“Clearly, the atmospheric CO2 observation data are not consistent with the climate narrative. Rather, they contradict it.” – Koutsoyiannis, 2024
Per a new study, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) utilizes “inappropriate assumption and speculation,” as well as non-real-world models of “imaginary data,” to claim CO2 emissions derived from fossil fuel burning function “weirdly,” far differently in the atmosphere than CO2 molecules derived from natural emissions (e.g., plant respiration, ocean outgassing) do.
“The ambiguity is accompanied by inappropriate assumptions and speculations, the weirdest of which is that the behavior of the CO2 in the atmosphere depends on its origin and that CO2 emitted by anthropogenic fossil fuel combustion has higher residence time than when naturally emitted.”
While the IPCC acknowledges emissions from natural sources have an atmospheric residence time of only 4 years, they have simultaneously constructed model outputs that assert CO2 molecules derived from fossil fuel emissions remain in the atmosphere for hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands, even several one hundred thousands of years.
Per the IPCC:
“15 to 40% of an emitted CO2 pulse [from anthropogenic emissions] will remain in the atmosphere longer than 1000 years, 10 to 25% will remain about ten thousand years, and the rest will be removed over several hundred thousand years.”
“Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an extreme example, its turnover time is only about 4 years because of the rapid exchange between the atmosphere and the ocean.”
Again, a four-year residence time for natural CO2, but hundreds of thousands of years residence time for CO2 molecules elicited from fossil fuel burning. It would seem just about any result can be derived from imaginary data.
Image Source: Koutsoyiannis, 2024
Instead of relying on models built on assumption and speculation, Dr. Koutsoyiannis utilizes a well-established, hydrology-based theoretical framework (refined reservoir routing, or RRR) combined with real-world CO2 observations to robustly conclude the residence time for all CO2 molecules, regardless of origin, is between 3.5 and 4 years.
The applied theoretical results match the empirical results so closely (e.g., an empirical mean of 3.91 years vs. a theoretical mean of 3.94 years at Barrow, and an identical 3.68 years for both empirical and theoretical means at Mauna Loa from 1958-2023) that the theoretical framework can be said to be “close to perfect.” In other words, the consistency of the applied calculation with real-world observations provides robust evidence that CO2 residence time is likely close to this range.
In contrast, the calculated probability for the modeled, imaginary-data-based claim that the residence time for a CO2 molecule persists for over 1000 years is 10⁻⁶⁸, which means the probability value is “no different from an impossibility.”
Image Source: Koutsoyiannis, 2024
A residence time of only 4 years for all CO2 molecules, regardless of origin, is consistent with the conclusion that nature is dominant in driving changes in CO2 concentration. Fossil fuel emissions serve only a minor role.
Since 1750, additions to the atmospheric CO2 concentration derived from natural emission sources associated with biological processes are about 4.5 times larger than the contribution from fossil fuel emissions (e.g., 22.9 ppm per year from nature, 5.2 ppm per year from fossil fuel combustion).
In other words, observed CO2 data contradict the climate narrative that says anthropogenic fossil fuel burning is driving CO2 concentration changes.
While I too would like to see a natural source for the recent increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, as that would destroy the whole “CAGW” meme, what Demetris Koutsoyiannis (and several before him) writes violates the carbon mass balance and several other observations thus can’t be true.
Demetris largely confuses between residence time, that is the time that a single CO2 molecule (of whatever origin) resides in the atmosphere with the “adjustement” time, that is the time that an excess injection of CO2 (of whatever origin) above some dynamic equilibrium needs to be removed back to equilibrium. Two totally different concepts, but largely used as “residence time” in both cases, even by the IPCC…
What is the (real) residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere?
The formula for the residence time is quite simple:
RT = mass / throughput
or for 2020 figures:
RT = 890 PgC / 215 PgC/year = 4.14 years
Where 1 PgC = 1 GtC = 2.13 ppmv CO2
The 215 PgC/year is mainly caused by the huge seasonal fluxes between oceans via the atmosphere into vegetation in spring/summer and reverse in fall/winter. At the end of the year, there is zero change of CO2 in the atmosphere, as long as the sum of all ins and outs is equal.
