Another day, another new scientific paper has been published reporting efforts to curb anthropogenic CO2 emissions are “meaningless.” [emphasis, links added]
In this study, multiple linear regression analysis was performed comparing SST versus anthropogenic CO2 emissions as explanatory factors and the annual changes in atmospheric CO2 as the objective variable over the period 1959-2022.
The model using the SSTs (NASA, NOAA, UAH) best explained the annual CO2 change (regression coefficient B = 2.406, P = <0.0002).
In contrast, human emissions were not shown to be an explanatory factor at all in annual CO2 changes (regression coefficient B = 0.0027, P = 0.863).
Most impressively, the predicted atmospheric CO2 concentration using the regression equation derived from 1960-2022 SSTs had an extremely high correlation coefficient of r = 0.9995.
“The main factor governing the annual increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is the SST [sea surface temperature] rather than human emissions.” –Ato, 2024
Thus, not only is the paradigm that says humans drive atmospheric CO2 changes wrong but “the theory that global warming and climate change are caused by human-emitted CO2 is also wrong.”
This is not the first study to address the lack of correlation between annual changes in atmospheric CO2 and anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
Wang et al. (2013) assessed that CO2 emissions derived from human activity (fossil fuel combustion and land use changes) only account for about +0.1 to 0.3 PgC/yr of the annual change in CO2 concentration.
This is roughly “10% of the variance (σ²) of the CO2 growth rate.”
Jones and Cox (2005) have pointed out that the changes associated with annual fossil fuel emissions are unlikely to explain CO2 growth rate anomalies.
“…it is unlikely that these anomalies can be explained by an abrupt increase in anthropogenic emissions, as the anomalies are much larger than annual increases in fossil fuel emissions.”
Dr. Jari Ahlbeck (2009) also assessed the correlation between fossil fuel emissions and the increase in CO2 growth rates as “clearly statistically insignificant.”
He therefore excluded this factor from consideration in his analysis of the mechanisms of CO2 variability.
A chart included in the body of the paper reveals five-year periods where there was either a decline in the annual CO2 emissions trend (5.33, 5.17, 5.13, 5.11, 5.29 GtC/yr for 1980-1984) or a flattened trend (6.40, 6.53, 6.63, 6.59, 6.57 GtC/yr for 1995-1999).
Even an analysis detailed in the Carbon Brief blog from a few years ago suggests “global CO2 emissions have been flat – if not slightly declining – over the past 10 years.”
This does not support the conclusion that an increase in the CO2 growth rate has been driven by flat to declining human emissions.
An additional side note found in the Ato paper addresses the lack of a link between human methane emissions and atmospheric methane growth rates.
Although human methane emissions have risen dramatically in recent decades, “atmospheric methane concentrations have declined since the 21st century.”
So we not only have a lack of correlation between human emissions and annual variations in atmospheric CO2 (and CH4), but we even have flat to declining trends in annual anthropogenic CO2 (and CH4) emissions in recent decades – the opposite explanatory directionality.
Top photo by Linus Nylund on Unsplash
Read more at No Tricks Zone
Al Gore’s data in the “Inconvenient Truth” showed on a geological time scale changes in temperature led the changes in carbon dioxide though he wasn’t smart enough to realize it. Now I’m sure he just ignores this. During COVID mankind’s emissions fell yet the CO2 in the atmosphere continued to increase as if nothing was different. That can be explained by man’s emissions being insignificant compared to natural causes. By the way, I have two degrees in science and one in engineering.
Total BS
Ken Richard is a hack writer and AGW denier
He makes the NoTricksZone website into a laughingstock
This is just the latest of the overwhelming data that shows temperature controls the carbon dioxide levels, not the other way around. In this case, it is the temperature of the oceans. However, the climate change movement is a political movement not related to real science. They will handle this study the same as they have all others that contradict their narrative, ignore it.
Anyone who has had science/engineering education knows that as water warms up it can hold less gases so CO2 that is in the oceans will be out-gassed as the temps increase due to the warming after the two-century long little ice age ending.
The ice core record estimates a 1 degree C. warming of the oceans will outgas 15 to 20 ppm of CO2
But actual CO2 in the atmosphere increased 140 ppm since 1850.
You obviously have had no science or engineering education.
You make some wild assumptions there dude. I learned nuclear power/physics/chemistry in the Navy in their intensive education to operate their nuclear power program and was a reactor operator in the Navy. The training covers engineering, physics, metallurgy, chemistry, etc. After getting out I then went to Rensselaer and got a Computer and Systems Engineering degree and worked for Hewlett-Packard from 1985 until I retired in 2018.
What is your background in engineering and science?
He just stepped on a rake and got a lesson in physics.
Well done, Steve.
Why does one need ice core records? This is a straight-up scientific experiment. Take a sea water sample at near-freezing temps and saturate it with CO2. Warm it gradually and measure the outgassing. Perform again and again until a good sample size is reached.
Since CO2 is used by Plants then its needed for all Life on Earth and regulating it would be a stupid idea