A few years ago, Dr. Koutsoyiannis and colleagues used equations associated with the chemistry of temperature-driven organic respiration to demonstrate that since the late 1950s, temperature-induced increases in plant and soil emissions (31.6 Gt-C/yr) account for a 3.4 times greater ratio of the >100 ppm rise in atmospheric CO2 than the contribution from the increase in fossil fuel emissions (9.4 Gt-C/yr). [emphasis, links added]
This conclusion is rooted in the observation that since 1959, the causality direction has consistently been T→CO2, and not CO2→T (Koutsoyiannis et al., 2022), when observing annual changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations [T=temp].
In other words, respiration analyses indicate the rise in CO2 has been the consequence, not the cause, of [rising temperatures].
And now, in a new study, scientists have used the time-integrated effect of past sea surface temperatures and time-series modeling to establish that temperature-driven oceanic CO2 outgassing can also explain the bulk of the rise in atmospheric CO2 since the late 1950s.
In contrast, there is “no correlation (R² = 0.01) between the detrended 12-month CO2 increments and fossil-fuel emissions.”
Notably, fossil fuel emissions rates can be shown to have grown from 2.4 Gt-C/yr in 1959 to 10.3 Gt-C/yr in 2025, a net +7.9 Gt-C/yr change.
In contrast, natural emissions from oceanic outgassing grew from 133.2 Gt-C/yr in 1959 to 175.2 Gt-C/yr in 2025 (a net +42 Gt-C/yr change).
Significantly:
“The +42 Gt-C/yr increase in temperature-driven natural inflow explains 84% of the total inflow rise since 1959…”
Other ratios detailed in the study also identify oceanic temperature-driven natural emissions as the predominant contributor to the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
“[I]n 1960, oceanic degassing was 32 times the flux from ‘fossil fuels’; since 2010, it has been 11 times greater.” …
“[SST anomalies] increased from 0.12°C in 1959 to 0.97°C in 2024 and account for 83% (+89 ppm) of the total increase (+107 ppm) in atmospheric CO2 over that period.” …
“The resulting growth of [fossil fuel emissions] is 5 x 0.12 = +0.6 Gt-C/yr, or +0.28 ppm/yr – i.e., eight times smaller than the observed increase of [natural CO2 emissions] = +5 Gt-C/yr or +2.4 ppm/yr over the past decade.”
The authors identify the remaining anthropogenic [human-made] contribution to the current (2024) 425 ppm atmospheric CO2 concentration as amounting to just 23 ppm, or 49 Gt-C.
This means approximately 95 percent of today’s CO2 levels are derived from natural processes.
Thus, even if the costly (€800 billion per year, or US$931B) EU decarbonization policies intended to dramatically reduce human CO2 emissions were to be fully implemented today, it would “lower atmospheric CO2 by only about 0.5 ppm by 2035.”
Read more at No Tricks Zone
Read papers by Nikolov and Zeller and you will realize that the greenhouse does not exist as it violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
Come on Tom, all those computer models tell us that CO2 is the control knob on temperature. How could those models be wrong!? (he says sarcastically!)
If rising temperatures cause more CO2 than fossil fuels, then we are in a run away situation because the extra CO2 will cause more heating. So the process is self perpetuating.
exactly what came to my mind immediately but not the author whose only purpose is to keep on burning fossil fuels. if you don’t educate your brain there is no chance of becoming intelligent.
If you and Chris actually believe that CO2 is the control knob on temperature then you are the ones who need some education. You need to reread the article that says that the level of CO2 follows, not leads, temperature. This is due to the fact that most of the CO2 are in the ocean and as the temps go up so does the oceans temps and the oceans gas out the dissolved CO2. The inverse happens as temps drop–the atmospheric CO2 gets dissolve back into the ocean.
The usual nonsense presented by Ken Richard.
Since 1959, atmospheric CO2 levels have risen from around 315-316 ppm to over 424 ppm in 2024, an increase of roughly 109 ppm. The 109 parts per million (ppm) increase of atmospheric CO2 since 1959 is overwhelmingly caused by human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels and land use change. Natural processes, such as plant growth and ocean absorption (known as carbon sinks), absorb about half of the CO2 humans emit, but the remainder accumulates in the atmosphere, disrupting the natural carbon cycle balance.
approximately half of man-made (\text{CO}{2}) emissions are expected to cause an increase in atmospheric (\text{CO}{2}) concentration. This is because natural processes on land and in the ocean absorb the other half.
“approximately 95 percent of today’s CO2 levels are derived from natural processes.” KR
This is total BS. The correct percentage is about 33%.
Since 1850, about 250 to 300 PPM of manmade CO2 emissions.
Atmospheric CO2 increased by +147 PPM.
Now 427 ppm
+147ppm is about 1/3 of 427ppm.
Nature absorbed almost half of the 250 to 300ppm manmade CO2 increase. Nature has been a net CO2 absorber for billions of years.
Nature would have absorbed approximately 20 PPM more CO2 if the oceans had not warmed by about 1° C. since 1850
The false claim that atmospheric CO2 is 95% natural is what you hear from deluded conservatives.
This website publishes many good articles, most of which I recommend on my own website. The Ken Richards “CO2 does nothing” articles are articles for climate science deniers and fools.
So what are your sources for your claims?
My 28 years of climate science reading and my Climate and Energy blog with over 1.3 million page views.
Ken Richard publishes CO2 does nothing garbage.
Anyone who believes the CO2 in the atmosphere was 95% from natural sources is a fool.
The people who make the 95% claim misinterpret the annual carbon cycle. They count the CO2 emitted during the year, but ‘forget” to count the CO2 absorbed during the year. For the full year, nature absorbs slightly more CO2 than it releases. Nature has been a CO2 absorber for billions of years. This is nothing new.
Humans release only 5% of the CO2 released in total over the year.
The fools claim that proves CO2 is 95% natural.
But nature is a net absorber of CO2.
While humans absorb no CO2.
Nature absorbs about half the CO2 released by humans.
The other half of the CO2 released by humans increases atmospheric CO2. Which happens to be good news for plants and the people and animals who eats them.
If you want to change the minds and influence the people who fear CO2, you can’t say that CO2 is 95% natural or CO2 does nothing.
That marks you as a science denier.
Something I will never be.
I try to share my 28 years of studying climate science with other people using simple language. They may refuse to listen, but at least somebody tried to educate them.
I don’t expect many people to agree with me that global warming is good news. I do expect people to understand why atmospheric CO2 is increasing. Increasing from manmade CO2 emissions, not nature.
The usual nonsense from the non-scientist Richard Greene.
Oh dear, the usual anti-science ignorant tosh from Dicky Greene.
Human CO2 flux is only about 4-5% of total flux… Kenneth is correct
There is no measured scientific evidence that CO2 has any effect whatsoever on the “climate”, only very ignorant and brain-washed non-science twits believe it does.
For some reason Ricky hates Kenneth Richard (maybe because Kenneth has the nerve of having the last name the same as his first name?) but every post that Tom Richard posts on Kenneth’s you can guarantee that Ricky will be there with “facts” to supposedly show that Kenneth is wrong. However he never posts links to where he’s pulled those “facts” from. I’ve asked multiple times for his scientific background and all I have been able to find is he’s got an MBA but no indication on his bachelor degree.
I have a BS degree, but no degree is required to understand the basics of climate science.
I read over 50 articles a week on climate and energy.
Almost all written by skeptics and conservatives.
Ken Richard is a CO2 does nothing climate science denier.
I post a good climate and energy reading list every three days.
Over 30,000 page views since November 1, 2025.
https://honestclimatescience.blogspot.com/
The COVID epidemic gives us real world data on what is, or more accurately what is not, causing the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. During the epidemic mankind’s emission dramatically dropped. However, the line tracking the increase in carbon dioxide didn’t have a dent in it. It remains a straight line. This shows that there are major factors other than human activity driving CO2 levels. I am open to the possibility that human activities have a small influence.
There is another inconvenient truth, especially for those who try to assign historical responsibility for emissions going back to the beginning of the industrial revolution. The atmosphere testing of atomic weapons dramatically increased the level of carbon 14. Carbon 12 is the normal isotope. When such testing was banned in 1965 the level of carbon 14 had significantly increased and hit a peak. By the year 2000, 95% of the extra carbon 14 had been removed. Carbon 12 and carbon 14 are identical chemically. That means 95% of the carbon dioxide in the air on 1965 had also been removed. For those who insist on assigning the level of carbon dioxide on mankind’s emissions, the 35 year time period to remove CO2 has to be considered.
A single pulse of human-emitted (\text{CO}_{2}) is largely removed over centuries, but a significant portion (20-40%) can remain for thousands of years or longer.
Man made CO2 emissions have been increasing atmospheric CO2 since 1850. The rule of thumb that nature absorbs half of manmade omissions and the other half increases atmosphere CO2 is proven by the difference between manmade emissions and atmospheric CO2 increase.
The change in atmospheric carbon-14 percentage over the past 50 years primarily indicates the massive scale of fossil fuel emissions and how carbon cycles through Earth’s reservoirs. The percentage has been steadily declining due to the dilution effect of adding “old” carbon, which contains no C14, to the atmosphere. This process, known as the Suess effect, is a clear scientific marker of human-caused atmospheric change.