These processes are temperature/photosynthesis/biological and only partly influenced by the momentary CO2 pressure in the atmosphere.
Then we have the adjustment time.
If the removal of some extra constituent of a dynamic process in equilibrium is linear with the disturbance (Le Chatelier’s principle), then the formula to reduce an extra injection of that constituent to 1/e (~37%) of the original disturbance also is quite simple:
Tau = disturbance / effect
or again for 2020:
Tau = 120 ppmv / 2.25 ppmv/year = 53 years
Quite a difference with the residence time…
The 2.25 ppmv/year is the real, calculated, net removal rate of CO2 out of the atmosphere: observed increase in the atmosphere (Mauna Loa: ~2.25 ppmv/year) minus human emissions (calculated form fossil fuel sales and burning efficiency: ~5 ppmv/year).
That means that nature over the past 6 decades was near always a net sink for CO2 of ~2.25 ppmv/year, not a source…
See further for an in-depth analyses:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_origin.html
Ferdinand, the “natural source” has been measured in thousands of jars worldwide.
It is soil respiration, which has increased faster than human combustion, largely as a result of increased absorbed solar radiation the last 20 years.
The “dynamic equilibrium” must be adjusted to account for this, or Le Chatelier must be applied to this as well.
“Nature” can remain a net sink due to the adjustment time.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-20616-z#:~:text=The%20ongoing%20trend%20of%20climate,thus%20amplifies%20global%20warming4
The argument that this article does not address is the measured ratio of the different carbon isotopes alleges that one can identify the from the isotope of carbon in a CO2 molecule that it is derived from burning fossil fuels.
The “proof” that fossil fuels are the cause of increased CO2 ppms lies in the increasing ratio of the different carbon molecules associated with fossil fuel burning to other CO2 molecules in the air.
I’m not advocating for or against the author’s position. I’m only saying he does not address the right issue.
Well this study shows som data suggests otherwise..
Carbon isotopes unchanged in the atmosphere since the Little Ice Age
From modern instrumental carbon isotopic data of the last 40 years, no signs of human (fossil fuel) CO2 emissions can be discerned;
Proxy data since the Little Ice Age suggest that the modern period of instrumental data does not differ, in terms of the net isotopic signature of atmospheric CO2 sources and sinks, from earlier centuries.
https://www.mdpi.com/2413-4155/6/1/17?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR2olrw_MZAUECmjaXVhz5HGja7jpGQjaMko0Mr1V5ZGU8Apl-WVucIV0nw_aem_e2PAY4OzdZzTZYjPdV8ISg
Jan,
What Demetris calculated is the apparent δ13C of the CO2 supply, which didn’t change much since the LIA, not the real change in the atmosphere…
There is an enormous change in δ13C since the main start of the industrial revolution around 1850, both in the atmosphere (ice cores, firn, direct) as in the ocean surface (as measured in coralline sponges):
https://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/sponges.gif
Not seen in 800,000 years of ice core δ13C measurements:
https://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/co2_d13C_lgm_cur.png
As there are only two possible sources for the firm decline: fossil organics and recent organics and recent organics show more uptake than release, only one source is left…
Guess which one…
This is incorrect.
Soil respiration, which is 6-8 times greater a Carbon input to the atmosphere annually than human combustion, and which has been increasing faster than human combustion, is measured at -21 PDB. Human combustion is -24. The atmosphere is -8 due to preferential resorbtion by all sinks, both biological and physical, of light Carbon.
Human combustion and soil respiration are isotopically indistinguishable in the atmosphere
Simple calculation of the carbon mass balance with the figures supplied, shows that Koutsoyiannis’ theory is wrong:
From Figure 9:
Human carbon balance: 5.2 ppmv/year in – zero out = +5.2 ppmv/year.
Natural carbon balance: 101.5 ppmv/year in – 104.1 out = -2.6 ppmv/year.
