The Fairy Tale Of The CO2 Paradise Before 1850…A Look At The Real Science

By P Gosselin on 14. December 2024

Was the Earth’s biosphere really in a largely stable CO2 balance before 1850? (Almost) all politicians, scientists from all climate disciplines, the media and international big business are telling us in unison that we are destroying the global climate and that the world is on the brink of extinction. By burning fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas, we are supposedly emitting too much CO2. This gas is blamed to act as a “greenhouse gas” that traps heat in the atmosphere. We supposedly face the threat of runaway global warming if we do not completely stop burning fossil fuels within the next 25 years.

By Fred F. Mueller

Picture 1 South Sea beauty: The beautiful Paua mussels (abalone) are only found in New Zealand waters. They form their shells from limestone (CaCO₃), composed of atmospheric CO₂ along with a calcium atom and an additional oxygen atom (Photo: Author)

Climate science and the UN claim that the “natural” preindustrial CO₂ concentration in the atmosphere has been around 280-300 ppm (parts per million) for at least several hundred thousand years, with minor fluctuations. Since the beginning of industrialization (since around 1850), man-made CO₂ emissions have allegedly increased this value to (as of 2023) 419 ppm⁽¹⁾. In order to avert a catastrophe in the form of a global temperature rise of more than 1.5 °C since the beginning of the industrial age, humanity should not release more than 336 additional gigatons of CO₂ into the atmosphere (one gigaton is one billion tons, also expressed as a petagram (Pg) in some IPCC publications). The departure from the former paradise of complete CO₂ harmony between humans and the planet and nature before the fall from grace of industrialization is illustrated in Picture 2a and Picture 2b.

Picture 2a. The claims of Pierre Friedlingstein and his co-authors from Earth System Science Data on the annual development of man-made emissions of CO₂ and the absorption of the gas in “natural sinks” from 1850 to the present day. Man-made sources are plotted at the top, the fate of man-made CO₂ in the ocean, land and atmosphere reservoirs at the bottom (graphic: Global Carbon Budget 2023⁽¹⁾)

Picture 2b. Illustration of the cumulative quantities of CO₂ emissions and the CO₂ absorbed in the most important sinks since the beginning of the industrial age. It is assumed that there were no net fluxes of CO₂ from the atmosphere to the ocean before 1850. A graphical evaluation of the image shows that the ocean has absorbed a total of 180 Gt of carbon emitted by humans in its depths since 1850, while the land plants would have processed 250 Gt of C into long-lived humus. In contrast, around 290 Gt C supposedly remain in the atmosphere (Graphic: Global Carbon Budget 2023 ) ⁽¹⁾

Are these assumptions really correct?

The basis of the hypothesis of climate scientists, who assume catastrophic climate change caused by humans, is that before industrialization we had largely closed-loop carbon cycles on Earth that were stable for at least several hundred thousand, if not millions of years, Picture 3.

Picture 3: Basic assumptions of the authors of the Global Carbon Budget 2023 regarding the Earth’s natural carbon cycle and the consequences of industrialization. The numbers on the arrows in the top row indicate CO₂ fluxes in Gt C/year, colored circles indicate reservoirs, thin arrows indicate quantitatively known balanced fluxes, thin circular arrows indicate balanced but quantitatively unrecorded fluxes and the red number indicates an assumed budget deficit of -0.4 Gt C/year. The tiny purple material flow above the transition from blue to yellow-green is not mentioned in the caption (graphic from: Global Carbon Budget 2023 ⁽¹⁾)

When looking at Picture 3 above, it is firstly noticeable that the authors have assumed that only vegetation has bound a portion of the CO₂ emitted by humans as biomass and thus at least temporarily removed it from the atmosphere. The oceans and the atmosphere itself, on the other hand, are assumed to having simply added their respective shares to their existing reservoirs without conversion. In the atmosphere, this increase amounted to around 290 Gt C (from 595 to 885 Gt C) or from approx. 280 to approx. 419 ppm CO₂ . In the ocean’s gigantic carbon reservoir of around 37,000 Gt C, however, the increase due to the additional uptake of just 180 Gt C is apparently considered to be so insignificant that it is not accounted for separately.

