New Study In Journal Of Earth Sciences: Human Activities “Not Responsible For Observed CO2 Increase”

A new paper appearing in the journal Earth Sciences here authored by Hermann Harde of the Helmut-Schmidt-University, Hamburg Germany, is stirring up more controversy among the climate science community, which generally claims humans have been responsible for rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations since the mid 19th century.

The opposite is true

According to Harde, it is not the added CO2 that is causing the global temperature to rise, but just opposite: “The temperature itself dominantly controls the CO2 increase. Therefore, not CO2 but primarily native impacts are responsible for any observed climate changes.”

Harde claims this is backed up by and “in agreement with all observations.”

The paper is expected to generate much opposition in a science whose claimed consensus has increasingly come under fire.

What follows below is the paper’s abstract:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assumes that the inclining atmospheric CO2 concentration over recent years was almost exclusively determined by anthropogenic emissions, and this increase is made responsible for the rising temperature over the Industrial Era. Due to the far reaching consequences of this assertion, in this contribution we critically scrutinize different carbon cycle models and compare them with observations. We further contrast them with an alternative concept, which also includes temperature dependent natural emission and absorption with an uptake rate scaling proportional with the CO2 concentration. We show that this approach is in agreement with all observations, and under this premise not really human activities are responsible for the observed CO2 increase and the expected temperature rise in the atmosphere, but just opposite the temperature itself dominantly controls the CO2 increase. Therefore, not CO2 but primarily native impacts are responsible for any observed climate changes.”

The study builds on a previous controversial paper published in 2017: Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO2 residence time in the atmosphere in the journal Global and Planetary Change.

Hermann Harde is not alone in backing the hypothesis that temperature drives CO2, and not the other way around. Other scientists in Harde’s camp include, among others, Dr. Murry Salby. formerly of the Macquarie University in Sydney.

49 responses to “New Study In Journal Of Earth Sciences: Human Activities “Not Responsible For Observed CO2 Increase””

  1. Roger Tattersall

    Hermann is right. The additional sunshine hours of the 80s and 90s dried out volcagenic soils which then emitted far more CO2 than volcanoes do directly into the atmosphere. This post I made in 2012 has some useful info:

  2. Robert Christopher

    This paper, following on the heels of
    Valentina Zharkova’s paper – Oscillations of the baseline of solar magnetic field and solar irradiance on a millennial timescale (V.V. Zharkova, S. J. Shepherd, S. I. Zharkov & E. Popova), explaining all the Earth’s dominant temperature changes, without the need for that ‘evil’ carbon dioxide, only adds to the wonder of Theresa May’s intellect of pushing the ‘Climate Change enhancement’ onto the British people, all for the measly sum of one trillion (GB) pounds. And she thinks it will enhance her stature! 🙂

  3. Brian James

    Jul 3, 2019 Climate Stunner, Impossible Galaxies, Red Dwarf Exoplanet

    Daily Sun, Earth and Science News

    Apr 26, 2016 Rising CO2 Levels Greening Earth

    From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.

  4. oeman50

    Isn’t this consistent with the ice core CO2 data that show CO2 concentration lags temperature increases that Algore conveniently ignored?

  5. If All You See… » Pirate's Cove

    […] blog of the day is No Tricks Zone, with a post on a new paper showing that human activities are not responsible for the observed CO2 […]

  6. SebastianH

    OMG, Harde still doesn’t know the difference between residence time and adjustment time. This is pure gold and skeptics are yet again falling for it 😉

    If you can’t figure out why this is BS, your loss.

    1. William

      Vintage troll – clearly hasn’t even read the paper. But then it’s probably over his head.

      1. Wert

        The thing is, I would not read a single author paper claiming revolutionization of established theory since the chances are, the paper is so heavily at the crackpot sector. But then, so was Wegener.

        In this case, the possibility of a new ‘Einstien’ is slim.

    2. TedM

      And you Sebastian would be prepared to have an open discussion on this site with Harde on this subject for us to see who has the science?