The natural “contribution” of CO2 in the atmosphere over the past 6 decades was near always negative, thus can’t be the cause of the increase in the atmosphere…
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em8c.jpg
Full disclosure: CO2 cannot cause global warming because 99.9% of the IR it absorbs is thermalized, ie., the thermal energy is conducted to the 99.9% of the atmosphere that is not CO2 (after some minor adjustment for difference is specific heat of the various gases in the air). That leave only 0.1% of the energy left to radiate, but only 1/2 downward. Since only 60W/m2 of the 164W/M2 of surface insolation is radiated as IR (removing the 86W/M2 of evaporation and the 18W/M that is directly conducted to the air) that means only .005% of 60W/M2 can back radiate to the surface, ie., zilch. Doubling CO2 only increases 0.1% to 0.2%, which is still zilch. Also keep in mind that of the 60W/M2 of IR emitted by the surface, 1/6th goes directly to space via the atmospheric window, further reducing the amount of potential back radiation.
David,
The increase in back radiation of CO2 over the period 2000-2010 was exactly measured at two ground stations in Oklahoma and Barrow:
https://escholarship.org/content/qt3428v1r6/qt3428v1r6.pdf
0.2 W/m2 for an increase of 22 ppmv CO2.
The fact that they could reproduce the results of seasonal changes in CO2 above these points gives confidence to their calculations.
Further the measured (!) back radiation is over 300 W/m2 for all GHGs together, of course with water vapor as main cause. That all is “recycled” energy, but far more than you expect:
https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/07/17/the-amazing-case-of-back-radiation/ and following parts…
Don’t believe everything you read.
There’s no connection to what was measured to CO2 specifically. CO2 does not radiate more than 0.04% of what it absorbs in the lower troposphere for the very simple reason that it thermalizes the rest before it has time to radiate. Proof: it’s widely known that at every altitude all molecules have the same average temperature. Adjusted for differences in specific heat this means each molecule has the same average thermal energy as all the nearby molecules. Then it follows that the amount of thermal energy in the air is almost all in the non-radiating molecules. CO2 makew up only 0.042% of all air molecules, which is what 420ppm means.
What your quotes measurements measure is the result of gravitational compression, forcing the vast majority of the atmosphere’s total thermal energy close to the surface. Nothing to do with CO2. The surface of the earth only emits 60W/M2 of the 164W/M2 of average surface insolation (the rest going into evaporation of water and to direct to air conduction). Plus, only 5/6th of this IR interacts with the atmosphere, the rest going directly to outer space. To calculate what amount of BR that’s the result of CO2 you multiple 60 x 5/6th x .042% x 1/2. You get zilch. (that last factor is to reflect that only half of BR goes “down”).
David,
Sorry, but the discussion about radiation goes too far away from what Koutsoyiannis theory here describes… That may be for another time…
Wise deflection.
Yes.
This can be seen in MODTRAN using the “looking up” feature to see downwelling radiation.
The signature of CO2 specific absorption (and radiation) at the fundamental bend is the same looking up or down.
MODTRAN shows no CO2 specific signature below 200m altitude, and it is very small up to 400m.
Dear Ferdinand,
To imply that I have the balance wrong in a peer-reviewed paper that is about the correct use of the balance is awesome.
One explanation is that at least one of us must suffer from the Dunning–Kruger syndrome.
Another explanation is that at least one of us has non-scientific aims.
Repeating 100 times the same arguments in all forums that discuss my works is not science. It is propaganda. In science, one repetition is enough, but in propaganda tireless repetition is one of the standard techniques. Anyhow, I do not wish to be involved in propaganda. I never had an ambition to learn how to deal with propagandists, agitators, proselytizers, etc.
If you have any scientific interest, please read my paper carefully. I have a glossary that should help you understand the concepts.
If you want to discuss something with me in scientific terms, please quote an EXACT phrase from my works and indicate where exactly you disagree.
If you just want to make your propaganda, I cannot stop you. What I can stop doing is arguing with you.
Demetris
Using “political” statements in a scientific discussion is just a lack of real arguments…
Simply said: if you don’t understand the difference between the residence time, that only shows the speed of exchange of CO2 between the different reservoirs and the adjustment time which is the time to remove an excess injection of CO2 (as mass), then that makes any real discussion quite difficult.
And here again the challenge, as already said, from your own above figures:
From Figure 9:
Human carbon balance: 5.2 ppmv/year in – zero out = +5.2 ppmv/year.
