Skip to content

Nature Controls CO2 – Not Man: Op-Ed

January 4, 2023
tags:

By Paul Homewood

 

 image

On March 19, 2020, the State of California became the first state to issue a stay-at-home order, mandating all residents stay at home except to go to an essential job or shop for basic needs.  Within weeks most of the world followed.

For the next three months total energy use across all sectors…transportation, industrial, commercial, and residential…plummeted by over 15% thereafter rising slowly in bursts and spats.

 

As an avid studier of all things “climate change” related I tracked the impact this significant fuel use reduction had on the Keeling Curve.  The Keeling Curve is the chart tracking carbon dioxide in the atmosphere based on near-daily measurements at the Mauna Lao observatory located on the big island of Hawaii.

The effect was both shocking and predictable.  The marked reduction of fossil fuel use had no effect on the Keeling Curve which continued its virtual 45% upward slope on the highly exaggerated chart expressed as parts per million per year.  This was wholly consistent with our findings over the previous 10 years as developing countries increased fossil use with no corresponding change of CO2 as reflected in this curve.

 

Notice on the upward-slopping blue bar line of the Keeling curve in figure 2, the jagged “sawtooth” line.  This jagged sawtooth waveform represents the seasonal variations of CO2 as affected by plant growth on land and sea. This is a function of the Earth’s elliptical orbit around the Sun and its 23.5-degree axial tilt.

Close inspection of this saw tooth-like variance in CO2 shows roughly 10 parts per million (ppm) variation between the minimum and maximum as affected by sunlight and plant life distribution.  This is far more than the 3 ppm increase in CO2 that the climate alarmist community claim is caused by man’s use of fossil fuels. To me, this was the “smoking gun” showing that these claims of fossil fuel increasing total CO2 were false and without merit!

In collaboration with Mr. Bud Bromley, and with the kind financial support of actor/singer Pat Boone, we engaged two Stanford-educated Ph.D.s, Dr. Shahar Ben-Menahem a physicist, and Dr. Abraham Ishihara, a high-level mathematician and control theory expert, to design an experiment using the Mauna Lao Keeling data which is considered by all leading scientists as the “gold standard” of the available CO2 monitoring data sets.

 

  1. Our scientists took the raw NOAA Mauna Loa data for daily CO2 tests and filled in data points for days with missing data using standard interpolation methods.
  2. Then they transformed the CO2 ppm concentration versus time data into the frequency domain, like a continuous spectrum of light or radio frequencies.  This provides nearly unlimited resolution.
  3. Then they notch filtered to remove resonances and seasonal cycles such as the shark’s teeth.
  4. Then they low-pass filtered out all frequencies above a specified frequency to remove random noise spikes.
  5. Then they reconstructed the data again as CO2 ppm concentration versus time and cleaned the CO2 time signal.
  6. They calculated these data as the time derivative of CO2 concentration.  This is the rate of change of CO2 ppm concentration.  It is like the speed or velocity of a car. 
  7. Then, they drilled into this data to look at the time window beginning about a year before the Pinatubo volcano eruption of June 15, 1991, and a few years after the eruption.

What we proved was that:

  1. The NOAA-Scripps “Keeling curve” dataset from Mauna Loa is responsive to CO2 changes even though the event causing those changes is physically remote, thousands of miles away from the NOAA measurement site on Mauna Loa in Hawaii.  We now know this NOAA data will be sufficient for further data science.  Confirming this was one of the primary purposes of our first phase of work.
  2. Our results confirm that human CO2 emissions are insignificant compared to the net global average CO2 concentration.  We demonstrate this by simple calculations in our written publication of the results of this Pinatubo study and 2 addenda. 
  3. The software and method we used is sensitive to changes in the CO2 daily records from Mauna Loa and well suited for further research.
  4. This first phase of our study is consistent with Henry’s Law in conjunction with the Law of Mass Action, Le Chatelier’s Principle, Graham’s Law, and Fick’s Law.  CO2 concentrations in air, ocean, soil, and biosphere began to rapidly re-equilibrate to the cooler Earth surface caused by reduced insolation due to the cloud belt.  As the cloud belt dissipated and the surface warmed, CO2 concentrations rapidly re-equilibrated.          
  5. Following Henry’s Law, human-produced CO2 can only temporarily change CO2 concentration in the air and ocean surface.  Our results, confirming NOAA-Scripps results, suggest that human CO2 emissions are a temporary perturbation to an ongoing CO2 trend, like the perturbation caused by the Pinatubo volcanic eruption and its aftermath, but much smaller.  Perturbation by human emissions will be rapidly returned to the CO2 trend.  CO2 concentration in air is controlled by the CO2 solubility on the water’s surface.  More than 90% of Earth’s water is in the ocean, and the ocean is 70% of earth’s surface.
  6. The solubility of any gas in any liquid is an intensive property of matter, like a boiling point, or a specific heat.  Intensive properties of matter are not a function of the amount of material present.   Instead, the solubility and diffusivity of a gas in a liquid are a property of the matter itself; in this case, the diffusivity of CO2 is a function of the molecular weight of CO2.  Adding more CO2 to the air, whether done by a volcano, humans, or decaying biological material, does not change the ratio of CO2 gas concentration on the ocean’s surface versus CO2 gas concentration in the air above that surface, this is Henry’s Law.  Surface temperature does change that ratio.
  7. Solubility or diffusivity of a gas in a liquid depends on the surface temperature and the molecular weight of the gas, not on the amount of the gas or the source of the gas.  The diffusivity of a gas in a liquid is inversely proportional to the square root of the molecular weight of the gas; this is Graham’s Law. 
  8. Many variables affect surface temperature, some are systematic like Earth’s orbital distance from the sun, and other variables may be chaotic, such as ocean and air currents, storms, humidity and clouds.