      1. SebastianH

        “Who has the science?” what kind of qualification is that?

        Anyway, sure … bring it on. I’ve read this paper a few days ago. It already got the rightfully earned ridicule for having learned nothing since his last attempt to show that humans don’t cause the CO2 concentration increase 😉

        It is still “Harde to believe” that anyone would fall for this.

    3. Yonason

      Oh, yes, SebH. DO explain to us why YOU think he’s wrong. LOL!

      (This should be good.)

      Come on, troll. If you know what you’re talking about, you can do it.

      Failing that, feel free to slink away in shame.

      1. SebastianH

        No need to, just read the posts on the web that are about the 2017 paper he wrote. The new paper still makes the same mistake.

        Little hint: there is a difference between the lifetime of one CO2 molecule in the atmosphere and the time it takes for a CO2 concentrations to come down to the previous value after injecting a certain amount. As a thought experiment, imagine there were no human CO2 related activities and you’d inject Earth’s atmosphere with 100 Gt of CO2. How long would it take for the CO2 concentration to come back to the value it was before the injection? If you understand this, you more or less understand why this paper is wrong 😉

        1. Wert

          I take this as the best conclusion on the paper without reading it. If you can dispute this, please do.

        2. Yonason

          Translation – SebH hasn’t a clue how to put it into his own words, nor the courtesy to provide links to what he thinks are important.

          I.e., he’s still trolling after all these years.

        3. Anthony Cox

          The old one molecule vs the mass of CO2 molecules argument by Sebastion was addressed by Bob Cormack and myself here:

  7. Christopher Hanley

    ‘According to Harde, it is not the added CO2 that is causing the global temperature to rise, but just opposite …’.
    Fallacy of the single cause, it could be a bit of both or a bit of both plus natural variation all at varying proportions or, probably less likely, just natural variation.

  8. DMA

    Harde was attacked by the Climate Consensus Cops for his 2017 paper noted in this article. The critique of his paper by Kohler et. al. did not address his main points but claimed he was wrong because he constructed his study differently than they would have. Then the “cops” got to the journal which refused to print Harde’s answer to Kohler. ( )It is well worth reading to get the flavor of this controversy. Harde’s analysis removes the basis of concern for the A in CAGW and, if accepted as correct, should end the hysteria about reducing emissions. His view is supported by Murray Salby in his text book and videos, Dr. Berry ( Jamal Munshi (

    1. cohenite

      Correct; the censoring of Harde by overbearing DHs like eli from Rabett Run (Josh Halpern) was both predictable and sad.

  9. PaulS

    The temperature itself dominantly controls the CO2 increase.

    Which would necessarily mean current temperatures must be much warmer than the Medieval Warm Period. Can’t have it both ways.

    1. Yonason

      Not necessarily, PaulS.

      CO2 lags temperature by 800 to 1000 years.

      The ME Warm Period was about 950 to 1250 CE, (800-1000 ybp).

      Too early to tell yet, but also too early to rule out, though it is consistent.

      But since your logic isn’t supported by the data, it’s more likely you are wrong than right.

      1. PaulS


        Your argument contradicts that in the linked article, which is that contemporary CO2 rise is due to contemporary warming.

        1. Yonason

          Can’t It Be Both?

          Salby’s work shows that: ”CO2 lags temperature on both short [~1-2 year] and long [~1000 year] time scales.”

          I have to reread the paper, but not until my computer is operational. A cell phone just doesn’t cut it.

          Just because a short term increase should occur in both cases, why would the magnitudes of CO2 have to be the same for the same temperature? Why couldn’t CO2 be higher at a lower temp? From the graphs here we can see that’s sometimes the case.

          And, as pointed out there…

          ”NOTE 1: What really matters here are the turning points, not the absolute levels.”

          All I’m saying is you may be over interpreting the data.