Natural carbon balance: 101.5 ppmv/year in – 104.1 out = -2.6 ppmv/year.
That are the figures that you used to “prove” that human emissions are negligible compared to natural emissions, but by looking at only emissions, you don’t address the net balance…
BTW, repeating the same error 100 times needs 100 times the same correction…
Well said Demetris. 🙂
Thanks b.nice, nice to hear a kind word…
@David Hamilton Russell,
“The argument that this article does not address is the measured ratio of the different carbon isotopes alleges that one can identify the from the isotope of carbon in a CO2 molecule that it is derived from burning fossil fuels.”
Please read my paper on the topic it interests you:
Net isotopic signature of atmospheric CO₂ sources and sinks: No change since the Little Ice Age, http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/sci6010017
Dear Demetris,
We have been there before, but here again:
There are two main sources of low-13C: fossil organics and recent organics.
All other sources (oceans, carbonate rocks, volcanic vents,…) are higher in 13C/12C ratio (δ13C) than the atmosphere.
How do we distinguish between these two possible sources? By looking at the oxygen balance:
Burning fossil fuels uses oxygen, which can be calculated, based on fossil sales (taxes!) and burning efficiency.
By looking at the real decline of oxygen in the atmosphere (quite challenging: less than 1 ppmv on 210,000 ppmv…) one knows if the biosphere as a whole is a net sink or net source of oxygen and thus of CO2, as both are exchanged at stoichiometric quantities by photosynthesis.
The work of Bender et al (2005) definitely proves that the biosphere over the period 1993-2002 was a net sink for 1.0 +/- 0.6 GtC/year CO2. Thus not a net source, leaving human emissions as the only source of low-13C in the atmosphere:
http://www.bowdoin.edu/~mbattle/papers_posters_and_talks/BenderGBC2005.pdf
Meanwhile satellites show that the earth is greening, thus increasing the total mass of carbon in vegetation, thus still increasing as net sink for CO2.
The problem with your approach is that you didn’t take into account that not all original fossil fuel CO2 remains in the atmosphere, but is distributed into all other reservoirs and replaced by CO2 from these reservoirs at a rate of some 25% per year (that is the 4 years residence time of an individual CO2 molecule).
Replaced, not removed as CO2 mass…
See: https://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/deep_ocean_air_zero.jpg
You seem to have forgotten the elephant in the room :
– biomass (and BTW soils) O2 consumption and CO2 emission.
As an example, rainforest ecosystems have a positive net CO2 emission (thus absorb O2) :
– the rainforest living vegetables absorbs CO2 and emits O2,
– the rotten biomass, insects and animals under the canoty emits CO2, absorb O2,
– the forest absorbs only some 50% of the emitted CO2 under the canopy.
The fact that the rainforest is a net CO2 emitter (and thus a net O2 absorber) can be verified in any satellite CO2 observation :
– the higher CO2 concentrations on the planet are in the rainforests regions and not in the industrial or occidental regions.
Petit Barde,
The biosphere as a whole is a net emitter of O2, thus a net absorber of CO2 as is definitely proven by Bender et al:
https://tildesites.bowdoin.edu/~mbattle/papers_posters_and_talks/BenderGBC2005.pdf
See Fig. 7, last page.
In the period 1993-2002, the total uptake of CO2 by the biosphere was 1.0 +/- 0,6 PgC/year, with in 1998 a net release of CO2 during the strong El Niño, in other years a small uptake.
Currently the earth is greening, thus expanding the biosphere’s carbon content, thus absorbing more CO2…
While human combustion surely consumes Oxygen, not all natural sources do. A large and unknown part of soil respiration is anaerobic. One cannot simply conclude from Oxygen balance that the source of the atmospheric increase is human, nor that the biosphere is a net sink.
It can be a net sink without human Carbon being the dominant source of the atmospheric increase.