The bottom-line results of our experiment and analysis of the NOAA Scrips Keeling data conclusively proves that “the net amount of equilibrated carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere is the same as if human beings never existed.” Climate Change is a natural phenomenon, and not manmade.

Let that sink in.  The total net amount of CO2 in our atmosphere today is no more or no less than if humans never existed on our planet.

Why does the Keeling curve show an increase of roughly 3 parts per million (ppm) per year?

The causes of such a small annual increase in CO2, if true, are unknown and theoretical. There are several possible causes, but 3 ppm is an annual increase in CO2 of only 0.0003% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere, an amount so small it cannot be distinguished in the open air from random measurement noise. Your exhaled breath is about 4% CO2, and higher if you are exercising. Systematic or random perturbations in sea surface temperature and/or humidity, underwater volcanoes, cyclical deep ocean currents dense with CO2 rising to the sea surface, movements of planetary bodies including the Sun and large planets, destruction of photosynthesizing plants and plankton, are among possible causes, and each of these has multiple possible causes.

And yet only today the New York Times writes Hurricane Ian “rapidly transformed from a relatively weak storm into a strong one, a phenomenon that has become more common due to climate change. Ian embodies several of the major hurricane trends in recent years, as the world copes with the effects of climate change.”

Indeed, Ian was devastating, but well within the bounds of natural variability.

Two days ago, the Vatican released a new documentary on climate change based on what it calls the “reckless new use of fossil fuels.” through Cardinal Czerny, and calls for “zero emissions” by 2050.

Only a few weeks ago, Congresswomen Rashida Tlaib tried to browbeat the nation’s largest bank CEOs into not lending to oil and gas companies.  Thankfully, and correctly, JP Morgan Chase’s CEO, Jamie Dimon, responded to the Congresswomen when asked if Chase would cease lending to energy companies as follows:  

“Absolutely not. That would be the road to hell for America.”

In a recent private exchange with Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Professor Emeritus, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and author of over 200 scientific papers and books on the atmosphere, I pointed out that the climate change farce drivers are purely financial and political.  The science is clearly on our side.  Of course, I was preaching to the Choir.

Dr. Lindzen points out: “…the importance in the propaganda of establishing the narrative (i.e., the accepted storyline).  One of the more subtle techniques is to pepper the narrative (climate change is caused by man) with many dubious features.  This may seem counterintuitive.  However, by doing so, one diverts attention from the narrative’s larger framework.  People immediately attack these dubious features while leaving the larger narrative untouched.  He offers us this sage advice: “Stop treating AGW…human-caused global warming/climate change…as a worthy opponent.  Do not ascribe reasonableness to the other side.  It is not reasonable, not true, and not even plausible.”

This message and these facts must be brought to the people.  Only then can the political establishment be jarred into reality.

https://shalemag.com/nature-controls-co2-not-man-op-ed/

About the Author: In 1971 Tom received the nation’s highest honor for high school students in the field of physics for his work in nuclear magnetic resonance. He did his undergraduate studies in physics, with a dual minor in math and chemistry, at N A U in the 1971-75 timeframe.  He has been in the energy generation and utility industry since 1985.  Tom was the inventor of electric utility energy conservation instrumentation and measurement devices. He has been granted seven patents in the U.S., Israel, Europe, & China.  In the U.S. alone his patents are practiced by the nation’s largest utility companies on over 90 million installed devices.

Tom spends roughly ½ of his “working time” lecturing, writing articles, and working with prominent Ph.D. level scientists on what he calls the greatest deception and fraud ever created by man against mankind; AGW climate change.

In 2019 Tom formed ClimateCite, Corp., a U.S. IRS 501(c)(3) compliant not-for-profit company to further his efforts in defeating the climate hoax worldwide.

Tom married his wife, Emily J. Tamarkin in 1982 and the two of them live together in Carmichael, California. They have one son, Jeremy A. Tamarkin.

54 Comments
  1. Tim Leeney permalink
    January 4, 2023 10:29 am

    “Why does the Keeling curve show an increase of roughly 3 parts per million (ppm) per year?”

    He seems to have ducked this one, which perhaps rather weakens his credibility. Incidentally, projecting the curve back from 1960 might suggest lower than “preindustrial” values, for example in the generally hot 1930s.