Largely in line with the IPCC

The assumptions of the authors of the Global Carbon Budget also correspond in principle to those of the IPCC²⁾, as can be seen in Picture 4. Please note that the IPCC uses petagrams (Pg) as the unit of measurement instead of gigatons (1 Pg = 1 Gt).

Picture 4: Simplified diagram of the global carbon cycle (graphic: IPCC Report AR5 WG1 Ch. 5 )²⁾

The assumptions on which Picture 4 is based are essentially the same as those of the authors of the Global Carbon Budget. However, the graphic is much more detailed and therefore more difficult to understand. The figures also differ from one another. In terms of order of magnitude, however, Picture 3 and Picture 4 correspond quite well. One rather insignificant difference lies in the assumptions regarding the fate of the CO₂ absorbed by the ocean: while the IPCC assumes an annual net absorption of 1.6 Pg CO₂ in 2018, the authors of the 2023 Global Carbon Budget assume 2.8 Gt/yr. The IPCC also indicates a (presumably annual, even if this is not indicated by the red color of the symbols) release of 0.2 Pg C into the sediments of the deep sea, while the authors of the Global Carbon Budget note an imbalance of -0.4 Gt.

Official climate science claims that there has been a “nearly eternal” CO₂ equilibrium

The results published in the “Global Carbon Budget” are based on periodical research that is published as an annual report. The authors belong to the elite of climate science; the author’s list of the 2023 version contains no less than 123 names. Graphics from these annual carbon budgets are used by other climate authorities such as the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration‘s (NOAA ³⁾) or the online encyclopaedia Wikipedia⁴⁾ as well as various other climate and CO₂ -related publications. One of these can also be found in modified form in the IPCC report AR5⁵⁾. However, the entire work has a crucial flaw: it ignores essential scientific principles and the relevant facts. With regard to the ocean in particular, it is noticeable that the CO₂ absorption capacity of the oceans with increasing CO₂ gas concentration (and thus partial pressure) of the atmosphere is not addressed at all.

What actually happens to gases in water?

If the CO₂ content of the atmosphere increases, its so-called partial pressure, i.e. the proportion of CO₂ in the atmospheric pressure, also increases. However, if the pressure of a gas above a water surface increases, more of this gas dissolves in the liquid, Picture 5.

Picture 5: On the left, an equilibrium has been reached between the pressure of the CO₂ gas trapped in the cylinder and the concentration of the gas molecules in the water. When the partial pressure increases due to the sinking piston, more CO₂ dissolves in the water to compensate (Graphic: Wikimedia, Johannes Schneider, Creative Commons ⁶⁾)

Everyone knows this from their own experience with cold soft drinks or beer. The “refreshing” effect is achieved by the CO₂ that is dissolved in the water under high pressure. As soon the container is opened, you can hear the hiss as the pressurized gas escapes. CO₂ bubbles form in the drink and escape upwards out of the liquid. If the glass is left standing for a longer period of time, the gas will continue to escape due to the rising temperature heating until no more bubbles appear. The drink then becomes stale and no longer tastes good. These laws also apply to the solubility of atmospheric CO₂ in the sea: higher CO₂ pressure causes more gas to be absorbed. Cold polar oceans therefore also absorb more CO₂ from the air than warm tropical waters. If sea temperatures rise, the oceans will thus emit more CO₂. The corresponding laws of physics (“Henry’s Law” ⁷⁾) mean that 96% of any additional CO₂ introduced into the atmosphere by humans is ultimately absorbed by the ocean. These facts are not mentioned anywhere in the “Global Carbon Budget”. This raises doubts about the technical qualifications of the authors – and those of NOAA and IPCC.

