Utilizing AI’s evidence-streamlining capabilities, a new study (with “Grok” literally positioned as the lead author) summarizes a few of the key counterpoints undermining the CO2-drives-climate narrative.
For example, consider that humans contribute just 10 GtC per year to the carbon cycle, whereas nature’s sources (ocean outgassing and soil respiration, primarily) contribute 220 GtC annually. The combined total (230 GtC/year) does not distinguish between sources, and thus natural sinks that remove carbon from the atmosphere proportionately absorb human as well as natural emissions, with the human percentage (4%) insignificant and the natural predominant (96%).
But even if the last century of rising CO2 was 100% anthropogenic, the empirical data indicate the residence time for atmospheric CO2 is just 3-7 years. This necessarily precludes the possibility for anthropogenic CO2 in particular to be the driver of presumed radiation imbalances, or radiative forcing. This is because the tiny anthropogenic component is too quickly removed from the cycle to have more than a negligible impact. Nearly 90% of CO2 derived from human emissions sources since 1750 has already been removed, absolving humans of the alleged responsibility for (allegedly CO2-induced) climate change.
The atmospheric CO2 residence time would need to last centuries for the presumed effects of anthropogenic CO2 to have the dominant impact the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims it has. So what has the IPCC decided to do? Of course, the IPCC (and those hoping to blame humans for climate change) rely on modeled assumptions that the atmospheric CO2 residence time is, yes, over 100 years. There is no empirical basis validating these assumptions. To put it crudely, the IPCC’s 100-year CO2 residence time model is made up. Fake.
The study also addresses the causality problem that the CO2-drives-temperature narrative has, as there are many studies affirming CO2 changes follow, rather than lead, temperature changes. This T→CO2 directionality is not only observed in the short-term (months), but in paleoclimate studies (an 800-year CO2 lag) as well.
In sum, there is ample evidence available to support the conclusion anthropogenic CO2 does not drive climate change.
The IPCC position on the residence time being 100 years does not make sense.
On page 8 of the first IPCC assessment report they say “The turnover time of CO2 in the atmosphere, measured as the ratio of the content to the fluxes through it, is about 4 years” which is consistent with the 3 to 7 years range.
For the first couple of reports they use the term “turnover time” to refer to the residence time, aka lifetime.
Also, The IPCC use the residence time to calculate total emissions.
This is done by dividing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by the residence time. This is what they mean when they say “the ratio of the content to the fluxes through it”.
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 430ppm, which is multiplied by 2.13 GtC/ppm to get about 916 GtC in the atmosphere. (Notice this is in units of C, not CO2.)
If this is divided by the lifetime of 4 years we get total emissions of about 229 GtC/yr.
So, when calculating total emissions the IPCC use a residence of 4 years but for the Bern model, they say the residence time is 100 years.
In order for the human emissions to be a problem, they need the residence time to be long, but for other calculations, they use 4 years.
Years ago I read an article that examined C isotope half lives in the atmosphere based on radioactive spikes caused by French atomic tests in the South Pacific in the late 1950’s to early 1960’s.
These empirical results indicated 7 – 10 year CO2 residence time frame and predated any talk or funding for the Global Warming Industrial Complex. They were merely results mentioned in passing interest in a study, with no axe to grind, so credibility is high.
If anyone can track that study down, I think it would be very helpful to untangle the mess we find ourselves in today. It was on the web at one time, so it should be possible to find it again.
AI is interesting. I found the paper in a few seconds:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=++
The influential scientific paper you are requesting is:
### “Atmospheric radiocarbon balance as a function of bomb carbon-14” by H. Craig
– **Original publication:** Science, Vol. 156, No. 3782, pp. 393–395, April 1967
– **Summary:** Harold Craig’s 1967 paper used measurements of radioactive carbon (^14C) levels produced during atmospheric nuclear bomb tests in the South Pacific and elsewhere during the 1950s and 1960s to estimate the *atmospheric residence time* of carbon dioxide. By tracking the fate and disappearance rate of bomb-produced ^14C, Craig provided calculations of how long carbon remains in the atmosphere before exchanging with the oceans and biosphere, concluding the residence time was approximately 7 years. His methods became a foundational approach for tracing carbon cycling and remain cited in the field.[1]
This pioneering work relied on the specific impacts of atmospheric atomic testing and its radiocarbon signal, and its publication predates 1980 as your request stipulated. You can find this study referenced in historical scientific reviews of radiocarbon measurements and atmospheric residence time calculations based on bomb testing.[5][1]
[1](https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/rmk0101.pdf)
[2](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4165831/)
[3](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8286683/)
[4](https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/227839.pdf)
[5](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0012821X98001289)
[6](https://www.americanscientist.org/article/fallout-from-nuclear-weapons-tests-and-cancer-risks)
[7](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2019GB006170)
[8](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017RG000588)
[9](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277379106002277)
[10](https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg1-chapter2-1.pdf)
[…] No Tricks Zone: Another Study Affirms Anthropogenic CO2 Does Not Drive Climate Change […]
There is no GHE. That’s going to be the ultimate conclusion.
The enormous amount of anthropogenic CO2 (measured by carbon 13) is absorbed, half of it disappears, absorbed by nature, the oceans, BUT the remaining half is simply replaced by natural CO2 (with a different proportion of carbon 13) in gigantic stocks in the oceans BY 1-for-1 MOLECULAR EXCHANGE on the surface, at the air/ocean interface. Human activity has indeed increased the initial CO2 content by 50%; from 280 to 425 ppm. And the balance of Henry’s Law is maintained.
Read instead: https://www.laquestionclimatique.org/69-co2anthropique.htm and https://www.laquestionclimatique.org/86-absorption.naturelle.co2.htm