      2. cementafriend

        Yonason, CO2 lags temperature on a daily and seasonal basis as well as 60 year cycles and cycles around 1000years. Why dont you make some measurements at ground level as others have done. The sun rises and incoming radiation increases ground level temperatures this in turn increases CO2 emissions from plant decay. You can see seasonal changes in the Mauna Loa CO2 measurements. As temperatures decrease (autumn and winter) more CO2 is absorbed by the sea and as temperatures rise (spring and summer) less CO2 absorbed and some is emitted from water surfaces. There were three independent ( one in Germany, one in India and one near Norway) measurements ( one 3 times per day for 1 1/2 years) of CO2 in the 1940’s which recorded around 400ppm of CO2. This was towards the end of a hot period. Measurements at Mauna Loa and other places around world were lower at the end of a cold period ( 1950-mid 1970’s) when many thought the world was heading for an iceage.

        1. Yonason

          Very nice.

          Thank you.

          (Haven’t seen you comment in a while. Good to see you’re still lurking about.)

    2. Petit_Barde

      The ice cores proxies reconstruction of CO2 concentrations is very questionable, and many measurements made by chimical methods since 1812 (and other, as plants stomata) have been ignored by the IPCC.

      See Beck, 180 Years of Atmospheric CO2 Measurement By Chemical Methods :

      1. PaulS


        Plant stomata data tell the same story. Recent direct measurements put CO2 well above Medieval Warm Period and Holocene levels indicated by stomata data.

        1. Jeremy

          CO2 divined from plant stomata is like CO2 divined from ice: Wishful Thinking. See page 12 in Harde’s censored reply to Kohler et al.

        2. Petit_Barde

          They are not perfect, but plants stomata show way more variations than ice cores (see multiple links in the comments section).
          And chimical methods, the most precise, show even more variations and higher or equal CO2 concentrations than now in at least two periods after 1812.

          Furthermore, Mauna Loa measurements, observations and basic physics contradict the AGW hypothesis and explain the delay between T and CO2 concentration variations :

          Murry Salby :

    3. Kenneth Richard

      Unless our speculation that we can divine the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration from 8,000-year-old ice bubbles is inaccurate. Ice cores from both hemispheres had CO2 values ranging up to 700 ppm during the early Holocene. Selection bias led the purveyors to reject CO2 readings higher than the “accepted” values after the early 1980s.

      Jaworowski, 1997
      The ice core data from various polar sites are not consistent with each another, and there is a discrepancy between these data and geological climatic evidence. One such example is the discrepancy between the classic Antarctic Byrd and Vostok ice cores, where an important decrease in the CO2 content in the air bubbles occurred at the same depth of about 500 meters, but at which the ice age differed by about 16,000 years. In an approximately 14,000-year-old part of the Byrd core, a drop in the CO2 concentration of 50 ppmv was observed, but in similarly old ice from the Vostok core, an increase of 60 ppmv was found. In about ~6,000-year-old ice from Camp Century, Greenland, the CO2 concentration in air bubbles was 420 ppmv, but it was 270 ppmv in similarly old ice from Byrd, Antarctica. … In the air from firn and ice at Summit, Greenland, deposited during the past ~200 years, the CO2 concentration ranged from 243.3 ppmv to 641.4 ppmv. Such a wide range reflects artifacts caused by sampling, or natural processes in the ice sheet, rather than the variations of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Similar or greater range was observed in other studies of greenhouse gases in polar ice.

      The failure to resolve the notorious problem of why about 30 percent of man-made CO2 is missing in the global carbon cycle, based on CO2 ice core measurements, suggests a systematic bias in ice core data. It is not possible to explain the ice core CO2 record in terms of a system with time-invariant processes perturbed by a combination of fossil fuel carbon release, CO2-enhanced biotic growth, and deforestation.