There are only two possibilities for CO2, humans and nature.
For every 5 PPM of CO2 emissions from manmade fossil fuels, 2.5 PPM is absorbed by nature and 2.5 PPM increases atmospheric CO2.
I believe a 12 year old child could understand this.
But you are extremely confused and your claims are claptrap.
The rapid decrease of carbon 14 after the atomic testing is hard empirical data. You countered this with unsupported disinformation from the climate change movement “significant portion (20-40%) can remain for thousands of years or longer.” In addition, if this were true, it would be a major problem for the climate change movement. It is estimated by geophysicists that only three volcanic eruptions, Indonesia (1883), Alaska (1912) and Iceland (1947), spewed more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than all of human activities in our entire history. If carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere for an extended time, then a large part of the carbon 14 depleted CO2 comes from volcanoes. This is indistinguishable from fossil fuel carbon.
The scientific paper at:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9955352/
is very useful. Richard, good luck with the math. Based on the calculations, “Nearly 90% of all anthropogenic carbon dioxide has already been removed from the atmosphere.” This is consistent with the rapid removal of carbon 14 after the nuclear testing. Something a 12 year old doesn’t know, if calculated conclusions agree with empirical data, the results are trustworthy.
Here is a quote from the conclusion. “This fits very nicely with the recent finding that the stalling of the economy and the accompanying severe reduction in carbon emissions during the Covid pandemic had no visible impact on the dynamics of the atmosphere whatsoever. The result of that research, the hypothesis that the carbon dioxide increments in the atmosphere were fully due to natural causes and not humans, fits the experimental data very well, and the hypothesis that humans are fully responsible for the increments can equally be rejected scientifically. This then also agrees with the conclusions of Segalstad that “The rising atmospheric CO2 is the outcome of rising temperature rather than vice versa.”
Over the past 100 years, volcanoes accounted for significantly less than 1% of total global CO2 emissions, while human activities were responsible for more than 99%. Annually, human CO2 emissions are up to 100 times greater than those from all volcanoes combined, both on land and underwater.
Almost every statement you make about climate science is wrong.
The amount of time that CO2 remains in the atmosphere can be debated. Continuous CO2 measurements at the Mauna Loa Observatory began in March 1958. These accurate measurements show that no net carbon dioxide has been removed from the atmosphere. Atmospheric CO2 continues to increase 1x for every two 2x of manmade CO2 emissions since 1958. Those data prove that CO2 remains in the atmosphere for at least 67 years
People who can’t understand that humans are increasing atmospheric CO2, and nature is absorbing about half the manmade CO2 emissions, are climate science dummkopfs.
studies of peer-reviewed literature confirm that more than 99.9% of scientists agree that human activities are the primary cause of rising atmospheric CO2 and the associated climate change. This consensus has solidified to a point where the scientific debate on this basic premise is virtually nonexistent.
0.1% climate nutters are to be expected
They must be the only authors you follow.
As almost every claim you make is climate science disinformation.
It is standard practice of the climate change movement to ignore data that doesn’t support its cause. One fact that can’t be ignored the rapid decline of carbon 14 in the atmosphere once it hit its peak after the atomic testing ended. That also means that all carbon dioxide was being removed more rapidly. However, we also can not ignore that the concentration of the CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing. A logical explanation is there are non-anthropogenic sources of carbon dioxide. Having a large source other mankind explains why accompanying the severe reduction in carbon emissions during the Covid pandemic had no visible impact on the dynamics of the atmosphere whatsoever. That is another real world fact that can’t be ignored.
However, the climate change movement is a political movement. It is being controlled by those who want to make money off of it and use it as a means of social engineering. It has already been very difficult get the emission reduction they have achieved so far. If it was acknowledge that there was a non-anthropogenic source, action on climate change would become even more difficult. We can expect the movement to continue to pretend that mankind is the only carbon dioxide source.
I need to find my source of information on the three large volcano eruptions.
Richard it appears that your BS degree is not in science. I have a BS in biology, BA in chemistry, and BS in electrical engineering. I and others well versed in the sciences can firmly state that consensus has no place in real science. When Einstein received a letter signed by 100 physicists challenging his theory of relativity, he responded that if even one was right it would have meaning. When someone tries to use consensus to back up their view point, all they are doing is confessing their ignorance.
I am familiar with the study that concluded that 99.9% of scientists agree that human activities are the primary cause of rising atmospheric CO2, and like so many studies in the climate change movement it was very fraudulent. However, consensus has no value so I won’t go into details.