Ocean: CO₂ storage using limestone instead of wood

It is also particularly striking that no significant CO₂ capture is said to take place in the ocean, neither in shallow water nor in the deep sea. With plants on land, CO₂ is known to be converted into biomass through photosynthesis and stored in the long term in the form of wood and humus deposits. The IPCC and its ilk, on the other hand, give the impression that nothing of the sort takes place in the sea.

Photosynthesis also occurs in the sea through e.g. (micro)-algae, corals and seagrass. However, the resulting biomass is not permanent and decomposes very quickly after the death of the organisms. The CO₂ produced during decomposition is returned to the water. However, photosynthesis in the ocean also results in a second build-up mechanism, the biological synthesis of limestone (CaCO₃), which has proven to be extremely useful in the construction of protective armor against enemies. This is documented by 3.7 billion year old stromatolites⁸⁾ in Pilbara (Australia). Even then, colonies of protozoa produced mushroom-shaped calcium deposits. This recipe was so successful that countless oceanic animal and plant species have since mastered the art of forming calcareous shells. From single-celled bacteria and algae to corals, shellfish, sea urchins and crustaceans, they all rely on the protection provided by hard calcium carbonate shells, Picture 6.

Picture 6: The calcareous shell of a belemnite (extinct ancestor of squid) from the Devonian period (ca. 360-420 million years ago) embedded in sedimentary rock. Probably found in Morocco (Photo: Author)

These calcareous remains are preserved after death. Under the conditions prevailing in shallow ocean waters (coastline up to a few 100 m), they are so long-lived that over the course of the eons they have formed essential parts of our landscapes such as the Jurassic, the Bahamas Banks, the chalk cliffs of Dover or the Dolomites. These processes are still taking place today on a huge scale, as coral reefs in tropical seas and mussel shells on the beach prove. This fact is ignored by today’s climate science.

How much CO₂ ends up in coral shells alone?

There are very different figures for CO₂ storage due to calcification in the sea. However, at least the proportion contributed by corals can be estimated quite well. Tropical corals need shallow and warm water. They grow on the bases of their ancestors. Since the end of the last ice age 12,000 years ago, the sea level has risen by around 120 meters. In order to remain on the surface, today’s corals have had to raise their bases. When atolls formed around sinking volcanoes, they also had to compensate for the sinking of the volcanic cone over the course of millions of years. This is exemplified by the study of the Mururoa Atoll in French Polynesia, Picture 7.

Picture 7: The Mururoa Atoll was misused by France for 188 atomic bomb tests. It was extensively examined beforehand to confirm the findings. Here is the colored representation of the “growth rings” over the last 1.8 million years. The last layer (MIS 1) covers the last 10,000 years (diagram: Montaggioni et al. ⁹⁾)

In his study, Montaggioni determined a maximum coral growth rate of 8 mm/yr. If this is extrapolated to the current total global coral area¹⁰⁾ of 423,589 km², this results in an annual calcium carbonate production of 8.75 Gt CaCO₃. This corresponds to a maximum fixation of slightly more than 1 Gt C. In addition, a considerable part of the growth also takes place to the sides. Storms, waves or voracious fish also repeatedly break off pieces of coral from the reef and its flanks. These fragments sink to the seabed and build up a cone of rubble on the flanks of the reef. The mass of this debris cone is built up along the way, so to speak, as the reef grows in height. Therefore, the amount of carbon sequestered annually can confidently be estimated at a total of 2 Gt/yr. At the same time, coral reefs account for only 0.12% of the total area of the oceans. It should be noted that these figures are maximum values: it is hardly possible to seriously estimate average figures.

Calcification: Across all oceans and across all latitudes

In addition to corals, there are countless other organisms that also produce large quantities of durable calcium carbonate shells from CO₂ and calcium ions. These include cyanobacteria and unicellular green algae on the carbonate platform of the Bahamas, which thrive several times a year in such masses that their calcareous shells color the water milky white even on satellite photos. Over millions of years, these tiny single-celled organisms have piled up the Bahamas carbonate platform to a thickness of around 4.5 kilometers. The much larger Florida platform even reaches a thickness of up to 12 km.

The total ocean-wide calcium carbonate productivity of tiny organisms with calcareous shells, which occur in shallow waters, but in many cases also in the entire near-surface ocean, is estimated by various authors to range from < 1 Gt C yr^{-1 1}¹⁾ to 1.6 Gt C yr^-1 ¹²⁾ and 2 Gt C yr^-1 ¹³⁾ up to 4.7 Gt C yr^-1 ¹⁴⁾ and 5 Gt C yr^-1 ¹⁵⁾. As humanity emits a total of around 12 to 13 Gt C yr^-1, 10 to 40 % of these emissions are already permanently bound in the sea as limestone in the same year through natural processes, Picture 8.

Picture 8: The red helmet snail Cassis rufa lives in the Indian Ocean, eats sea urchins and forms a very massive calcareous shell (Photo: Author)

Statements about CO₂ retention times in the atmosphere of more than 2-3 decades or even tens of thousands of years¹⁶⁾ are therefore not credible. It is true that a certain proportion of the shell production returns to solution as it sinks into deeper ocean areas. However, the enormous range of published figures listed above hints that current measurement methods are far from realistically capturing all the sources and influencing factors of the processes in the ocean.

Interestingly, one of these publications gives a value of 4.7 Gt C yr^{-1 14)} for annual calcium carbonate sequestration in the ocean. One of its authors is the well-known ocean and climate researcher Corinne Le Quéré. It is therefore quite surprising that this same Ms. Le Quéré, who published its work in 2019 already, does not seem to have worked towards at least mentioning the fact of a partial but permanent neutralization of man-made CO₂ emissions in the publication during her years of work on the Global Carbon Budget.

The IPCC’s CO₂ hypothesis is scientifically untenable

The entire climate catastrophe construct of the IPCC and its representatives stands and falls with the assertion that the “greenhouse gas” CO₂ accumulates in the atmosphere for a long time and thus endangers the earth’s thermal balance. This is why those responsible are trying to conceal the fact that considerable quantities of CO₂ are permanently stored away as lime in the ocean through natural processes – for many millions of years. They are particularly embarrassed by the fact that these mechanisms have been taking place in the ocean for eons and that large quantities of CO2 are stored in rocks. There must therefore also be correspondingly large sources of CO₂ replenishment in nature. This means that the IPCC’s entire CO₂ cycle model collapses. This is probably the reason why oceanic calcification is not correctly represented in official and authoritative documents such as the IPCC report on “The Physical Science Base” or the Global Carbon Project. Also, Henry’s Law is not even mentioned in either of the publications cited here. This blatant suppression of essential scientifically proven facts is the Achilles heel of the entire green climate catastrophe ideology. In commercial terms, one could also speak of balance fraud. Anyone who has doubts about the IPCC’s point of view should ask for these facts to be thoroughly questioned.

Sources:

Donate - choose an amount

25 responses to “The Fairy Tale Of The CO2 Paradise Before 1850…A Look At The Real Science”

The Damned Nitpicking Voodude 14. December 2024 at 8:40 PM | Permalink

You just reproduced the 2023 version of the Carbon cycle. In the previous, recent “Global Carbon Budget” diagrams, published by the same group, in the same journal, from 2020’s version, to the 2021 version, 10GtC moved from oceanic cycling, to land cycling. No explanation, that I am aware of. If the uncertainty includes not knowing where 10GtC actually resides, how can we believe anything they say?

1,000GtC just DISAPPEARED from the ocean’s inventory. … obviously no “consensus” there. Look at the amount stored in the ocean, in the 2020 version, versus the 2021 version.

Ahmed 2021: “Despite great efforts over the last decade to assess … the global Carbon budget … is still subject to uncertainty and lacks consensus.”

Mohamed M. M. Ahmed 2021. “Widespread surface water pCO2 undersaturation during ice-melt season in an Arctic continental shelf sea (Hudson Bay, Canada).” Elem Sci Anth
10.1525/elementa.2020.00130
1. Fred F. Mueller 16. December 2024 at 10:34 AM | Permalink
  
  Excellent hint, thanks a lot. I’ll add this to my list of examples that might be useful for further publications
John Hultquist 15. December 2024 at 1:15 AM | Permalink

An interesting and informative post. Thanks.

Regarding the text under Picture 1: “The beautiful Paua mussels (abalone) are only found in New Zealand waters. They form their shells from limestone (CaCO3), ”
This doesn’t do justice to the complexity of life … [from thegemlibrary]
The definition of nacre, or mother of pearl, refers to an organic-inorganic composite material composed of microscopic platelets or layers made out of calcium carbonate and conchiolin proteins secreted by mollusks such as oysters and mussels.
Spartacus1 15. December 2024 at 1:24 AM | Permalink

The picture 6 is wrong! The fossil is not a belemnite but a polished shell of generae orthoceras, a Nautiloid without spiral structure (that’s why is called orthoceras). The line in the center along is the siphuncle (centered as nautiloids have) the transverse black lines are the septa and the withe areas are the pneumatic chambers, in this case probably with crystallization of calcite. You can easily confirm it. Belemnites have a rostrum and the phragmocone is dwarfed in a alveolae wich lies behind the rostrum. The rostrum resembles a bullet.
Denis de Bernardy 15. December 2024 at 5:28 AM | Permalink

For completeness, this post left out the carbon accounting chicanery at the heart of the climate narrative.

The land fluxes in the IPCC’s diagram aren’t based on actually measured fluxes. When researchers measure the CO2 emissions of soils, for instance, they typically take samples to a lab and observe them from there, or put something just above the ground to capture what escapes. In nature, you’d have plants further up that makes those soil emissions irrelevant. Similarly, emissions by the herbaceous layer are irrelevant when nearby trees break the wind enough to keep the CO2 around and soak it up.

It follows that two cases need to be considered: soil emissions when plants are above ground to soak up the CO2, and when there aren’t – like during the spring or autumn when farmers disturb soil, or when loggers clear a forest instead of thinning it.

The carbon accounting framework, meanwhile, keeps the resulting difference in net emissions out of sight by using on Markov-chain based models derived from samples (instead of net CO2 fluxes) to report carbon stock changes. This dubious accounting is enabling all sorts of nefarious activities in developing countries.

At any rate, when you connect those dots and research on how land stewardship evolved in the past centuries, it becomes clear that the yearly rise (autumn) and fall (late spring) in atmospheric CO2 has more to do with the loss of canopy in modern landscapes than with energy or oceans: hedgerows got removed, fields got bigger, the Great Plains got colonized, etc.

For further details on this topic, see:

– Paper: https://doi.org/10.31223/X5NQ29

– Video: https://thegreatclimatecon.com/the-climate-con-podcast-episode-7-a-climate-counternarrative-denis-de-bernardy/
Fred F. Mueller 15. December 2024 at 10:58 AM | Permalink

Interesting additional info, thanks. Unfortunately, when committing to cram so much info in such a short article, one has to strictly avoid expanding on too many details. Sorry for that, but I am all the more grateful by posts with additional infos such as yours.
Spartacus 15. December 2024 at 2:49 PM | Permalink

Figure 6 is an “orthoceras”, not a “belemnite” as it is in the figure caption.
You can easily confirm this in lees than 10 seconds with any research online.
Fred F. Mueller 15. December 2024 at 5:12 PM | Permalink

Thanks for your comment, and sorry for not being a palaeontologist. But the type you identified did only live in Sweden and some Baltic states, and as far I heard from the person that I bought it from, it came from North Africa, probably Morocco. Furthermore, my specimen displays a ventral furrow, which is a characteristic of belemnites. (In this context, I stumbled over a remark that these species have been often confounded in the past, since early researchers often classified them wrongly in so-called “catch-all” or Wastebasket taxons (also called wastebin taxon or dustbin taxon, terms that were used by some taxonomists to refer to a taxon that has the purpose of classifying organisms that do not fit anywhere else.) Anyway, you might still be right and I might be wrong. I used the sample simply to underscore the fact that oceanic creatures have been sequestering CO2 by producing CaCO3 shells accumulating to gigantic rock formations for eons without bothering to ask the IPCC for permission to do so.
1. Spartacus 16. December 2024 at 4:40 PM | Permalink
  
  I am a paleontologist. Orthoceras is not only from Baltic and Sweden. It had a wider spreading. That is wrong wikipedia information. See for instance here: https://www.villagesilversmith.net/orthoceras#:~:text=Found%20in%20the%20Atlas%20Mountains,–%20200%20million%20years%20ago).
  
  I can ensure you that the specimen in the figure is not a belemnite. Today I was showing for 2 hours to my students specimens of belemnites 🙂
  1. Spartacus 16. December 2024 at 4:43 PM | Permalink
    
    From a Morrocco seller 🙂
    
    https://morocco-fossils.com/orthoceras/
    1. Spartacus 16. December 2024 at 4:47 PM | Permalink
      
      Considering the “sequestering CO2 by producing CaCO3 shells accumulating” the article is absolutely right and Orthoceras fit even better in this argument because they are mainly CaCO3 exoskeleton. Belemnites are usually rather small, were an endoskeleton of cephalopods such as the squid ancestors (this is right in the image caption) and were mainly made from the Calcite polymorph Aragonite.
    2. Spartacus 16. December 2024 at 10:43 PM | Permalink
      
      Hi Fred. Another example.
      I don’t know who invented that Orthoceras were only from Baltic Sea and Sweden. The quality of this information in Wikipedia is similar to the general quality of the information that the same site provides about climate (very low). 😊
      
      https://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(20)30069-0/fulltext
      1. Fred F. Mueller 17. December 2024 at 11:24 AM | Permalink
        
        You got me convinced, thanks
The Fairy Tale of the CO2 Paradise Before 1850…A Look at the Real Science - Climate- Science.press 15. December 2024 at 7:48 PM | Permalink

[…] From NoTrickZone […]
Hansi 16. December 2024 at 2:21 AM | Permalink

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/UK-Government-Wants-to-Ban-Communities-From-Stopping-Wind-and-Solar.html
tita 16. December 2024 at 10:25 AM | Permalink

They’re all definitely some great sites!
GTU
tita 16. December 2024 at 10:26 AM | Permalink

They’re all definitely some great sites!
GTU
John Philllip Jaeger 17. December 2024 at 1:18 AM | Permalink

The graphic representations of “fossil emissions” is grossly exaggerated. Anthropogenic emissions are roughly 4% of total carbon dioxide from all sources.
tita 17. December 2024 at 9:07 AM | Permalink

Je vous remercie

GTU
tita 18. December 2024 at 11:10 AM | Permalink

They’re all definitely some great sites!
GTU
tita 19. December 2024 at 9:54 AM | Permalink

Beautiful article, Thank you!

GTU
tita 19. December 2024 at 10:03 AM | Permalink

Beautiful article, Thank you!

GTU
The Fairy Tale Of The CO2 Paradise Before 1850…A Look At The Real Science | Un hobby... 22. December 2024 at 9:38 AM | Permalink

[…] P. Gosselin, Dec 15, 2024 in […]
tita 23. December 2024 at 10:11 AM | Permalink

.Thanks for sharing the info, keep up the good work going…. I really enjoyed exploring
your site. good resource
GTU
tita 23. December 2024 at 10:19 AM | Permalink

.Thanks for sharing the info, keep up the good work going…. I really enjoyed exploring
your site. good resource
GTU