      Until 1985, the published CO2 readings from air bubbles in pre-industrial ice ranged from 160 to about 700 ppmv, and occasionally even up to 2,450 ppmv. After 1985, high readings disappeared from the publications. To fit such a wide range of results to the anthropogenic climatic warming theory, which was based on low pre-industrial CO2 levels, three methods were used: (1) rejection of high readings from sets of preindustrial samples, based on the credo: “The lowest CO2 values best represent the CO2 concentrations in the originally trapped ice”; (2) rejection of low readings from sets of 20th century samples; and (3) interpretation of the high readings from pre-industrial samples as representing the contemporary atmosphere rather than the pre-industrial one.

      Neftel, et al. reported in 1982 rather high median CO2 concentrations in the preindustrial ice core from Byrd, Antarctica, of about 330 and 415 ppmv, with maximum value reaching 500 ppmv. However, in 1988, in the second publication on the same core, Neftel et al. did not show these high readings; the highest concentration reported was 290 ppmv, in agreement with the global warming theory.

      Pearman, et al. [1986] “on examination of the data,” rejected 43 percent of the CO2 readings from Law Dome, Antarctica core … because they were higher or lower than the assumed “correct” values. Thus, they concluded a value of 281 ppmv CO2 for the pre-industrial atmosphere.

      Foscolos, 2010
      By the end of the 18th century eminent scientists explained the climatic changes on the basis of temperature and the ensuing glacial retreat. This disturbing observation led many prominent scientists to send air balloons equipped with special devices to trap air from the lower atmosphere in order to measure CO2 concentrations. Ninety thousand (90,000) measurements were carried out at 138 locations in 4 continents between 1810 and 1961. The data indicated that atmospheric CO2 concentrations, during the 19th century varied between 290 and 430 ppm (with an average of 322 ppm for the pre-industrial period). For the 20th century, the average concentration is 338 ppm when combined with comparable CO2 measurements carried out by Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii, USA (1958- 2000). Measurement precision is ±3%.

      1. John Brown


        found a collection of interesting links here:

        Of course some links lead into no-where but content can be found with a history search.

        Maybe something in it missing your great collection.

        Maybe you are the source.

        Thanks for great work and keeping the mind open.

  10. FG

    Great article, one of the best I’ve ever read about climate, thanks for sharing.👍
    One question, if the increasing concentrations of CO2 are mainly due to increased temperature, WHAT is causing increasing T? The only answer I have is solar activity[SA] but, in this case, how can the oscillating SA since 1850 cause exponentially increasing concentrations, as opposed to OSCILLATING increasing concentrations?
    No clear answer for this comes to my mind.

    1. Kenneth Richard

      WHAT is causing increasing T?

      Good question. Below is a very brief overview article. See especially points V. and VI. for the mechanism. Key point: the TSI variation isn’t the (direct) driver.

  11. Yonason


    For someone doing this as a hobby, Kenneth, you do it as well or better than many a professional. Your command of myriad facts coupled with an ability to organize them into an intelligible and compelling picture is impressive.

    Thanks for reminding me about Jaworowski. I’ve been meaning to go back and review more carefully what I can find on him.

  12. Human Activities “Not Responsible For Observed CO2 Increase” – Truth is difficult but essential…
  13. sasquatch

    The future ain’t what it used to be. – Yogi Berra

    SC 25 is beginning to make me worry. Doesn’t bode well for the future.

    The outside temperatures have not reached 90 F this growing season and it is two weeks into the summer season. Plants are behind in growth and it is going to be an unmitigated disaster if it doesn’t warm up soon.

    There has been some seven inches of rain since the first week of June, plenty of moisture, but not much warmth. The accuweather 90 day forecast was far off the mark.

    I have never seen it this cool this late into the growing season. Plants have a tough time when there is not enough sunlight and warmth. The ground has to be warm for good growth to occur.

    The daytime temps are the number one limiting factor so far. Yesterday’s high temp was at 64 F, not near enough heat, warm, but growth is limited.

    It ain’t looking too good at this time. CO2 isn’t much help when the temps are too low for any decent growth. I’ll go with temperature

    The radishes are busting out this year, though.

    Three years ago, the last week of May was in the 80s and 90s easy.

    It might be warmer than normal in Europe, however, right here, it is cooler than normal by a country mile.

    “The temperature itself dominantly controls the CO2 increase. Therefore, not CO2 but primarily native impacts are responsible for any observed climate changes.”

    Looks that way from where it is happening, that would be at the end of nowhere, here.

    1. Yonason

      ”It might be warmer than normal in Europe, however, right here, it is cooler than normal by a country mile.”

      And, as Joe Bastardi recently pointed out, it’s much colder than usual to the East of that hot spot, by about as much and covering the same area. But naturally the media don’t focus on THAT. Why? Because cold is “weather” and warm is “climate,”

      1. Sidian

        I would like to point out I’m actually there, to the east of the hotspot. It’s 9th of july and I’m currently wearing three layers of clothing and seriously considering turning up the heating. The temperature fell to 7deg C two nights ago. Forecasts show no chance of 30deg C temperatures this month with night temperatures of around 11-14deg C.

        1. Yonason


          Sounds like that New England summer when I was a kid and had to wear a jacket every day to go outside. Oh how I wish I could live through that again, …not.

          Interestingly, that was at a time when there were vast citrus groves where I now live in Florida. Since then the N.E. has warmed slightly, but the Central Florida citrus is gone – totally devastated by freezing several years back in the 90’s.

          I’m going to hazard a guess that perhaps folks out your way will now be harder to convince that “we have to cool the planet?”

          Anyway, I hope it warms up for you before the summer’s over.

  14. Gerry

    Apparently now this paper is being criticised for the review process it underwent ……does anyone know anything about that ?

    1. DMA

      This paper and the one by Dr. Berry published on the Fourth are in journals operated by a publisher that got put on Beall’s list of predatory publishers who have been accused of publishing “anything” they get paid to publish. There is at least some truth to this complaint but Mr. Beal got into some legal trouble for maintaining his list and has abandoned it now. Dr. Berry addresses this complaint in the discussion at his web site ( ).
      Keep in mind his paper went through peer review , received recommendations to publish and the journal turned it down as to controversial. He then submitted it to the new publisher and received another round of peer review which he affirms was a good and productive review before publishing. Also this paper by Harde is largely an expansion of Harde 2017 which was published in a well accepted journal but the editors refused to let him defend his work when it was criticized in the same journal in 2017. ( is an interesting read and revealing of the bias driving this subject.

  15. Alex
  16. Yonason

    Those Stubborn Facts: Research Indicates That CO2 Emissions Have Zero Impact On Temperatures In Central Asia

    One of my favorites. They’ve been harshing warmist mellow since 2009.

  17. Holger Gronwaldt

    OMG, how silly can one get?

    By burning fossil fuels and other activities like deforestation, we emit round about 40 billion tons of CO2 per year. This alone would be enough to increase the atmospheric CO2 level by about 4 ppm. However, the actual annual increase is little more than 2 ppm. This clearly proves that there are natural sinks for CO2 (oceans, enhanced photosynthesis).

    In other words: there is no way to show that the increase of CO2 might be natural. Harde, Murry and all others, who claim otherwise, are clearly mistaken!

    1. William

      More vintage troll. One would appear less foolish if, before making such superficial claims, one actually read the material.

  18. Holger Gronwaldt


    having read the abstract ist sufficient to realize that reading the actual article would be a waste of time.

    BTW, Harde and Murry Salby were debunked years ago. So why bother?

    Only denialists are in the habit of grasping any straw that comes along in order to save their long ago disproved assertions.

    1. Yonason

      More fact free troll-spit. How original.

      And, since I’m commenting anyway, I’ll just throw in this timely tribute to Christopher Booker.
      … (couldn’t agree with him more)

  19. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #366 | Watts Up With That?
  20. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #366 - Sciencetells
  21. Weekly Local weather and Power Information Roundup #366 – All My Daily News

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy