Analysis of CO2 residence times [atmospheric lifespan] suggests that 65% to 96.5% of the CO2 concentration increase since 1958 is natural.
According to a new study, the claim that increases in atmospheric CO2 are driven exclusively by humans relies on a made-up, disparate accounting model, with the residence time for natural emissions three to four years (which is consistent with actual observations), but CO2 from human sources is claimed to have a residence time of 50 to over 100 years. [emphasis, links added]
The 15 to 30 times longer residence time for human emissions is an imaginary conceptualization that is wholly inconsistent with (1) bomb tests (1963) and (2) seasonal CO2 variations found in real-world observations.
Human emissions account for under 5% of the total from all sources, natural and anthropogenic [man-made].
Nature’s sinks do not decide which CO2 to absorb, depending on the source. Absorption is instead proportional to the source.
Consequently, Dr. Harde insists that a “comprehensive analysis and reproduction of the atmospheric CO2 evolution requires … [treating] all emissions in a consistent manner.”
When the imaginary-world 50-100+ years residence time for anthropogenic CO2 accounting method is not used, and instead natural emissions and human emissions are treated as equal (both with a residence time under 10 years), the attribution for the CO2 increase falls to as little as 3.5%, with the upper limit 35%.
Ferdinand Engelbeen, a long-time proponent of the position that humans are 100% responsible for CO2 level changes, published a Comment in the same journal, replying to the above study.
Engelbeen claims natural emissions are always 100% balanced by natural sinks, and “there is zero contribution from natural sources and sinks to the increase in the atmosphere.”
Dr. Harde then published a Reply to Engelbeen, explaining that his position employs “circular reasoning,” and that the assumption that nature contributes zero to CO2 concentration change is “nonsense and misses any scientific basis.”
Harde further explains that treating the residence of CO2 as equal to anthropogenic and natural emissions allows for the conclusion that natural emissions add 31.2 ppm/year to the increase, whereas humans add 5.5 ppm/year.
The natural contribution to the CO2 increase since 1958 is therefore nearly six times greater than that from humans.
Read more at No Tricks Zone
A Erupting Volcano can effect the weather and produce more CO2 in just one Eruption and we have Mt. Shasta in our Area and Mt St Helens effected aa lot back in 1980s
The fact that climate extremists actually believe that the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels are driven exclusively by humans reveals the fascist nature of the climate change movement. Obviously, our government believes that humans are solely responsible for the increase in CO2 levels, or they wouldn’t be attacking fossil fuels with bayonets and pitchforks. CO2 is simply a marker compound designed to incriminate our modern society, so that we can be controlled by a world government. CO2 is not the thermostat of the world. This coupled with the fact that extremist have been saying that the residence time of CO2 for human emissions is 15 to 30 times longer than natural emissions absolutely demonstrates their venal nature. By all accounts, humans contribute 5% of CO2 emissions, while nature contributes 95%. If CO2 were the problem, which it’s not, eliminating the entire 5% would not fix the issue! And as we know eliminating, close to 20% of human emissions is impossible. Be warned, netzero will do nothing about climate change –elites will get rich and everyone else will pay!
Total BS confusing seasonal carbon flows, which do not increase CO2 year over year, with manmade CO2 emissions, which do increase atmospheric CO2 year over year
A very popular conservative tin hat conspiracy theory.
@ Richard Greene once CO2 enters the atmosphere, whatever the source, how does it then know the source? Are you suggesting that the atmosphere is somehow aware?
Claiming that carbon dioxide from natural sources has a latency of 3 to 4 years and that from mankind is 50 to 100 years is junk science at its worst. The gas will be removed at the same rate no matter what the source.
The issue here is the impact of human activity on carbon dioxide levels. NOAA has a good graph on emissions compared to atmospheric CO2. The slopes have been designed so that the atmospheric concentration appears to follow emissions. However, as we used to say in engineering the devil is in the details. Mankind’s emission fell during COVID, but the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration was unaffected. There was dip in human emissions from 1990 to around 2015, but again, atmospheric CO2 continues to ignore what is happening with human emissions. This strongly implies that carbon dioxide in the air is being control by other factors.
We don’t have to look far to find a plausible explanation. The Earth’s oceans contain 20 times the carbon dioxide as the atmosphere. As water becomes warmer, it can hold less carbon dioxide as well as well as other gasses. The earth has been naturally warming since the end of the mini ice age. As the water warms it outgases a portion of the carbon dioxide. That doesn’t mean that man’s emissions have no effect, but they are small compared to the natural sources.
This discussion is irrelevant as far as what mankind should do. With carbon dioxide at 420 ppm, we are way beyond the saturation point of the gas as far as its ability to cause warming so there is no reason to go the expense and make sacrifices to reduce its emissions.
Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are natural emissions, they are the emissions produced by a type of ape called Homo Sapien using the remains of other animals. This ape, mostly unbeknown to itself, is returning CO2 to the atmosphere, from whence it came. This activity carried out by this animal is an entirely natural process, thankfully making the planet more fertile and helping prevent CO2 levels from failing to the point that plants die and all life on earth dies ends.
The whole climate change debate is underpinned by a false premise, that humans aren’t natural. This is a preposterous misunderstanding, a result perhaps of egomaniacal humanism, it is a hubris that is bringing economic, social, political and environmental nemesis. All CO2 is natural, the only thing seemingly unnatural is that a significant proportion of homo sapiens don’t want their species to thrive, neurosis at best, but more likely a symptom of incurable psychosis.