    • tomtamarkin permalink
      January 4, 2023 4:27 pm

      Absolutely not. Planetary movements in predictable cycles create both tidal changes and sea surface temperature changes which change the Henry’s Law ocean/atmospheric CO2 equilibrium which have liberated CO2 over the last hundred years irrespective of fossil fuels, etc. I briefly mentioned this in the article although I should have emphasized it. Some scientists also feel underwater volcanic activity may have a role as well albeit a very small given the huge mass and thermal momentum of ocean world wide. We are concerned about sea surface temperature and sea surface movement from storms and tidal motion which is effected by planetary gravitational fields in combination with the Sun’s gravitational fields. Feel free to contact me at tt@tamarkin.us for details and/or further discussion. Also I posted this sho0rt paper on my ClimateCite website yesterday: “The 60- & 88-year temperature oscillations are related to planetary and solar oscillations” at: https://climatecite.com/the-60-88-year-temperature-oscillations-are-related-to-planetary-and-solar-oscillations/

  2. Mad Mike permalink
    January 4, 2023 11:02 am

    “Following Henry’s Law, human-produced CO2 can only temporarily change CO2 concentration in the air and ocean surface. Our results, confirming NOAA-Scripps results, suggest that human CO2 emissions are a temporary perturbation to an ongoing CO2 trend, like the perturbation caused by the Pinatubo volcanic eruption and its aftermath, but much smaller. Perturbation by human emissions will be rapidly returned to the CO2 trend. CO2 concentration in air is controlled by the CO2 solubility on the water’s surface. ”

    Don’t understand the logic here. If water, the oceans, can only hold a certain ratio of CO2 according to it’s temperature, why do human CO2 emissions have no overall effect on CO2 levels in the atmosphere? The optimum ratio within the water must have been reached long ago otherwise there would be no CO2 at all in the atmosphere.

    As I have no training in physics, I’d appreciate a Janet and John clarification.

  3. January 4, 2023 12:21 pm

    Tom Tamarkin asked, “Why does the Keeling curve show an increase of roughly 3 parts per million (ppm) per year?”

    That is a quantitative question, requiring a quantitative answer. So buckle up!

    (A nit: the atmospheric CO2 concentration has been increasing, on average, only about 2.5 ppmv per year, not 3 ppmv per year.)

    First, it’s necessary to calculate how much that is:

    1 ppmv CO2 = 7.8024 Gt CO2 (gigatonnes CO2) = 2.12940 PgC (petagrams carbon)

    To convert from PgC to Gt CO2 multiply by 3.66419, so:

    3 ppmv of CO2 = 6.3882 PgC
    2.5 ppmv of CO2 = 5.3235 PgC

    To more precisely state the amount by which the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increased during a particular year, we can calculate the average first quarter CO2 level during that year, and subtract it from the average first quarter CO2 level during the following year.

    E.g., in 1Q of 2022 the average CO2 level measured at MLO was 418.760 ppmv, and in 1Q of 2021 the average level was 416.637 ppmv, so the level increased by 2.123 ppmv in 2021, which is:
    2.123 ppmv CO2 × 7.8024 Gt / ppmv CO2 = 16.56 Gt CO2
    2.123 ppmv CO2 × 2.1294 PgC / ppmv CO2 = 4.52 PgC

    In other words, the amount of carbon in CO2 in the atmosphere increased by about 4.52 PgC in 2021. (There’s also another approx. 0.03 PgC in methane, but let’s not worry about that, for now.)
     

    Next, we need to compare the change in the amount to CO2 in the atmosphere to the amount of CO2 which mankind added to the atmosphere, i.e., anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

    We have quite precise estimates of “fossil CO2” emissions (from fossil fuels and cement manufacturing), thanks to the bean counters, who carefully track economic data. In 2021, depending on whose numbers you use, total global emissions of fossil CO2 totaled 9.79 to 10.13 PgC:

    BP + Andrew (fossil CO2 only) 9.79 PgC
    GCP (fossil CO2 only) 10.13 PgC

    That’s 9.96 ± 0.17 PgC, or “about 10 PgC” emitted in 2021.

    Humans also generate CO2 emissions by “land use changes,” i.e., clearing forests and draining peat bogs, etc.. However, estimates of those emissions are very rough. However, it’s generally agreed that those emissions are currently less than 1.5 PgC per year. GCP adds three if those estimates to their fossil CO2 emission estimate, and summarizes them as follows:

    GCP with OSCAR land use est. 11.31 PgC
    GCP with BLUE land use est. 11.60 PgC
    GCP with H&N land use est. 10.77 PgC
    ● GCP with averaged land use est. 11.23 PgC
    (Note: Those are Chrome “text fragment links” which link directly to the corresponding 2021 emission figures. If you’re using Firefox or Safari that won’t work, but you can find the entry by scrolling down to the last line of the table [the “2021” entry].)

    As you can see, there’s quite a lot of variation in the estimates of “land use change” CO2 emissions (and the variation is even greater for the mid-20th century). So, an alternative to including land use change CO2 emissions with fossil CO2 emissions, the land use change emissions can be considered as a diminishment of natural CO2 sinks. That’s really just wordplay, but it is attractive because it lets us express very tight (±4%) confidence intervals on total emissions.

    According to those estimates, mankind added between 9.79 PgC and 11.77 PgC to the atmosphere in 2021. Yet the amount of carbon in CO2 in the atmosphere increased by only 4.52 PgC. That means that natural “carbon sinks” (the terrestrial biosphere & soil, the oceans, rock weathering, etc.) removed a net total of at least 9.79 – 4.52 = 5.27 PgC in 2021.

