atmospheric CO2 include Revelle and Suess , Starr , Segalstad , , Rorsch, Courtney, and Thoenes , Courtney , Quirk , Essenhigh , Glassman , Humlum , Salby , Harde , and Berry , .
Authors who support the IPCC conclusion include Archer et al. , Cawley , Joos et al. , Kern and Leuenberger , and Kohler .
2. The Physics Model
2.1 Physics Model derivation
A system describes a subset of nature. A system includes levels and flows between levels. Levels set flows and flows set new levels .
Figure 1 illustrates the system for atmospheric CO2. The system includes the level (concentration) of CO2 in the atmosphere and the inflow and outflow of CO2.
The derivation begins with the continuity equation (1) which says the rate of change of the level is the difference between inflow and outflow:
dL/dt = Inflow – Outflow (1)
- L = CO2 level (concentration in ppm)
- t = time (years)
- dL/dt = rate of change of L (ppm/year)
- Inflow = rate CO2 moves into the system (ppm/year)
- Outflow = rate CO2 moves out of the system (ppm/year)
The Physics Model has only one hypothesis, that outflow is proportional to level:
Outflow = L/Te (2)
where Te is the “e-folding time” or simply “e-time.”
Substitute (2) into (1) to get,
dL/dt = Inflow – L/Te (3)
Define the balance level, Lb, as
Lb = Inflow * Te (4)
Equation (4) shows how Inflow and Te set the balance level. Substitute (4) for Inflow into (3) to get,
dL/dt = – (L – Lb)/Te (5)
Equation (5) shows the level always moves toward its balance level. At this point, both L and Lb are functions of time. Te can also be a function of time.
In the special case when Lb and Te are constant, there is an analytic solution to (5). Rearrange (5) to get
dL/(L – Lb) = – dt/Te (6)
Then integrate (6) from Lo to L on the left side, and from 0 to t on the right side  to get
Ln [(L – Lb)/(Lo – Lb)] = – t/Te (7)
- Lo = Level at time zero (t = 0)
- Lb = the balance level for a given inflow and Te
- Te = time for L to move (1 – 1/e) from L to Lb
- e = 2.7183
(The original integration of (6) contains two absolute functions, but they cancel each other because both L and Lo are always either above or below Lb.)
Raise e to the power of each side of (7), to get the level as a function of time:
L(t) = Lb + (Lo – Lb) exp(– t/Te) (8)
Equation (8) is the analytic solution of (5) when Lb and Te are constant.
2.2 Physics Model explanation
All equations after (2) are deductions from this hypothesis and the continuity equation (1).
The hypothesis (2) that outflow is proportional to level creates a “balance level.” Equation (4) defines the balance level in terms of inflow and e-time. If inflow exceeds outflow, the level increases. When level increases, outflow increases. When outflow equals inflow, the level equals the balance level and remains constant for constant inflow.
It may seem like the inflow and outflow are interlinked because, in general, increased inflow causes increased outflow. However, the physical processes are independent.
Consider the analogy of a bucket of water. Water flows into the bucket at the top and flows out through a hole in the bottom. Outside sources control the inflow. The water level and the hole size control the outflow, even if the inflow is zero.
The bucket analogy provides insight into e-time. If the hole in the bucket gets smaller, e-time increases. If the hole in the bucket gets larger, e-time decreases. The hole is an analogy to the ability of the oceans and land to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere.
It is not necessary to add separate inflows for human and natural CO2 to the Physics Model. The Physics Model applies independently and in total to all definitions of CO2, e.g., to human CO2, and natural CO2, and their sums, and to 12CO2, 13CO2, and 14CO2, and their sums.
The Physics Model is complete. Inflow and outflow include all the effects of outside processes. If the Physics Model were connected to land and ocean reservoirs, it would behave exactly as derived in this paper. The mathematics used in the Physics Model are analogous to the mathematics used to describe many engineering systems.
Kohler  claims Harde’s  model and therefore the Physics Model is “too simplistic.” Kohler commented on Harde,
Harde … uses a too simplistic approach, that is based on invalid assumptions, and which leads to flawed results for anthropogenic carbon in the atmosphere. We suggest that the paper be withdrawn by the author, editor or publisher due to fundamental errors in the understanding of the carbon cycle.
Kohler wants Harde  withdrawn. In response, the journal refused to publish Harde’s (2017) rebuttal to Kohler.
There is no such thing as a system being “too simplistic.” A system should be as simple as possible to solve a problem.
2.2 Physics Model consequences
IPCC ,  says nature emits into the atmosphere about 120 GtC from land and 90 GtC from
Boden  shows human CO2 emissions in 2014 were 9.7 GTC per year, or 4.6 ppm per year.
Equation (A.4) shows the balance level equals the product of inflow and e-time. Using IPCC numbers, and subscripts “h” to mean human and “n” to mean natural, the balance levels of human and natural CO2 are 18.4 and 392 ppm:
Lbh = 4.6 (ppm/year) * 4 (years) = 18 ppm (9)
Lbn = 98 (ppm/year) * 4 (years) = 392 ppm (10)
Their ratio and percentage are independent of residence time,
Lbh / Lbn = 4.6 / 98 = 18 / 392 = 4.6 percent (11)
Lbh / (Lbn + Lbh ) = 4.6 / 102.6 = 18.4 / 410 = 4.5 percent (12)
Equation (1) shows present human emissions create a balance level of 18 ppm. This is independent of nature’s balance level. If nature’s balance level remained at 280 ppm after 1750, then present human emissions would have increased the CO2 level 18 ppm from 280 ppm to 298 ppm.
Equation (2) shows present natural emissions create a balance level of 392 ppm. The human contribution of 18 ppm brings the total balance level to 410 ppm, which is close to the level in 2018.
Equation (3) shows the ratio of human to natural CO2 in the atmosphere equals the ratio of their inflows, independent of e-time. The IPCC calls the ratio in Equation (3) the “airborne fraction.”
Equation (4) shows the percentage of human-produced CO2 in the atmosphere equals its percentage of its inflow, independent of e-time.
Equations (1) and (2) support Harde  and its key conclusions:
Under present conditions, the natural emissions contribute 373 ppm and anthropogenic emissions 17 ppm to the total concentration of 390 ppm (2012).
2.4 How temperature can increase CO2
Salby  shows how surface temperature changes the CO2 level. Harde  shows how an increase in surface temperature can account for the rise in atmospheric CO2 since 1750. The Physics Model suggests the cause-effect path is, first, surface temperature sets CO2 inflow and, second, inflow sets the CO2 balance level. Then there is a delay for the level to move to its new balance level.
Harde  showed how both inflow and outflow depend on surface temperature, and how this causes the balance level to be a non-linear function of surface temperature.
Figure 2 shows a plot of Harde’s equation (17) which shows CO2 level as a function of surface temperature.
3. Theories must replicate data
3.1 The Physics Model replicates the 14C data
The above-ground atomic bomb tests in the 1950s and 1960s almost doubled the concentration of 14C in the atmosphere. The 14C atoms were in the form of CO2, hereinafter called 14CO2.
After the cessation of the bomb tests in 1963, the concentration of 14CO2 decreased toward its natural balance level. The decrease occurred because the bomb-caused 14C inflow became zero while the natural 14C inflow continued.
The 14C data are in units of D14C per mil. In D14C units, the “natural” balance level is zero, as defined by the average measured level before 1950. If the natural 14C inflow were zero, then the natural balance level would be -1000 in D14C units .
Hua  processed 14C data for both hemispheres from 1954 to 2010. Turnbull  processed 14C data for Wellington, New Zealand, from 1954 to 2014. After 1970, 14CO2 were well mixed between the hemispheres, and the 14C data from both sources are virtually identical after 1970.
The Physics Model (8) accurately replicates the 14CO2 data from 1970 to 2014 with e-time set to 16.5 years, balance level set to zero, and starting level set to the D14C level in 1970.
Figure 3 shows the global average D14C data for . Figure 4 shows the New Zealand data for . Both figures show the exact replication of the data by the Physics Model.
3.2 The IPCC Bern model
The Joos  Bern model is an integral equation rather than a level equation. To deconstruct the integral version of the Bern model, let inflow occur only in the year when “t-prime” equals zero. Then the integral disappears, and the Bern model becomes a level equation.
The Bern level equation is,
L(t) = Lo [ A0 + A1 exp(– t/T1) + A2 exp(– t/T2) + A3 exp(– t/T3)] (13)
- t = time in years
- Lo = level of atmospheric CO2 in year t = 0
- L(t) = level of atmospheric CO2 in year t
and the Bern TAR standard values are,
- A0 = 0.150
- A1 = 0.252
- A2 = 0.279
- A3 = 0.319
- T1 = 173 years
- T2 = 18.5 years
- T3 = 1.19 years
The A-values weight the four terms on the right-hand side of (B.1):
A0 + A1 + A2 + A3 = 1.000
In (13), set t equal to infinity to get,
L = A0 Lo = 0.152 Lo (14)
Equation (14) predicts a one-year inflow that sets Lo to 100 ppm, followed by zero inflow forever, will cause a permanent level of 15 ppm.
3.3 The IPCC model cannot replicate the 14C data
Figure 5 shows how the Bern model puts human CO2 into 4 different bins, each with a different decay time. One decay time is infinity.
Bern (13) predicts 15 percent all human CO2 entering the atmosphere stays in the atmosphere forever, 25 percent stays in the atmosphere almost forever, and 28 percent stays in the atmosphere longer than 14CO2 stays in the atmosphere. Only 32 percent flows freely out of the atmosphere.
Figure 6 shows the Bern model predictions using (13). The calculations begin with the initial level set to 100 and the balance level set to zero. Figure 6 includes the Physics Model replication of the 14C data. Equation (8) with an e-time of 4 years simulates the curve for 12CO2.
The Bern model begins with a short e-time then its e-time increases. The Bern line crosses the 14C line and thus conflicts with the 14C data. So, the Bern model is invalid.
The Bern model is also invalid because if restarted at any point, it cannot continue its same prediction line. The Bern model cannot properly restart because it depends upon its history, and a restart deletes its history. CO2 in the atmosphere does not “know” its history.
Also, IPCC  assumes its Bern model applies to human but not to natural CO2. That assumption is both unphysical and impossible because CO2 molecules from human and natural sources are identical. All valid models must treat human and natural CO2 the same.
Applied to natural CO2, Bern model (13) contradicts reality. It predicts 100 ppm per year of natural CO2 will cause 15 ppm per year to stay in the atmosphere forever. In 1000 years, that is 15,000 ppm stuck in the atmosphere forever. This clearly invalid prediction proves the Bern model is unphysical. IPCC’s climate models use the unphysical Bern model assumptions and therefore produce wrong predictions.
The Bern model began with invalid physics.
In 1987, Maier-Reimer and Hasselmann  used an ocean circulation model connected to a one-layer atmosphere to reproduce the main features of the CO2 distribution in the surface ocean. They approximated the flow of CO2 from the atmosphere into the ocean can be by a sum of four exponentials with different amplitudes and time constants, as in today’s Bern model.
Siegenthaler and Joos  note it is difficult to model atmospheric CO2 using oceanic 14C lacking a physics model for atmospheric CO2.
Archer et al.  found such models “agreed that 20–35% of the CO2 remains in the atmosphere after equilibration with the ocean (2–20 centuries).”
Joos et al.  compared the response of such atmosphere-ocean models to a pulse emission of human CO2. All models predicted a “substantial fraction” of pulse would remain in the atmosphere and ocean for millennia.
The conclusions of , , , and  are invalid for five reasons:
- Inter-model agreement does not prove they are accurate.
- No model uses a valid physics model for atmospheric CO2.
- All models assume human CO2 causes all the increase in atmospheric CO2.
- All models treat human and natural CO2 differently.
- No model can replicate the 14C data.
3.4 Isotope data support the Physics Model
The Physics Model (12), predicts the ratio of human to natural CO2 in the atmosphere equals the ratio of their inflows, or 4.5 percent for human and 95.5 percent for natural CO2. IPCC  says natural CO2 is 68 percent and human CO2 is 32 percent.
Figure 7 shows how the predictions of the Physics and IPCC models differ.
Human fossil-fuel CO2 is “14C-free” and the 14C balance level has decreased. IPCC  and Kohler  claim this qualitative argument proves human CO2 caused all the rise in atmospheric CO2. The numbers show otherwise.
RealClimate  says the 13C/12C ratio for human CO2 is 98 percent of the natural CO2 ratio, and the 13C ratio has declined about 0.15 percent since 1850. RealClimate says this qualitative argument proves human CO2 caused all the increase in atmospheric CO2 since 1850. The numbers show otherwise.
3.5 Calculate model predictions
Human CO2 causes the new balance level of D14C and 13C/12C to be:
Lb = Ln Rn + Lh Rh (15)
Lb = the new balance level (of D14C or 13C/12C)
Ln = the natural balance level (D14C = 0; 13C/12C = 100%)
Lh = the human balance level (D14C = –1000; 13C/12C = 98%)
Rn = the fraction of natural CO2
Rh = the fraction of human CO2
The Physics Model predicts for D14C:
Lb = (0) (0.955) + (–1000) (0.045) = – 45 (16)
The IPCC model predicts for D14C:
Lb = (0) (0.68) + (–1000) (0.32) = – 320 (17)
The Physics Model predicts for 13C/12C:
Lb = (100) (0.955) + (98) (0.045) = 99.91 (18)
The IPCC model predicts for 13C/12C:
Lb = (100) (0.680) + (98) (0.320) = 99.36 (19)
3.6 Show the model predictions
The Physics Model (16) predicts human CO2 has lowered the balance level of 14C from zero to –45. The IPCC model (17) predicts human CO2 has lowered the 14C balance level to –320.
Figure 8 shows the Physics Model comes close to the 14C data when the balance level is –45 and Te is 20. Although the fit is close, it is too high before 1995 and too low after.
Figure 9 shows the IPCC prediction does not match the 14C data.
In summary, the 14C data support the Physics Model and reject the IPCC model.
The Physics Model (18) predicts human CO2 has lowered the 13C ratio by 0.09. The IPCC model predicts human CO2 has lowered the 13C ratio by 0.64.
Figure 10 compares the Physics Model and IPCC model predictions to RealClimate’s numbers.
The 13C/12C data support the Physics Model and reject the IPCC model.
Levin et al.  used absolute values of 14C and still concluded the “ocean-atmosphere disequilibrium today is close to pre-industrial times.”
4. Other problems with the IPCC Model
4.1 IPCC’s core argument is illogical
The IPCC  core argument notes that human emissions from 1750 to 2013 totaled 185 ppm while atmospheric CO2 increased by only 117 ppm.
However, the fact that the sum of human emissions is greater than the increase does not prove human CO2 caused the increase. The IPCC argument omits natural CO2 which totaled about 26,000 ppm during the same period. IPCC conclusion assumes natural CO2 inflow remained exactly constant since 1750, an invalid assumption.
IPCC  also claims nature has been a “net carbon sink” since 1750, so nature could not have caused the observed rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Of course, nature is a “net carbon sink” because nature absorbs human CO2 emissions. But absorption of human CO2 does not prevent nature from increasing its own CO2 emissions because inflow and outflow are two different processes.
Cawley  is a key paper for the IPCC theory. Cawley claims human CO2 caused all the increase of atmospheric CO2 above the 280 ppm in 1750. But Cawley’s attempted proof fails.
Cawley’s Equation (3) attempts to do the same job as Equation (A.2), namely, to represent how level sets outflow. But Cawley adds to his Equation (3) a term that represents a steady-state outflow that is independent of level. Cawley’s added term is fictitious because his first term on the right side of his Equation (3) is the true source of all outflow. As a result, Cawley’s Equations (3), (4), (5), and his equation after (5) are wrong, which makes his whole paper wrong.
Cawley’s Equation (7) should include his Fa for human inflow. His Equations (7) and (8) should omit his arbitrary Fe for outflow and set outflow equal to level (his C) divided by his residence time. His residence time is also inaccurate.
Cawley argues the ratio of human to natural CO2 in the atmosphere is a function of residence-time, which is incorrect. The Physics Model Equation (3) and common sense show the ratio is independent of e-time. Cawley equations cannot replicate the 14C data.
Lastly, the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide closely parallels the rise in anthropogenic emissions … which would be somewhat of a coincidence if the rise were essentially natural in origin!
As already shown, Munshi  proves Cawley’s argument fails statistics.
Kohler  uses Cawley to “prove” the IPCC case. But Cawley fails physics and statistics. The IPCC theory pastes together observations without addressing the underlying physics.
4.2 IPCC’s time constants fail physics
The only hypothesis in the Physics Model is “outflow equals level divided by e-time” as shown in Equation (A.2). E-time is not a function of inflow.
The definition of e-time is precise. The Physics Model shows e-time is the time for the level L to move (1 – 1/e) of the distance from L to its balance level, Lb.
IPCC  defines “adjustment time (Ta)” as:
The time-scale characterising the decay of an instantaneous pulse input into the reservoir.
Cawley  defines “adjustment time (Ta)” as:
The time taken for the atmospheric CO2 concentration to substantially recover towards its original concentration following a perturbation.
The word “substantially” is imprecise.
Cawley follows IPCC to define “residence time (Tr)” as:
The average length of time a molecule of CO2 remains in the atmosphere before being taken up by the oceans or terrestrial biosphere.
In summary, IPCC uses two different time constants where it should use only e-time:
- When the level is far from its balance level (which can be zero), IPCC thinks e-time is an adjustment time because the level is moving rapidly toward its balance level.
- When the level is close to its balance level, IPCC thinks e-time is a residence time because “molecules” are flowing in and out with little change in level.
Figure 11 illustrates how e-time relates to IPCC’s adjustment and residence times.
IPCC defines “turnover time (Tt)” as:
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: Tt = M/S.
IPCC’s turnover time seems to be the same as e-time.
IPCC says when outflow is proportional to level (the Physics Model hypothesis) then adjustment time equals turnover time. IPCC claims:
In simple cases, where the global removal of the compound is directly proportional to the total mass of the reservoir, the adjustment time equals the turnover time: Ta = Tt.
The Physics Model’s replication of the 14C data shows the 14CO2 outflow is proportional to level. Therefore, by IPCC’s own definition, adjustment time equals e-time equals residence time.
IPCC says in confusion:
In more complicated cases, where several reservoirs are involved or where the removal is not proportional to the total mass, the equality T = Ta no longer holds.
Carbon dioxide is an extreme example. Its turnover time is only about 4 years because of the rapid exchange between atmosphere and the ocean and terrestrial biota.
Although an approximate value of 100 years may be given for the adjustment time of CO2 in the atmosphere, the actual adjustment is faster initially and slower later on.
IPCC agrees 12CO2 turnover time (e-time) is about 4 years. IPCC claims adjustment time is “fast initially and slower later on” which is why its Bern model cannot replicate the 14C data in Figure 4.
The 14C data (Figures 3 and 4) is the upper bound for CO2 e-time. The e-time for 14CO2 is 16.5 years, not hundreds of years.
Kohler  claims:
The IPCC summarizes the state of the art in peer-reviewed literature. Hence neither the residence time nor the adjustment time are assumptions or interpretations of the IPCC-AR5, but robust outcomes of the underlying science.
Kohler attempts to argue by authority. The implication of “Hence” is that IPCC summaries are so perfect that no one may disagree. That view violates the scientific method.
IPCC theory contradicts physics. Its so-called “state of the art in peer-reviewed literature” is a repetition of inbred, invalid, protected claims.
4.3 IPCC’s buffer theory is invalid
IPCC  claims the Bern model increases its residence time is because:
The fraction of anthropogenic CO2 that is taken up by the ocean declines with increasing CO2 concentration, due to reduced buffer capacity of the carbonate system.
There are three things wrong with this IPCC claim:
- It requires nature to treat human and natural CO2 differently, which is impossible.
- It assumes the much larger natural CO2 outflow does not reduce buffer capacity.
- It conflicts with the 14C data that show e-time is constant, which means buffer capacity has not changed.
Kohler  claim human emissions have reduced the “buffer capacity” of the carbonate system:
the rise in atmospheric and oceanic carbon content goes along with an increase in the Revelle factor, a phenomenon which is already measurable. This implies that the oceanic uptake of anthropogenic carbon will become slower if we continue to increase anthropogenic CO2 emissions. This is already seen in all CHIMP5 model simulations.
Kohler’s last sentence illustrates the absence of logic by Kohler and the IPCC. They claim a model proves what has been fed into the model.
Kohler claims 14CO2 does not trace 12CO2 because 12CO2 is restrained by the decreased the ocean’s buffer capacity while 14CO2 is not.
The 14C data are the most accurate way to measure changes in the Revelle factor and “buffer capacity.” Kohler’s argument fails because the 14C data show the buffer capacity has been constant.
Levin et al.  concludes the C14 data provide “an invaluable tracer to gain insight into the carbon cycle dynamics.” RealClimate  agrees, “All isotopes of an element behave in a similar way chemically.”
As an isotope, 14CO2 will undergo the same chemical reactions as 12CO2, except slower. Both isotopes will seek their balance level according to their e-time.
4.4 IPCC’s argument does not correlate
A standard scientific test for the non-existence of cause and effect is to show the correlation of the assumed cause with the assumed effect is zero. For the IPCC to argue that human CO2 causes climate change, the IPCC must show that the correlation of human emissions with increase in atmospheric CO2 is significantly greater than zero.
IPCC claims the trend of human CO2 correlates with the trend in atmospheric CO2. But that conclusion is incorrect because the IPCC does not detrend the time series as required for a proper statistical analysis. Munshi  has calculated a proper detrended correlation of human CO2 emissions with changes in atmospheric CO2. Munshi shows the annual correlation is ZERO.  found the correlation for time intervals from one to five years is also ZERO. This is further evidence that the Physics Model is correct, and the IPCC model is incorrect.
The 14C data after 1970 show how CO2 flows out of the atmosphere. All valid CO2 models must replicate these 14CO2 data. The Physics Model exactly replicates these 14C data and the IPCC model does not.
The Physics Model shows the ratio of human to natural CO2 in the atmosphere equals the ratio of their inflows. Inflow and e-time set the balance level of CO2 in the atmosphere. The level and e-time set the outflow. When inflow exceeds outflow, the level increases. As the level increases, outflow increases. When outflow equals inflow, the level equals the balance level and remains constant if inflow remains constant.
Continued constant CO2 emissions do not add more CO2 to the atmosphere. CO2 emissions only set balance levels. The balance level of present human CO2 is about 18 ppm. The balance level of natural CO2 is about 392 ppm, for a total of 410 ppm.
To the extent that atmospheric CO2 causes climate change, nature is 94% responsible and human CO2 is only 5% responsible.
The author thanks Chuck Wiese, Laurence Gould, Tom Sheahen, and Charles Camenzuli, who reviewed this paper and provided scientific critique, and Daniel Nebert, Gordon Danielson, and Valerie Berry, who provided language and grammar improvements. This research project was funded by the personal funds of Valerie and Edwin Berry.
 IPCC: Working Group 1: The scientific basis. The Carbon Cycle and Atmosphere CO2; 2001. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/TAR-03.pdf
 USGCRP: Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume I [Wuebbles, D.J., D.W. Fahey, K.A. Hibbard, D.J. Dokken, B.C. Stewart, and T.K. Maycock (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, 470 pp; 2018. doi: 10.7930/J0J964J6. https://science2017.globalchange.gov/
 IPCC: The IPCC Scientific Assessment (1990): 1.2.5. Evidence that the Contemporary Carbon Dioxide Increase is Anthropogenic. Page 14; 1990. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_01.pdf
 Segalstad, T. V.: 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; 1998. http://www.co2web.info/ESEF3VO2.pdf
 Jaworowski, Z.: Climate Change: Incorrect information on pre-industrial CO2. Statement written for the Hearing before the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation; 2004. http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen5/JawoCO2-Eng.html
 Munshi, Jamal: Responsiveness of atmospheric CO2 to fossil fuel emissions: Updated. SSRN; 2017. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2997420
 Revelle, R. & Suess, H.: CO2 exchange between atmosphere and ocean and the question of an increase of atmospheric CO2 during past decades. Tellus. 9: 18-27; 1957. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1957.tb01849.x/abstract.
 Starr, C.: Atmospheric CO2 residence time and the carbon cycle. Science Direct, 18, 12, 1297-1310; 1992. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0360544293900178
 Segalstad, T.V.: The amount of non-fossil-fuel CO2 in the atmosphere. AGU Chapman Conference on Climate, Volcanism, and Global Change. March 23-27. Hilo, Hawaii. Abstracts: 25; and poster: 10 pp; 1992. http://www.co2web.info/hawaii.pdf
 Segalstad, T.V.: The distribution of CO2 between atmosphere, hydrosphere, and lithosphere; minimal influence from anthropogenic CO2 on the global “Greenhouse Effect”. In Emsley, J. (Ed.): The Global Warming Debate. The Report of the European Science and Environment Forum. Bourne Press Ltd., Bournemouth, Dorset, U.K. [ISBN 0952773406]: 41-50; 1996. http://www.co2web.info/ESEFVO1.pdf
 Rorsch, A., R.S. Courtney, D. Thoenes: The Interaction of Climate Change and the CO2 Cycle. Energy & Environment, Volume 16, No 2; 2005. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1260/0958305053749589
 Courtney, R.S.: Limits to existing quantitative understanding of past, present and future changes to atmospheric CO2 concentration. International Conference on Climate Change, New York. 2008. https://www.heartland.org/multimedia/videos/richard-courtney-iccc1
 Quirk, Tom: Sources and sinks of CO2. Energy & Environment. Volume: 20 Issue: 1, page(s): 105-121. January 1; 2009. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1260/095830509787689123
 Essenhigh, R.E.: Potential dependence of global warming on the residence time (RT) in the atmosphere of anthropogenically sourced CO2. Energy & Fuels. 23, 2773-2784; 2009. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef800581r
 Glassman, J.A.: On why CO2 is known not to have accumulated in the atmosphere and what is happening with CO2 in the modern era. Rocket Scientist Journal; 2010. https://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2007/06/on_why_co2_is_known_not_to_hav.html#more
 Humlum, O., Stordahl, K., Solheim, J.-E.: The phase relation between atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures. Global and Planetary Change, Vol 100, January, pp 51-69; 2013. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658
 Salby, Murry: Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate. Cambridge University Press. 666 pp; 2012. https://www.amazon.com/Physics-Atmosphere-Climate-Murry-Salby/dp/0521767180/ref=mt_hardcover?_encoding=UTF8&me=
 Harde, H.: Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO2 residence time in the atmosphere. Global and Planetary Change. 152, 19-26; 2017. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818116304787. (https://edberry.com/wp-content/uploads/Climate/HardeHermann17-March6-CarbonCycle-ResidenceTime.pdf)
 Berry, E. X: A fatal flaw in global warming science. Basic Science of a Changing Climate. Porto University, Portugal. Sep 7; 2018. https://www.portoconference2018.org/uploads/1/1/7/3/117342822/11_edwinberryportosep7final.pdf
 Berry, E. X: Contradictions to IPCC’s climate change theory. Annual meeting of the American Meteorological Society, Phoenix; 2019. https://ams.confex.com/ams/2019Annual/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/349565
 Archer, D., Eby, M., Brovkin, V., Ridgwell, A., Cao, L., Mikolajewicz, et al.: Atmospheric Lifetime of Fossil Fuel Carbon Dioxide, Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci., 37, 117–134; 2009. http://doi:10.1146/annurev.earth.031208.100206.https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.earth.031208.100206
 Cawley, G.C.: On the Atmospheric residence time of anthropogenically sourced CO2. Energy Fuel 25, 5503–5513; 2011. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ef200914u
 Joos, F., R. Roth, Fuglestvedt, J. S., Peters, G. P., Enting, I. G., von Bloh, et al.: Carbon dioxide and climate impulse response functions for the computation of greenhouse gas metrics: a multi-model analysis. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 13(5),
 Kern, Z. and Leuenberger, M.: Comment on “The phase relation between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature” Humlum et al. [Glob. Planet. Change 100: 51–69.]: Isotopes ignored. Glob. Planet. Chang. 109, 1–2; 2013. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2013.07.002
 Kohler, P., Hauck, J., Volker, C., Wolf-Gladrow, D.A., Butzin, M., Halpern, J.B., et al.: Comment on “Scrutinizing the carbon cycle andCO2residence time in the atmosphere” by H. Harde, Global and Planetary Change; 2017. https://www.soest.hawaii.edu/oceanography/faculty/zeebe_files/Publications/KoehlerGPC17.pdf
 IPCC: Fourth Assessment Report: The Physical Science Basis, Figure 7.3; 2007. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg1-chapter7-1.pdf
 Boden, T. and Andres, B. (2017) Global CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel burning, cement manufacture, and gas flaring: 1751-2014. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2014.ems.
 Hua, Q., Barbetti, M. and Rakowski, A. Z.: Atmospheric radiocarbon for the period 1950–2010. RADIOCARBON, Vol 55, Nr 4, 2013, p 2059–2072. Table S2c – Global Δ14C for boreal summers (May-Aug); 2013. https://doi.org/10.2458/azu_js_rc.v55i2.16177
 Turnbull, J. C., Mikaloff Fletcher, S. E., Ansell, I., Brailsford, G. W., Moss, R. C., Norris, et al.: Sixty years of radiocarbon dioxide measurements at Wellington, New Zealand: 1954–2014. Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 14771–14784; 2017. BHDCGO_MONTHLY_SMOOTH_CURVE, Output from bhd_smoothcurve.pro 2016112, D14C_trend https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-14771-2017
 Siegenthaler, U. and Joos, F.: Use of a simple model for studying oceanic tracer distributions and the global carbon cycle. Tellus, 44B, 186-207; 1992. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1034/j.1600-0889.1992.t01-2-00003.x/epdf
 Levin, I., T. Naegler, B. Kromer, M. Diehl, R. Francey, A. Gomez-Pelaez, et al.: Observations and modelling of the global distribution and long-term trend of atmospheric 14CO2. Tellus B: Chemical and Physical Meteorology; 2010. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1600-0889.2009.00446.x
 RealClimate: Isotopes; 2004. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/11/isotopes/
 RealClimate: How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities? 2004. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/
 IPCC Working Group 1: The scientific basis. Appendix 1 – Glossary; 2001.
 Dwight, H. B.: Tables of Integrals and Other Mathematical Data, Item 90.1. MacMillian Company; 1955. https://www.amazon.com/Tables-Integrals-Other-Mathematical-Data/dp/0023311703
 Joos, F.: Parameters for tuning a simple carbon cycle model; 2002. https://unfccc.int/resource/brazil/carbon.html