Koutsoyiannis et al agree with Berry, Harde, and Salby on the cause of the CO2 increase
Ed Berry, PhD, Theoretical Physics, CCM
Koutsoyiannis et al. (2023) prove that increase in global temperature causes the increase in atmospheric CO2, and not vice-versa. That is a significant proof.
Koutsoyiannis et al. also proves Theory (1) is false.
IPCC Theory (1) says the natural CO2 level remained constant at 280 ppm and human CO2 controls the CO2 level above 280 ppm.
Koutsoyiannis proves global temperature controls the CO2 level. But global temperature does not control human CO2 emissions. Global temperature controls only natural CO2 emissions.
Therefore, human CO2 emissions do not control the CO2 level, and Theory (1) is false.
So, their paper supports the conclusions — of Berry (2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2023a, 2023b), Harde (2017, 2019, 2023), Harde and Salby (2021a, 2021b, 2022), and Salby (2013, 2016, 2018) — that natural CO2 causes the increase in atmospheric CO2 and human emissions are insignificant to climate, e.g., Theory (1) is also false.
Below is a pdf copy of Koutsoyiannis et al. (2023). No Tricks Zone and Judith Curry also reviewed Koutsoyiannis et al. (2023).
Koutsoyiannis et al. (2023) write the following (quotes):
Nonetheless, as a side product, in the Appendices to the paper, we provide several indications of the following (Page 18):
- The dependence of the carbon cycle on temperature is quite strong and indeed major increases of [CO2] can emerge as a result of temperature rise. In other words, we show that the natural [CO2] changes due to temperature rise are far larger (by a factor > 3) than human emissions (Appendix A.1).
- There are processes, such as the Earth’s albedo (which is changing in time as any other characteristic of the climate system), the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the ocean heat content in the upper layer (represented by the vertically averaged temperature in the layer 0–100 m), which are potential causes of the temperature increase, unlike what is observed with [CO2], their changes precede those of temperature (Appendices A.2–A.4).
- On a large timescale, the analysis of paleoclimatic data supports the primacy of the causal direction T → [CO2], even though some controversy remains about this issue (Appendix A.5).
The human CO2 emissions due to the burning of fossil fuels have largely increased since the beginning of the industrial age. However, the global temperature increase began succeeding the Little Ice Period, at a time when human CO2 emissions were very low.
This role can be summarized in the following points, examined in detail and quantified in Appendix A.1. (Page 19)
- Terrestrial and maritime respiration and decay are responsible for the vast majority of CO2 emissions [32], Figure 5.12.
- Overall, natural processes of the biosphere contribute 96% to the global carbon cycle, the rest, 4%, being human emissions (which were even lower in the past [33]).
- The biosphere is more productive at higher temperatures, as the rates of biochemical re- actions increase with temperature, which leads to increasing natural CO2 emission [2].
- Additionally, a higher atmospheric CO2 concentration makes the biosphere more productive via the so-called carbon fertilization effect, thus resulting in greening of the Earth [34,35], i.e., amplification of the carbon cycle, to which humans also contribute through crops and land-use management [36].
Conclusions (Page 22):
- All evidence resulting from the analyses of the longest available modern time series of atmospheric concentration of [CO2] at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, along with that of globally averaged T, suggests a unidirectional, potentially causal link with T as the cause and [CO2] as the effect. This direction of causality holds for the entire period covered by the observations (more than 60 years).
- Seasonality, as reflected in different phases of [CO2] time series at different latitudes, does not play any role in potential causality, as confirmed by replacing the Mauna Loa [CO2] time series with that in South Pole.
- The unidirectional T → ln[CO2] potential causal link applies to all timescales resolved by the available data, from monthly to about two decades.
- The proposed methodology is simple, flexible and effective in disambiguating cases where the type of causality, HOE or unidirectional, is not quite clear.
- Furthermore, the methodology defines a type of data analysis that, regardless of the detection of causality per se, assesses modeling performance by comparing observational data with model results. In particular, the analysis of climate model outputs reveals a misrepresentation of the causal link by these models, which suggest a causality direction opposite to the one found when the real measurements are used.
- Extensions of the scope of the methodology, i.e., from detecting possible causality to building a more detailed model of stochastic type, are possible, as illustrated by a toy model for the T-[CO2] system, with explained variance of [CO2] reaching an impressive 99.9%.
- While some of the findings of this study seem counterintuitive or contrary to mainstream opinions, they are logically and computationally supported by arguments and calculations given in the Appendices.
End quotes.
Thanks for all you do Ed. I pray that we can eventually convince the masses that the obviously errant Global warming narrative is just that. A big lie that is being foisted on us all to make the elites very rich and give them the absolute power over the masses they so viciously covet.
No Tricks Zone has another one today by Stewart Harris although it doesn’t appear to present any new data or methodology. When will someone that has the public ear and the courage to get this into public circulation show up?
I wrote this for the Bozeman paper, but they will not touch it. Demetris Koutsoyiannis and three coauthors have published a new scientific data analysis that should be front page news. Its conclusion states:
“However, if we stick to the facts, two things are clear: (i) changes in CO₂ concentration have not been warming the planet; (ii) climate models do not reflect what the observational data tell us on this issue.”
So, all, and I mean ALL, of the problems predicted by climate models are scientifically unsupported. None of the imagined climate catastrophes we hear about every day can be attributed to CO2 let alone anthropogenic CO2. The lawsuits that site litanies of imagined climate damages are unsupported by any scientific data. The $75 trillion recommended in the latest version of the Green New Deal is aimed at a problem that does not exist.
So, what is our response to this new paper that is added to the growing number that falsify the assumption of human caused dangerous climate change? Does the climate change industry have enough control of the world’s finances and imagination to just continue this fantasy, draining the assets of almost everyone to fill the coffers of the privileged few with no environmental benefit possible?
Do we let the media continue to frighten our children with these now thoroughly refuted lies to get wider coverage?
I am struck with the constricting immorality on so many levels of this lie and yearn to see the freedom that the truth could bring. I fear I am a voice crying in the wilderness drowned out by the lie’s noise, denigrated as misinformation and dismissed as an uninformed crank.
Follow the data not the hype.
Dear Ed,
As you know, you and I are united in our support of adherence to the scientific method but have very different political opinions.
It is pleasing that Koutsoyiannes et al have added to the body of support for your finding that global temperature controls the magnitude of atmospheric CO2 concentration; n.b. this is the opposite of the claim by climate alarmists (e.g. the UN’s IPCC) that atmospheric CO2 concentration controls global temperature.
I have opposed the climate scare for four decades because there was – and is – no empirical evidence for the scare. Throughout that time, I have been reviled, insulted and attacked by proponents of the scare, and those attacks have not stopped.
Now, some opponents of the scare are ignoring and/or rejecting your findings because opposition to the scare is a useful tool for attacking their political opponents, so some of them are attempting to undermine me, i.e. I am now being attacked from all sides.
Everybody knows people are often forgiven for being wrong but rarely forgiven for being right. I am pleased your work is being supported by a growing body of published findings, but I write with good will to warn that this does not mean you will be acknowledged soon: as Galileo said when leaving for exile, “But they do move”.
Richard
Ed, care to comment on this from someone online?
“The extra CO2 added to the atmosphere over the past 200 years hasn’t come from the ocean. It has come from human activity. We know that with certainty via analysis of the ratios of carbon 12, 13 and 14 in atmospheric CO2. CO2 from combusted fossil fuels has its own isotopic signature, which we can distinguish from CO2 from volcanoes, the ocean or the biosphere. It’s how we figured out that ALL of the excess carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution has come from us, not nature.”
Hi Rod,
Sure. Those claims do not consider the carbon cycle and its flows. They do not consider my papers that prove those claims are wrong. They do not use balance levels and likely do not even understand balance levels.
Berry (2023) Section 5 uses D14C data to prove human CO2 is negligible. See:
https://edberry.com/berry-vs-andrews/
So, the burden of proof is on those who make such outdated claims to read the science that proves their claims are wrong and then to prove the new science of Berry, Harde, Salby, and Koutsoyiannis et al., are wrong.
Rod,
Your “someone on line” is misinformed.
Changes to the isotope ratios do NOT indicate an anthropogenic source for the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration. The ratio change has the correct sign but the magnitude of the change is wrong by a factor of 3 (i.e. differs by 300%) from expectation if the change has an anthropogenic source.
Richard