    That means the entire increase in atmospheric CO2 in 2021 was due to human CO2 emissions. “Nature” (i.e., net summed natural CO2 sources & sinks) removed at least 2.47 ppmv of CO2 from the atmosphere, yet the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere nevertheless increased by 2.12 ppmv, because mankind added CO2 faster than nature removed it.

    We can do the same sorts of calculations for longer periods, going all the way back to 1959 (before which we lack precise atmospheric CO2 measurements), and the conclusion is the same: the entire increase in atmospheric CO2 since 1959 is due to human CO2 emissions. Nature is removing CO2 from the atmosphere, but mankind is adding it faster than nature is removing it, so the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased.

    In other words, Tom Tamarkin is wrong.

    Interestingly, it turns out that the natural CO2 removal rate is highly linear function of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. The higher the atmospheric CO2 concentration rises, the faster natural sinks remove CO2 from the air.

    What’s more, it only takes about a 43 ppmv increase in atmospheric CO2 level to accelerate net natural removals of CO2 by 1 ppmv per year!

    That means “net zero” is a fool’s errand. Even if CO2 emissions never decline at all, but merely stabilize near the current rate, accelerating natural CO2 removals will cause the atmospheric CO2 level to plateau around (2.5 × 43) = only about 107 ppmv higher than the current level (with radiative forcing = only one-third of a doubling).

    • It doesn't add up... permalink
      January 4, 2023 4:27 pm

      If I have a quart jug and a gill measure and I tip them both into another quart measure it will overflow. If I put the gill in first, the quart “causes” the overflow. If I put the quart in first, you can blame it on the gill.

      The fact is that the secular increase in atmospheric CO2 is the net result of all the processes that add and subtract CO2 from the atmosphere. In the case of the oceans, there are warmer areas where CO2 fizzes out and cooler areas where it is absorbed. The effects of Henry’s Law are far from uniform across the globe, being dependent on sea surface temperatures (which vary seasonally) and uneven geographic spread of CO2. The sawtooth peaks in May and troughs in October with an amplitude of 6+ppmv. There are all sorts of feedbacks going on. The greening biosphere is slowly increasing its absorption. Tropical seas get no warmer, but cooler areas of (sub) Arctic ocean are warmer, reducing CO2 uptake. A greater CO2 partial pressure reduces outgassing and increases solution. To do the sums properly you have to account for all these effects and how they inter relate. It is not enough to look at the anthropogenic emissions and the net change.

      I think of it like this: I can carefully control the opening of a door by pulling and pushing on it at the same time. If a toddler comes along and pushes on it, the fact that I have opposing strong forces means that their actions have very little effect because the motion is mainly controlled by the difference in the much larger forces I am applying.

      Now, I am not claiming to have all the answers. But I hope I have asked a more detailed question.

    • tomtamarkin permalink
      January 4, 2023 4:36 pm

      Simply put, David Burton is wrong and clearly does not understand the physics. For more information go to our papers and video at: https://pinatubostudy.com Mr. Burton is encouraged to call me or better yet Zoom video me and perhaps step through the math with Bud Bromley and I. I have read these incorrect statements by Mr. Burton for several years now. My contact information is available at: https://climatecite.com

      • January 5, 2023 12:55 am

        Tom, you & Bud are confused I just showed you the math. Did you read it?

        Perhaps my comment was too long for you to bother reading, so here’s the tl;dr version:
         

        Mankind is adding fossil CO2 to the atmosphere, currently a net sum of about 10 PgC/year (plus a less well constrained amount of “non-fossil CO2” from “land use changes,” such as forest clearing and bog draining).

        Nature is removing CO2 from the atmosphere, not adding it, at a rate which currently averages about 5 PgC/year (net sum).

        Adding CO2 to the atmosphere (as Mankind is doing) increases the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. (How is that not obvious?)

        Removing CO2 from the atmosphere (as Nature is doing) decreases the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. (How is that not obvious?)

        Mankind, not Nature, gets the credit for increasing the amount of beneficial CO2 in the atmosphere.

        Q.E.D.
         

        All your hand-waving boils down to a claim that Nature’s annual net removal of about 20 Gt of CO2 from the atmosphere increases the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and that Mankind’s annual addition of about 40 Gt of CO2 to the atmosphere does not affect the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. That’s obviously wrong.

        If you’re still having trouble understanding it, I encourage you to peruse Ferdinand Engelbeen’s superb examination of the topic, here:

        https://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_origin.html
         

        BTW, your claim that “CO2 concentration in air is controlled by the CO2 solubility on the water’s surface” is wrong, because it assumes that CO2 content of the oceans and air stay in equilibrium, and they’re currently very far from equilibrium. (That should not surprise you, because only a very tiny fraction of the atmosphere is in contact with the ocean surface, and only very, very tiny fraction of seawater is in contact with the atmosphere.)

        What’s more, a 1°C increase in ocean surface temperature reduces the rate of CO2 uptake by water by only about 3%. (It’s more complicated than that, because ocean chemistry is very complex, but that’s a reasonable first order approximation.) OTOH, a 50% increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration (280 ppmv -> 420 ppmv) accelerates CO2 uptake by the ocean by 50%.

        I trust it is obvious to you that the combined effect of a 50% increase and a 3% decrease is about a 45.5% increase. That’s why the oceans are removing CO2 from the atmosphere at an increasing rate:

    • Ray Sanders permalink
      January 5, 2023 3:33 am

      With all due respect your calculations are so partial in what you include and omit as to be quite meaningless. You know if I throw a dice 100 times the average number per throw is in the region of 3.25 – but of course that outcome would be individually impossible in reality.
      Playing simplistic number games whilst ignoring multiple variables is possibly good fun but really rather pointless.

  4. Dung permalink
    January 4, 2023 12:52 pm

    Why would a volcano in Hawaii give a credible global figure for atmospheric CO2? The Japanese CO2 mapping satellite showed that CO2 was not evenly spread over the globe.

    • catweazle666 permalink
      January 4, 2023 4:19 pm

      So does this CO2 concentration mapping.

      https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/chem/surface/level/overlay=co2sc/orthographic=-26.59,7.74,596/loc=-58.524,-6.144

      Note that the colouring is counterintuitive, ie dark red is lower, cream to light green is higher and the menu box (obtained by clicking on the “earth” label in the bottom left corner) is not explained but a bit of experimentation is rewarding.

      Moving around the globe it is easy to determine that there is a >30ppm variation between different locations, giving the lie to the claim that atmospheric CO2 is an evenly mixed gas.

      Also, the date can be changed, so it is possible to compare the concentrations during local summer and winter.

      • It doesn't add up... permalink
        January 4, 2023 9:04 pm

        It’s worth watching changes over the span of a few hours using the > and < buttons, and a day at a time using <<. Then go back whole years using the calendar, and forward a month at a time. Seasonal behaviours become evident. Comparing with weather conditions at the same points in time can also be informative (open a fresh tab and set the mode to Ocean to see SSTs or Air to see other conditions). Being able to look at rates of change might also offer clues on where and when CO2 is being added or subtracted or blown around by weather systems. A project for Willis Eschenbach, I think, who seems to have the right software.

  5. Mad Mike permalink
    January 4, 2023 2:01 pm

    So we’re back to the fundamental argument “Is CO2 causing global warming/climate change?” Until this question is categorically answered more or less anything else related to CO2 levels is irrelevant.

    • Dung permalink
      January 4, 2023 3:24 pm

      The answer Mike is simple (and therefore not accepted) Our (human) knowledge does not yet include an understanding of how our climate works, it just includes a lot of so called scientists who lie about it.

      • Dung permalink
        January 4, 2023 3:24 pm

        For money of course.

  6. liardetg permalink
    January 4, 2023 2:15 pm

    As an amateur I was struck by even the detailed idiosyncratic shapes of the Moana Loa sawtooth. During the pandemic these idiosyncrasies were unchanged. How come?

    • catweazle666 permalink
      January 4, 2023 4:11 pm

      Good question, the 17% reduction in anthropogenic emissions was exactly cancelled by the buffering effect of inter aliaHenry’s law.

      It would appear that mankind’s efforts have little or no effect on atmospheric CO2 concentration.

      Tom Tamarkin is correct.

      • Mike Jackson permalink
        January 4, 2023 5:06 pm

        As far as I know all the palæontological evidence is that changes in CO2 concentration follow changes in temperature so unless someone has found a way for an effect to precede its cause ….
        One of the most comprehensive collections of climate quotes can be found at https://web.archive.org/web/20220512200000/https://www.c3headlines.com/global-warming-quotes-climate-change-quotes.html
        It doesn’t take long reading through the list before you start to realise that climate (per se) plays second fiddle to what I described some years ago as (in effect) “unpicking the industrial revolution”.
        Most of the “contributors” are either latter-day Malthusians or simply the new liberal élite desperate to keep the lower orders in their place.
        If emissions from fossil fuels were a genuine concern why are most activists equally opposed to the one source of reliable power that does not “emit”, namely nuclear? The answer, of course, is that it is cheap, reliable energy itself which is the target, not the CO2 as such.

      • tomtamarkin permalink
        January 5, 2023 10:54 pm

        This first phase of our climate study conclusively demonstrates that Henry’s Law in conjunction with the Law of Mass Action, Le Chatelier’s Principle, Graham’s Law, and Fick’s Law govern CO2 concentrations in air, ocean, soil, and biosphere and rapidly re-equilibrate to changes in sea surface temperature and surface agitation.

        The ocean is capable of absorbing several orders of magnitude more carbon dioxide than can be created on Earth .

        The bottom-line results of our experiment and analysis of the NOAA Scrips Keeling data conclusively shows that “the net amount of equilibrated carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere is the same as if human beings never existed.” See complete 32 page report and video with Bud Bromley and Tom Tamarkin at: https://pinatubostudy.com

        Anyone who wishes to learn more from us directly or debate these assertions with us is welcome to contact me and we can set up a Zoom video conference with as many folks as you like. tomer@climatecite.com Bio at: https://climatecite.com/tom-tamarkin-2/

    • tomtamarkin permalink
      January 4, 2023 4:41 pm

      That is the central theses of our study at: https://pinatubostudy.com and the article of mine Paul Homewood republished. The “saw tooth” wave form originates from changes in plant life in the north and south hemispheres. CO2 from fossil fuel emissions in an order or 2 lower in magnitude (quantity) hence the keeling curve does not have the resolution to show it.

  7. Phil O'Sophical permalink
    January 4, 2023 3:29 pm

    Shame about the title: Nature Not Man Controls CO2.

    • tomtamarkin permalink
      January 4, 2023 4:46 pm

      The title I chose for the article is both precise and concise. A masterpiece of a title in my humble opinion.

      • Phil O'Sophical permalink
        January 4, 2023 6:59 pm

        But incorrect grammar. Yes we can all understand what you are getting at. Grammar is all over the place everywhere these days. And like a misfiring engine it will get you where you want to go up to a point.

        The way English works, your title implies that nature controls CO2 rather than controlling man. The hyphen doesn’t change that.

        No big deal. The article is a welcome contribution.

  8. Phil Beckley permalink
    January 4, 2023 4:37 pm

    The fact that current CO2 concentrations are higher by a significant amount than any reached going back over a million years does rather suggest that human emissions are the reason for the extra hundred or so parts per million at present. The important point is that this is almost entirely beneficial (in greening the Earth as is now well documented – if ignored by the alarmists) while nearly all the warming potential of any amount of CO2 has already happened, as documented by Dr William Happer (who I think says there might be one extra degree’s Celsius warming even with a doubling of CO2.)

    • tomtamarkin permalink
      January 4, 2023 4:48 pm

      1. Please reread the above Tamarkin article.
      2. Please visit our site and read the full report and perhaps watch the video with Mr. Bromley and me.

      • Phil Beckley permalink
        January 4, 2023 5:17 pm

        Thank you for reading my comment. I shall indeed investigate further.

      • tomtamarkin permalink
        January 5, 2023 10:54 pm

        This first phase of our climate study conclusively demonstrates that Henry’s Law in conjunction with the Law of Mass Action, Le Chatelier’s Principle, Graham’s Law, and Fick’s Law govern CO2 concentrations in air, ocean, soil, and biosphere and rapidly re-equilibrate to changes in sea surface temperature and surface agitation.

        The ocean is capable of absorbing several orders of magnitude more carbon dioxide than can be created on Earth .

        The bottom-line results of our experiment and analysis of the NOAA Scrips Keeling data conclusively shows that “the net amount of equilibrated carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere is the same as if human beings never existed.” See complete 32 page report and video with Bud Bromley and Tom Tamarkin at: https://pinatubostudy.com

        Anyone who wishes to learn more from us directly or debate these assertions with us is welcome to contact me and we can set up a Zoom video conference with as many folks as you like. tomer@climatecite.com Bio at: https://climatecite.com/tom-tamarkin-2/

      • catweazle666 permalink
        January 6, 2023 3:53 pm

        “The ocean is capable of absorbing several orders of magnitude more carbon dioxide than can be created on Earth”

        Indeed.

        It is surprising how many people fail to understand the concept of buffering.

    • Dung permalink
      January 4, 2023 7:48 pm

      Phil, For all of that million and another million plus before it, the earth has been (and still is in an ice age). One million is peanuts, especially since the pale-ontological evidence shows that atmospheric CO2 levels have never been lower than during this ice age.

    • catweazle666 permalink
      January 4, 2023 9:29 pm

      ” (who I think says there might be one extra degree’s Celsius warming even with a doubling of CO2.)”

      Key concept is “logarithmic”.

      Seems a lot of “climate scientists” are unfamiliar with it.

  9. pauldennis2014 permalink
    January 4, 2023 6:12 pm

    Dave Burton’s analysis is correct and there is considerable supporting evidence in the form of (i) the 13C isotopic composition of atmospheric CO2, and (ii) the measured decrease in the O2/N2 ration of the atmosphere over the past 20 or so years of measurements. All these are consistent with increased CO2 levels due to the burning of fossil fuels. The level of increase is partially offset by a number of sinks: dissolution in the oceans, increased primary productivity, weathering etc.

    • tomtamarkin permalink
      January 4, 2023 9:48 pm

      Read “Putting the false UN IPCC 13C/12C isotope argument to bed forever” by Bud Bromley at https://climatecite.com/putting-the-false-un-ipcc-13c-12c-isotope-argument-to-bed-forever/ and “3Carbon / 12Carbon Ratio of Atmospheric CO2 by Dr. Munshi at https://climatecite.com/13carbon-12carbon-ratio-of-atmospheric-co2/ . Mr. Burton is in error and clearly has no idea of the natural equilibriums established by Henry’s law and its dependencies.

      • pauldennis2014 permalink
        January 4, 2023 10:30 pm

        The Segelstad, Spencer and Salby analyses of the isotopic composition of atmospheric CO2, in my view and that of virtually every stable isotope geochemist that I know, are all incorrect. For example, in the Segelstad analysis that is referenced at climate cite.com he carries out a simple mass balance analysis with a 79%/21% ‘natural’/’anthropogenic’ ratio based on pre-industrial and modern CO2 levels and end member compositions of close to -7 per mille and -28 per mille vpdb respectively. He arrives at an estimate of -11 per mille vpdb for the supposed carbon isotopic composition of atmospheric CO2. He compares this with measured values of ca. -7.8 per mille and concludes that the CO2 is largely of natural origin. However, he doesn’t include an analysis of fluxes and the significant discrimination against 13C associated with primary productivity (photosynthesis – terrestrial and marine). Including these fluxes will result in a much lower rate of depletion in 13C in the atmosphere as is observed. I note you did not refer to the O2/N2 ratio data in your reply, which shows that a significant proportion of CO2 released into the atmosphere from anthropogenic activities (as estimated from global inventories of fossil fuel burning, land use changes, cement manufacture etc.), is taken up by sinks that include primary productivity and dissolution in the oceans.

  10. Jack Broughton permalink
    January 4, 2023 8:05 pm

    The dissolution of CO2 in the droplets in clouds is a major transport mechanism for returning CO2 to earth. The non-uniformity of moisture and clouds is not properly considered in any of the climate-models (as it is not understood), yet the forcing function depends on a large feedback multiplier due to the moisture in the atmosphere to work (as CO2 has little effect on its own). The models assume “well mixed greenhouse gases”: a pure fiction. It remains incredible that these rough approximations are regarded as the basis for spending £trillions!

  11. Broadlands permalink
    January 4, 2023 10:08 pm

    “Let that sink in. The total net amount of CO2 in our atmosphere today is no more or no less than if humans never existed on our planet.”

    A paper published in 1987 entitled “Carbon Dioxide and People” has a chart (Fig. 1) which show a very clear remarkably high statistical correlation between the sum total of all human activities (global population) and Mauna Loa CO2.

    https://www.jstor.org/stable/3514578

    • catweazle666 permalink
      January 4, 2023 10:13 pm

      Once again, “Correlation does not imply Causation”.

      According to Mark Twain “there are three types of lies, lies, damned lies and statistics”.

      • Broadlands permalink
        January 4, 2023 10:19 pm

        Once again? Yes…that was discussed earlier. READ the paper! Your archaic comment is addressed, and in detail. All statisticians are fully aware of that.

      • catweazle666 permalink
        January 4, 2023 10:31 pm

        I’ve read it, it is simplistic and irrelevant.

      • Broadlands permalink
        January 5, 2023 12:28 am

        The data are accurate. The high correlation still exists, even today. Your first repetitive and archaic comment (and this last one) are not.

  12. Jordan permalink
    January 4, 2023 11:00 pm

    I hope you don’t mind if I give this another run.
    It is proposed that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere increases the rate of absorption of ground-sourced OLR within the atmosphere. In 1990, IPCC AR1 (which is quite a nice introduction into the theoretical proposition) described this as an “Enhanced Greenhouse Effect” (EGHE).
    The EGHE proposes an increased in transaction of energy from the ground to the atmosphere. We should expect an increase in temperature within the atmosphere. The GCMs predict this change in the form of the so-called “tropospheric hotspot”, predicting around 1.4-times increase in temperature aloft compared to the surface in certain regions.
    The atmosphere will then increase radiation of IR due to this increase in temperature aloft.
    If energy is balanced at a notional settling period (time of Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS)), the atmosphere will re-radiate energy in equal measure to the absorption of ground-sourced OLR. But the atmosphere has no sense of up versus down, and this re-radiation is approximately split evenly upwards and downwards.
    At the point ECS is theoretically determined, In terms of power (rate of energy transfer), every 2W/sqm of ground-sourced OLR will result in only 1W/sqm returning to the ground. The EGHE loses energy, and the rise in temperature cannot be sustained.
    This is corroborated by the failure to confirm the model prediction of the tropospheric hotspot (to validate the GCMs), AND the failure to produce a well-constrained estimate of ECS from atmospheric measurements (to validate GCMs).
    John Christy says the atmosphere has ways of losing energy that the models don’t represent. I would put this further: at the supposed point of ECS, the EGHE does not conserve energy.
    I understand the GCMs balance energy at a “top of the atmosphere”. This is a mistake because the theory has failed to notice how it has invented a perpetuum mobile within the atmosphere (a loss-free balance of ground-sourced OLR and returned IR from aloft).
    That’s an engineering approach. I’m not a physicist. I’d be interested to hear if I have the physics wrong. Thanks.

  13. John in Nz permalink
    January 5, 2023 1:06 am

    Excellent article.

    I have been suspicious for some time that CO2 emissions are not responsible for the rise in atmospheric CO2.

    I would be interested in comments on the following.

    Please look at the graphs in this dropbox link.

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/tdftvikwx2k8v34/Change%20in%20Emissions%20and%20Change%20in%20Atmospheric%20CO2%20Growth.doc?dl=0

    We are told that we must reduce our emissions and that if we do there will be a decrease in the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 (CO2 growth).

    This is the basis for the Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP) scenarios.

    So I downloaded some emissions data and some CO2 growth data, converted them to gigatonnes of carbon, calculated the annual changes in each and the plotted the graph of change in emissions against change in CO2 growth.

    Note that the trend line is negative and the coefficient of determination (R squared) is 0.0003

    The thing is that changes in our emissions should show up with this comparison. But they do not.

    This is a test of the hypothesis that anthropogenic emissions are causing the rise in atmospheric CO2, but the hypothesis fails the test.

    Also, worth mentioning that the isotope ratio explanation is predicated on the assumption that natural sources and sinks are in balance. Not a valid assumption.

  14. Broadlands permalink
    January 5, 2023 1:26 am

    Some perspective. One part-per-million of CO2 represents 7.8 gigaton, 7,800 million metric tons. Since 1987 (when CO2 was at 350 ppm) ~70 ppm have been added, all from the energy needs of eight billion people. That amounts to over 500,000 million tons. We are adding to that CO2 globally at about 40 billion tons annually. Thus, any attempts to remove CO2 from the atmosphere are doomed to failure. It doesn’t matter how much is natural or man-made. It’s there.

  15. Douglas Dragonfly permalink
    January 5, 2023 7:15 am

    The independent is encouraging bad choices ! Just see what they’re saying today :-
    ‘Sales of new electric cars in the UK are growing so fast that they have now overtaken diesel vehicles to become the second most popular type of new vehicle, behind petrol.’

    ‘The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders reported that greening of the British car market continues, with a record low overall level of emissions recorded in 2022 – 111grammes of carbon dioxide emitted per kilometer travelled on average, a fraction of the level of only a few years ago.’
    https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/tesla-electric-car-diesel-b2256112.html

  16. W Flood permalink
    January 5, 2023 8:52 am

    Henry’s Law renders pumping carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere utterly pointless. Does anybody have an estimate of how much CO2 is dissolved in the oceans/surface water as gas or bicarbonate ion ?

    • January 5, 2023 9:21 am

      Bud Bromley explains why estimates using Henry’s law based on average global temperatures of air or sea always get the wrong answer.

      Henry’s Law controls CO2 concentration, not humans
      https://budbromley.blog/2021/08/18/henrys-law-controls-co2-concentration-not-humans/

      • W Flood permalink
        January 5, 2023 1:24 pm

        Thanks for all that. The various equilibria and the bomb spike data make a nonsense of the ipcc and the gwp of methane, N2O etc since they invoke non existent equilibria.

      • tomtamarkin permalink
        January 5, 2023 10:47 pm

        This first phase of our climate study conclusively demonstrates that Henry’s Law in conjunction with the Law of Mass Action, Le Chatelier’s Principle, Graham’s Law, and Fick’s Law govern CO2 concentrations in air, ocean, soil, and biosphere and rapidly re-equilibrate to changes in sea surface temperature and surface agitation.

        The ocean is capable of absorbing several orders of magnitude more carbon dioxide than can be created on Earth .

        The bottom-line results of our experiment and analysis of the NOAA Scrips Keeling data conclusively shows that “the net amount of equilibrated carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere is the same as if human beings never existed.” See complete 32 page report and video with Bud Bromley and Tom Tamarkin at: https://pinatubostudy.com

        Anyone who wishes to learn more from us directly or debate these assertions with us is welcome to contact me and we can set up a Zoom video conference with as many folks as you like. tomer@climatecite.com Bio at: https://climatecite.com/tom-tamarkin-2/

  17. W Flood permalink
    January 5, 2023 8:56 am

    My comments are not appearing

  18. W Flood permalink
    January 5, 2023 8:57 am

    Ah at last

  19. January 5, 2023 8:13 pm

    I miss the step connecting reductions in fossil fuel CO2 release in California (and elsewhere( to no change in a much massaged Mauna Loa CO2 dataset. This post went from explaining how the data was cleaned to the conclusion nature did it without dealing with known fossil fuel+ production and time-in-atmosphere calculations (from nuclear bomb data).

    Or I missed it.

    I would like to see a comparison between c02 emissions by all sources BY VOLUME to changes in Mauna Loa raw data CO2 global assumed atmospheric volume.

    Also: it is said that rising temperatures will liberate CO2 from high altitude permafrost and muskeg – which I agree with, having personally seen those sources exposed in Northern Alberta, the Yukon, Northwest Territories and on the Arctic coastline and Banks Island ilof Canada. I have not seen, however, these calculations applied to the areas affected for LIA to-date.

    How much CO2 did new, exposed decomposing vegetable from matter from 1650 to 2023 contribute to the current CO2 levels?

    Wouldn’t you like to know?

    • tomtamarkin permalink
      January 5, 2023 10:26 pm

      This first phase of our climate study conclusively demonstrates that Henry’s Law in conjunction with the Law of Mass Action, Le Chatelier’s Principle, Graham’s Law, and Fick’s Law govern CO2 concentrations in air, ocean, soil, and biosphere and rapidly re-equilibrate to changes in sea surface temperature and surface agitation.

      The ocean is capable of absorbing several orders of magnitude more carbon dioxide than can be created on Earth .

      The bottom-line results of our experiment and analysis of the NOAA Scrips Keeling data conclusively shows that “the net amount of equilibrated carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere is the same as if human beings never existed.” See complete 32 page report and video with Bud Bromley and Tom Tamarkin at: https://pinatubostudy.com

      Anyone who wishes to learn more from us directly or debate these assertions with us is welcome to contact me and we can set up a Zoom video conference with as many folks as you like. tomer@climatecite.com Bio at: https://climatecite.com/tom-tamarkin-2/

  20. Eric permalink
    January 6, 2023 6:37 am

    Reblogged this on Calculus of Decay .

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: