New Study: CO2 Emission Rates From Natural Sources Are Up To 6 Times Larger Than From Humans

Analysis of CO2 residence times suggest 65% to 96.5% of the CO2 concentration increase since 1958 is natural.

According to a new study, the claim that increases in atmospheric CO2 are driven exclusively by humans relies on a made-up, disparate accounting model, with the residence time for natural emissions 3 to 4 years (which is consistent with actual observations), but CO2 from human sources is claimed to have a residence time of 50 to over 100 years.

The 15 to 30 times longer residence time for human emissions is an imaginary conceptualization that is wholly inconsistent with (1) bomb tests (1963) and (2) seasonal CO2 variations found in real-world observations.

Human emissions account for under 5% of the total from all sources, natural and anthropogenic. Nature’s sinks do not decide which CO2 to absorb, depending on the source. Absorption is instead proportional to the source.

Consequently, Dr. Harde insists that a “comprehensive analysis and reproduction of the atmospheric CO2 evolution requires to…treat all emissions in a consistent manner.”

When the imaginary-world 50-100+ years residence time for anthropogenic CO2 accounting method is not used, and instead natural emissions and human emissions are treated as equal (both with a residence time under 10 years), the attribution for the CO2 increase falls to as little as 3.5%, with the upper limit 35%.

Image Source: Harde, 2023a

Ferdinand Engelbeen, a long-time proponent of the position that humans are 100% responsible for CO2 concentration changes, published a Comment in the same journal, replying to the above study. Engelbeen claims natural emissions are always 100% balanced by natural sinks, and “there is zero contribution from natural sources and sinks to the increase in the atmosphere.”

Dr. Harde then published a Reply to Engelbeen, explaining that his position employs “circular reasoning,” and that the assumption that nature contributes zero to CO2 concentration change is “nonsense and misses any scientific basis.”

Harde further explains that treating the residence of CO2 as equal for anthropogenic and natural emissions allows for the conclusion that natural emissions add 31.2 ppm/year to the increase, whereas humans add 5.5 ppm/year. The natural contribution to the CO2 increase since 1958 is thus nearly 6 times greater than that from humans.

Image Source: Harde, 2023b

15 responses to “New Study: CO2 Emission Rates From Natural Sources Are Up To 6 Times Larger Than From Humans”

  1. val

    Carbon Dioxide comprises 0.04% of the atmosphere, currently. The whole CO2 issue is based on nothing, directed at an ignorant population.

  2. Richard Greene

    The atmospheric CO2 level was up about +140ppm, or +50%, since 1850

    Manmade CO2 emissions of about +250ppm since 1850 account for ALL the atmospheric CO2 increase.

    99.9% of scientists living on our planet agree with this OBVIOUS fact.

    Harde and Berry do not and they are science frauds.

    They totally confuse seasonal carbon flows that DO NOT increase the atmospheric CO2 level year over year, with manmade CO2 emissions that do increase the atmospheric CO2 level year over year.

    The seasonal carbon flows are 20x larger than manmade CO2 emissions in one year, but they do NOT increase atmospheric CO2

    Atmospheric CO2 stayed in the 180ppm to 280ppm range for 800,000 years of the ice core era.

    Suddenly, CO2 increased from 280ppm to 420ppm in 173 years (1850 to 2023). The ONLY possible explanation for the +140ppm CO2 increase was the +250ppm of manmade CO2 emissions.

    Harde and Berry are from the deluded 3% of the 420ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere had manmade origins when the RIGHT answer is 33%.

    1. roberto

      Il “99,9% degli scienziati” è un fake. Sono tutti “studi” cherry picking: prendono un certo numero di articoli scientifici sul clima (senza leggerli), scartano quelli dove gli autori non si sono espressi (o si sono dichiarati contrari) circa la responsabilità dell’uomo sul clima, che sono la maggioranza, e tengono in considerazione solo quelli che sono d’accordo con la responsabilità umana nel “cambiamento climatico”.

  3. cementafriend

    Richard Greene,there is no evidence of lower CO2 levels in 1850. There were a few tests by Chemical needs around 1850. many say they were not accurate but the level was over 350pmm. However, in 1941 there were very accurate tests (possibly more accurate than present at the sides of a Volcano in Hawaii which gives off CO2) The tests which were done three times per day (and for some weeks every three hrs) over 1.5 years showed CO2 levels in the atmosphere (corrected for wind) in Germany at over 400pmm. Other independent test around that time (one in India) also showed CO2 at over 400pmm. From SOI and IPO measurements there was a very strong El Nino from 1940-1943 with hot seas surfaces around the equator in the pacific. This would have resulted in more CO2 emitted fro the ocean. Humans had nothing to do with that.

  4. R Greene

    Chemical CO2 measurements, generally in urban areas, are just local measurements and do NOT represent an accurate global average of CO2.

    The air bubbles trapped in Antarctica ice cores do allow measurement of actual air from the past (+/- 20 years) NOT near urban CO2 emissions sources.

  5. R Greene

    Engelbeen (from the article) represents the at least 99.9% consensus of ALL scientists on where the last +140ppm of CO2 came from (human). He is logical and correct.

    Mr. Harde represents the 0.1% minority — science frauds who have no idea what they are talking about.

    The best climate science Ph.D.’s ON OUR SIDE, never deny 100% of consensus climate science They are too smart to do that.

    They agree that a greenhouse effect exists (aka back radiation) and manmade CO2 added to the atmosphere since 1850 (about +149ppm, or +50%) increased the greenhouse effect.

    Scientists such as Richard Lindzen, William Happer, Roy Spencer and John Christy, all Ph.D.’s, have harmed their reputation by opposing the consensus climate science predictions of CAGW.

    Instead of supporting the best skeptic scientists on our side, too many conservatives, and a few science frauds such as Harde and Berry, undercut them by claiming about 99.9% of the “skeptic” climate scientists are wrong, and 100% of the consensus climate scientists are wrong too,

    Everyone is wrong about basic climate science but them?
    Big egos and bad science.

    1. George Branagh

      For someone who claims to advocate for science, you fail, like all the climate fraudsters, to apply it.

      “Mr. Harde represents the 0.1% minority — science frauds who have no idea what they are talking about” – The pseudo-scientific frauds who have no idea what they’re talking about are the ones you advocate for. But you know this which is why you attempt to reverse the label. Without proxy data and computer models they have nothing. No science just rhetoric.

      “The best climate science Ph.D.’s ON OUR SIDE, never deny 100% of consensus climate science They are too smart to do that” – Name one? And since when does failed computer models constitute science?

      “Scientists such as Richard Lindzen, William Happer, Roy Spencer and John Christy, all Ph.D.’s, have harmed their reputation by opposing the consensus climate science predictions of CAGW*… And there you have it. The admission that the science you advocate isn’t science… It’s speculation.

      You have no idea what you’re talking about.

      1. Richard Greene

        Thanks for the character attack George

        You obviously have no other ammunition

  6. JoshC

    99.9% agree is a made up number. If you want to look silly keep repeating it I guess? 99.9% of scientists realize that 99.9% is a fake number when asking opinions about what scientists think.

    There was one scientist who risked their reputation about ulcers and H. PYLORI. Damaged it quite bad. There was a consensus. It was caused by stress according to concensus. 99.9% were wrong. The one was right.

    Consensus arguments are not science. They are politics. We can probably make an assumption on yours right quick. Stop playing politics with scientific minds. It is a wasted argument.

    The Ice Core data is subject to Osmosis. That dilutes CO2 levels. And until we have a direct air level of CO2 to long term ice core sample (because we don’t know the correlation and how much it dilutes) the ice core samples are not means adjusted. When we look at world wide samples we have a far higher example of CO2 rates. Nothing as low as shown in Ice Cores. It is a different dataset and should, logically, be treated as such.

    These are arguments we made in the 90s. I am surprised at how strongly you want to try and convince rational minds to the political position we grew past decades ago. I would say nice try. But it isn’t.

    1. Richard Greene

      A scientific study of published climate scientific papers in 2013 found OVER 99.9% agreed there was a greenhouse effect and CO2 was part of it

      My 99.9% estimate is based on that 2013 study and 26 years of climate science reading, during which I discovered onlt three scientists who almost dismissed the greenhouse effect by falsely claiming manmade CO2 accounted for only about 3% of the total atmospheric CO2 level, rather than the correct estimate of 33%..

      Two of the three science frauds were Harde and berry. I forgot the third one, but I recalled he died a few years ago.

  7. New Study: Natural CO2 Emissions Nearly Six Times Higher Than Man-Made Sources –

    […] Read more at No Tricks Zone […]

  8. tita

    Thanks for all the research paper it was very informative

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