Thank you much for your reply. Let me get this straight: You are claiming that the putative ratio of C12/C13 has not changed as is alleged by the scientific consensus (but this insight is in another paper of yours)? I’m relieved to hear this because I find the isotope claim dispositive proof that fossil fuel burning is the cause of increased CO2 ppms. Of course, if I’m right and you are asserting the ratio has not changed, therefore the consensus is outright lying, which doesn’t surprise me as AGW is rife with lies, starting with the GHE. Saying this ratio error is merely an oversight does not do justice to enormity of the deception.
PS. I have quoted you extensively in a 10 page paper I wrote a month about refuting AGW. So, I’m a big fan.
When reading the above scientific comments, I deduce that there is no consensus on the CO2 retention time in the atmosphere, which leads to the conclusion that there is uncertainty with regards to the so called increasing “warming” effects of this “green house gas”. How disturbing for a laymen!!! LOL
I think the C13/C12 ratio trumps all the other verbiage. If it is increasing and if the only source of the extra C13 is fossil fuel burning (not my belief, however, but stipulated) then it follows that fossil fuel burning is the cause of increased CO2 ppms.
I don’t see any way around this. As they say, “The proof of the pudding is in the eating.”
David,
See:
https://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/sponges.gif
The drop in 13C/12C ratio begins around 1850, together with the main start of the industrial revolution and follows exactly human emissions in both the atmosphere (ice cores – firn – direct air) and in coralline sponges, representing the ratio in ocean surface waters.
Any “natural” source that mimics that behavior still is unknown.
Moreover, over the past 800,000 years (!), the 13C/12C ratio never changed that much: even over a deglaciation not more than 0.4 per mil and over the whole Holocene +/- 0.2 per mil variability.
Today already a drop of more than 1 per mil in only 170 years and accelerating, in exact ratio to human emissions:
https://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/co2_d13C_lgm_cur.png
David,
as far as I have understood Demetris Koutsoyiannis’ paper “Isotopic Signature of Atmospheric CO2 Sources and Sinks: No Change since the Little Ice Age” (notations are different) :
the C13/C12 ratio is :
– d13 = ((C13/C12) / d13r) – 1.
It is expressed in per thousands.
d13r is a reference value of the C13/C12 ratio.
d13 from fossil fuels is negative, between -19 and -44 per thousand.
d13 caracterizing biomass is also negative, between -12 and -29 per thousand.
d13 caracterizing the atmosphere is also negative but higher, some -8.4 per thousands.
Thus burning of fossil fuel emits less C13 (lower d13) in the atmosphere than its d13 fraction.
If there is a human fingerprint on the atmospheric d13 fraction, it should cause a decrease of it (not an increase).
Thank you. I caught my error after posting it, but there’s no edit function. My argument remains after correction. I just do not see how both Koutsoyiannis and the measured atmospheric C12/C13 change can be true. By the way to add complexity to this, I asked Copilot (MSFT’s A.I.) are there other studies of the C12/C13 ratios in the various carbon sinks and Copilot reported there were and that they contradict Koutsoyiannis’ finding. But digging further, I found Copilot’s citations in the footnotes to K’s paper. So now I don’t know what to think. For sure there’s a contradiction here.
oebele,
“Consensus” is a non-scientific word, as all what is needed in science is proof. Even if it is only one person against the rest of the world.
In this case, that humans are responsible for the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is rock solid science, as that fulfills all available observations, to begin with the carbon mass balance, which Koutsoyiannis’ theory violates.
If you add 5 ppmv/year from fossil fuels and the increase in the atmosphere is only 2.5 ppmv/year, then nature as a whole is a net sink for 2.5 ppmv/year. Not the cause of the increase, that simply is impossible. Human emissions don’t disappear in space…
If that has much influence on climate is a different question and there we may agree: much less than the overheated climate models try to convince us…
Ferdinand,
The greening of the earth seems to be evidence that CO2, where ever it came from, is being sequesterd in a very efficient way (And do not forget the algea) As a second point being a biologist, I’m very well aware and at ease with scientific reasoning, debate and the “consensus” babbling.
Must be wrong by Ferdinand standard.
If you add 5 ppmv/year from fossil fuels and the increase in the atmosphere is only 2.5 ppmv/year, then nature as a whole is a net sink for 2.5 ppmv/year.
Because.
Also add:
Natural carbon balance: 101.5 ppmv/year in
Makes 101.5 + 5 = 106.5 ppmv/year.
If say increase 2.5 ppmv/year then nature sink 104 ppmv/year not just 2.5ppm/year.
John,
Didn’t see this until now, but you missed the word “net” in my calculation:
Human in: 5 ppmv/year
Human out: 0 ppmv/year
Natural in: 101.5 ppmv/year
Natural out: 104 ppmv/year
Net natural: 2.5 ppmv/year more out than in.
Remains in the atmosphere: +2.5 ppmv/year.
That is the mass balance, which is about quantities, not about which molecules are preferentially absorbed or released. Even if all human CO2 was absorbed in the next available trees, that doesn’t change the mass balance, as that is at the cost of “natural” CO2 that does remain in the atmosphere instead…
Thank you much for your reply. Let me get this straight: You are claiming that the putative ratio of C12/C13 has not changed as is alleged by the scientific consensus (but this insight is in another paper of yours)? I’m relieved to hear this because I find the isotope claim dispositive proof that fossil fuel burning is the cause of increased CO2 ppms. Of course, if I’m right and you are asserting the ratio has not changed, therefore the consensus is outright lying, which doesn’t surprise me as AGW is rife with lies, starting with the GHE. Saying this ratio error is merely an oversight does not do justice to enormity of the deception.
PS. I have quoted you extensively in a 10 page paper I wrote a month ago refuting AGW. So, I’m a big fan.
To put it a little differently: the data show that the ratio of C12/C13 has changed, and I did not refuse what the data say. But I calculated the net input isotopic signature. That is, I calculated the ratio of C12/C13 of the sources and sinks of CO2. That proves to be constant, δ13C = -13 per mil, after the Little Ice Age. The constancy means that it is the biosphere and the related processes (respiration, photosynthesis) that determined the change in the measured δ13C in the atmosphere. The biosphere has expanded because of the temperature rise, which started long before human emissions occurred.
Whoever invokes consensus in science is probably wrong.
Demetris,
Which completely ignores the fact that the biosphere is expanding, thus increasingly taking CO2 away from the atmosphere and preferentially more 12CO2, thus leaving relative more 13CO2 in the atmosphere and thus NOT the cause of the sharp decline in 13C/12C ratio in the atmosphere…
Moreover, there exist no source of -13 per mil δ13C. Only two possible sources: fossil CO2 at average -25 per mil and vegetation CO2 at average -24 per mil.
One source is certainly one-way into the atmosphere: human emissions at -25 per mil. The other may be a source at -24 per mil or a sink at +24 per mil. The oxygen balance says a sink…
“thus increasingly taking CO2 away”
To think that a warming planet does not increasingly ADD CO2 is total wrong-think.
Demetris shows that the increase added is more than the increase removed.
… and the difference is about 4 times more than the human emissions.
This gives about 20% human CO2 of the increase since whenever…
about the same as Ed Berry gets.
b.nice,
Demetris didn’t show that, as the quantities in figure 9 show…
Natural sinks exceed natural emissions, that is all what counts.
The point is that human emissions are one-way additions and natural emissions are more than compensated by natural sinks, the sum of which was always more sink than source in the past 6 decades:
Increase in the atmosphere = human emissions – human sinks + natural emissions – natural sinks.
For the past years based on the amounts in Figure 9.:
2.6 ppmv/year = 5.2 ppmv/year – 0 + X – Y
X – Y = – 2.6 ppmv/year
With 425 ppmv CO2 in the atmosphere:
If X = 10 ppmv/year then Y = 12.6 ppmv/year.
Residence time = 425 ppmv / 12.6 ppmv/year = 34 years
If X = 101.5 ppmv/year then Y = 104.1 ppmv/year (Figure 9.).
Residence time = 425 / 102.6 = 4.1 years
If X = 1000 ppmv/year then Y = 1002.6 ppmv/year.
Residence time = 425 / 1002.6 = 0.4 years
As can be seen: the residence time has zero effect on the fact that in all cases human emissions are the sole cause of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, no matter how large the natural influxes are: the natural outfluxes always are larger than the natural influxes to fulfill the carbon mass balance, thus can’t be the cause of the increase in the atmosphere…
Ferdinand Engelbeen,
“2.6 ppmv/year = 5.2 ppmv/year – 0 + X – Y”
I absolutely agree about this reasoning and it is as simple as that since the mass balance must be fulfilled over time. I happened to do this calculation myself a few days ago using data for the 1900-2023 period. The resulting time development of the atmospheric CO2 concentration was the same as at Mauna Loa provided a share of the yearly human emissions were assumed to be absorbed. Hence nature must be a net sink.
However let me try an alternative hypothesis as interpretation of nature:
We do not know how nature had behaved if the human emissions had not taken place. If earth for some reason is in a phase of adjusting to a new equilibrium level of CO2, perhaps the result would have been the same without human emissions (i.e. a net addition of 2.6 ppmv/year)? All the different CO2 fluxes are dependant both on T and CO2 and work in conjuncion. I am not saying this is a probable hypothesis but indeed a possible one?
Ok. Well, this leaves that matter for me still confused. What I understand you are most recently saying is that “the places where atmospheric CO2 goes and comes from” has maintained its ratio of C12 to C13. From this I conclude what I previously believed, namely that the carbon sinks are so vast that the special isotope sourced from fossil fuels is total diluted away once inside any of these sinks and thus whichever molecules coming out therefrom back into the air completely negate the special isotope signal of the CO2 molecules being removed from the air. Right so far?
Another way of looking at this is that if all the molecules in the air are overturned into the carbon sinks over the next 4 years then the only signal from the fossil fuel sourced CO2 molecules in 2028 would be just those added in those four years minus those same fossil fueled CO2s that get recycled back into the carbon sinks in the interim.
If my analysis to this point is correct, one necessary conclusion is that it would be impossible for today’s atmosphere to have 25-30% of the CO2 sourced from burning fossil fuels given the above analyis.
What remains to me a mystery is what is the proper implied percentage of CO2 molecules in the air today that this isotope story implies? It’s not really a mystery, because I intuit a mathematical solution can be calculated, just not by me.
David,
The problem in this discussion is that Demetris confuses between the residence time of a single CO2 molecule (of whatever origin), which is only 4 years and the time needed to remove an extra shot of CO2 (of whatever source) out of the atmosphere, which is over 50 years.
The 4 years is EXchange time, mainly the seasonal cycle, that brings CO2 from the oceans via the atmosphere into growing forests in spring/summer (mostly in the NH) and back from decaying leaves to the cooling oceans in fall/winter.
That cycle also brings the original low-13C CO2 of fossil origin from the atmosphere into oceans and vegetation, but also in part back to the atmosphere. Which gives the remarkable point that with currently only 4-5% of all CO2 inflows, the “fossil fingerprint” in the atmosphere is already around 10% and in the ocean surface around 6%. In the deep oceans or vegetation more difficult to follow, but also observed.
The only fossil-free natural source is what returns from the deep oceans, which is already some 1,000 years old, thus long before the atomic bomb tests (for 14C changes) or fossil fuel use (for 13C ánd 14C)
Thus while there is an “apparent constant” single source of low-13C, that is in fact a mix of increasing fossil emissions, “diluted” by what returns from the deep oceans. How much returns then can be calculated from that “dilution”:
https://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/deep_ocean_air_zero.jpg
The deep ocean has a small positive PDB ~.5. It is strongly fractionated during emission to the atmosphere to the tune of -10.
This gives something like -9 to the atmosphere over a significant flux of ~40 GtC. Not far from the actual atmospheric PDB.
Soil respiration is also effectively a one-way flux to the atmosphere. Far from being just last years leaves, it represents hundreds of years of biomass accumulation, much longer than the adjustment time.
David, IPCC has made several estimates of CO2 turnover time in the atmosphere, the central one being 3.5 years. So take 3.5 years as the turnover time. Today’s level of nearly 420 ppm means that 120 ppm of inflow is required annually, or 120 +2 ppm if it is to increase as it has been. Where does 122 ppm of CO2 come from? Well, let’s say we can count on 6 ppm of FF CO2 (5%) and the other 116 being non-human emissions.
Also, Analysis of C14 isotope concentrations in atmospheric CO2 reveals the natural and FF contributions to total mass.
The specific activity of 14C in the atmosphere gets reduced by a dilution effect when fossil CO2, which is devoid of 14C, enters the atmosphere. We have used the results of this effect to quantify the two components: the anthropogenic fossil component and the non-fossil component. All results covering the period from 1750 through 2018 are listed in a table and plotted in figures.
These results negate claims that the increase in total atmospheric CO2 concentration C(t) since 1800 has been dominated by the increase of the anthropogenic fossil component. We determined that in 2018, atmospheric anthropogenic fossil CO2 represented 23% of the total emissions since 1750 with the remaining 77% in the exchange reservoirs. Our results show that the percentage of the total CO2 due to the use of fossil fuels from 1750 to 2018 increased from 0% in 1750 to 12% in 2018, much too low to be the cause of global warming.
https://rclutz.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/history-of-atm-co2-1.png
I read your stuff and like most of it. On this isotope argument, I’ve decided it’s irrelevant because CO2 doesn’t cause any material global warming anyway, so who cares the source? Why is CO2 irrelevant to global warming? In a word: thermalization. In more words: CO2 only captures 8% of the IR energy the earth emits and in the lower troposphere, 99.96% of that 8% is conducted to nearby molecules before the CO2 has time to re-radiate (and only half of this radiates down). And since WV and CO2 overlap resonant frequencies somewhat, you then have to share responsibility between them for any back radiation in those frequencies.
[…] From NoTricksZone […]
In other words, it’s all a fantastical hoax to disarm Western civilization.
Congratulations! Could not have put it better myself. The “climate change” pushed by these warmist dills is a con, and a massive scam.
So…to believe in the CO2 nonsense…you have to disprove random photonic re-emission. To believe that somehow CO2 CHOOSES to re-emit photons towards the earth and not back out to space defies thermodynamics and is utter lunacy of the highest order.
Believing that CO2 somehow refuses to re-emit photos back into space is akin to believing in moon bats.
[…] Read the full article here […]
[…] From the NoTricksZone […]
[…] From NoTricksZone […]
the climate hoax supports thousands of people in government and academia. They will lie cheat and steal (maybe even kill) to keep that cashflow going, otherwise they’d have to get honest jobs.
While I must admit, I am not a scientist, I have been following this Global Warming / Climate Change con for close to 20 years, and what intrigued me for a long time is this CO2 resident time in the atmosphere. Can someone please explain, why is this even a thing? CO2 has been in the atmosphere for billions of years without interruption. The fact, that life still exists is a proof of that. No CO2, no life. And not only was CO2 present in the atmosphere continuously, the concentration was in the past many times that of today’s concentration (https://geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html), yet the Earth did not go over any tipping points, nor did it burn and turned into Venus. So in light of this, isn’t the “CO2 resident time” meaningless concept? Just how on Earth can anyone determine how long do particular molecules remain in the atmosphere. Do they mark the molecules released today with a dot and then watch how long before they all disappear? And even if it was possible, why would anyone care? CO2 has little to no effect on the temperature of the atmosphere. A few articles citing the relevant scientific research confirming this were published in this blog, on WUWT and other websites. Do your research. The other fact is, that the CO2’s heat absorbing characteristic is not linear, as the warmists are continuously misleading the public by saying, the more CO2 the warmer the planet will get and the sooner we are going to burn. Instead the characteristic is logarithmic, which means that with increasing concentration, the extra absorbed heat gets less and less, until CO2 gets saturated, and no amount of extra CO2 will make any difference anymore. As A matter of fact, CO2 is today all but saturated. Have a look here: https://notrickszone.com/2024/04/23/3-physicists-use-experimental-evidence-to-show-co2s-capacity-to-absorb-radiation-has-saturated/
This shows, all the hoo-haa about catastrophic climate change and the need for net zero is just a political pseudoscientific rhetoric. Wake up people and learn to think for yourselves.
[…] Link: https://notrickszone.com/2024/08/30/new-study-CO₂s-atmospheric-residence-time-4-years-natural-sour… […]