Australian Politics Forum - World Atmosphere CO2

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 19130
Gender: male

World Atmosphere CO2
Aug 17^th, 2023 at 1:17pm

Quote:

After 1750 and the onset of the industrial revolution, the anthropogenic fossil component and the non-fossil component in the total atmospheric CO2 concentration, C(t), began to increase. Despite the lack of knowledge of these two components, claims that all or most of the increase in C(t) since 1800 has been due to the anthropogenic fossil component have continued since they began in 1960 with “Keeling Curve: Increase in CO2 from burning fossil fuel.” Data and plots of annual anthropogenic fossil CO2 emissions and concentrations, C(t), published by the Energy Information Administration, are expanded in this paper. Additions include annual mean values in 1750 through 2018 of the 14C specific activity, concentrations of the two components, and their changes from values in 1750. The specific activity of 14C in the atmosphere gets reduced by a dilution effect when fossil CO2, which is devoid of 14C, enters the atmosphere. We have used the results of this effect to quantify the two components. All results covering the period from 1750 through 2018 are listed in a table and plotted in figures. These results negate claims that the increase in C(t) since 1800 has been dominated by the increase of the anthropogenic fossil component. We determined that in 2018, atmospheric anthropogenic fossil CO2 represented 23% of the total emissions since 1750 with the remaining 77% in the exchange reservoirs. Our results show that the percentage of the total CO2 due to the use of fossil fuels from 1750 to 2018 increased from 0% in 1750 to 12% in 2018, much too low to be the cause of global warming.

Skrable et al 2022

It disagrees with the IPCC, so there is much concern. With doubters springing forth, but with no critique of where and why it is apparently wrong. Roll Eyes

Back to top

IP Logged

AusGeoff

Gold Member

Offline

Sage of Gippsland

Posts: 6025
Victoria
Gender: male

Re: World Atmosphere CO2
Reply #1 - Aug 17^th, 2023 at 3:39pm

Comment on “World Atmospheric CO2, Its 14C
Specific Activity, Non-fossil Component,
Anthropogenic Fossil Component, and Emissions (1750–2018)”

https://shorturl.at/mvNY8

Our comment is twofold: We will first highlight
the fundamental error the authors make and
then briefly discuss the implications of publishing
such work.

First, the paper concludes that “The percentage
of the total CO2 due to the use of fossil fuels from
1750 to 2018 increased from 0% in 1750 to 12%
in 2018, much too low to be the cause of global warming.”

The premise of this argument is incorrect and
indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of
the causal link between anthropogenic emissions
and rising atmospheric CO2.

Back to top

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 19130
Gender: male

Re: World Atmosphere CO2
Reply #2 - Aug 17^th, 2023 at 4:49pm

AusGeoff wrote on Aug 17^th, 2023 at 3:39pm:

First, the paper concludes that “The percentage
of the total CO2 due to the use of fossil fuels from
1750 to 2018 increased from 0% in 1750 to 12%
in 2018, much too low to be the cause of global warming.”

The premise of this argument is incorrect and
indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of
the causal link between anthropogenic emissions
and rising atmospheric CO2.

So no firm rebuttal other than they were wrong. Grin

"Atmospheric CO2 concentrations had remained roughly steady, at about 280 ppm, for several thousand years (Prentice et al. 2001)."

Even though Greenland Ice Cores disagree. And of course the trouble with CO2 in the firn from ice cores. Roll Eyes

"The reason for this was that the fluxes into and out of the atmosphere were in balance (Siegenthaler and Sarmiento 1993). "

Balance is a human construct. So what they are saying is that CO2 had no effect at all on climate. Even when CO2 levels rose before the ice ages. Roll Eyes

And also that the established science is correct. No room for any doubt whatsoever.

"In summary, even though a relatively small fraction of the CO2 molecules in the atmosphere at a particular time have a recent, direct fossil fuel origin, this does not mean that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is not due to anthropogenic emissions and does not mean that this is not the cause of global warming. "

So they completely dismiss C¹⁴, which is what they have previously hung their respective hats on. Roll Eyes

"We would need much more than a misunderstanding about the cause of the increase in atmospheric CO2 to overthrow these extremely robust conclusions."

So now we can't use C¹⁴. Oh dear.

"Powell: “Geological materials like coal, oil, and natural gas are so old that they no longer have any carbon-14.”

So by studying isotopes, scientists can measure exactly how much of the carbon in the atmosphere today came from fossil fuels. "

https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2018/11/isotopes-point-to-the-culprit-behind-...

Bugger. The science was apparently still good 5 years ago. And Yale Climate Connections has beautiful media network to keep happy with alarm. Roll Eyes

Yale Climate Connections and drought is one. Wink

He does have a blog - "How to Be a Climate-Change Activist without Becoming an Alarmist".

"We ask you to consider the peer-review failure in this case and to carry out a post-hoc review, which we are confident will produce a more reasonable outcome."

It was reviewed and it wasn't retracted.

But perhaps you can tell us the exact ratio of Anthro and natural CO2. Wink

Back to top

« Last Edit: Aug 17^th, 2023 at 4:55pm by lee »

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 52590
Gender: male

Re: World Atmosphere CO2
Reply #3 - Aug 18^th, 2023 at 10:33am

lee wrote on Aug 17^th, 2023 at 4:49pm:

AusGeoff wrote on Aug 17^th, 2023 at 3:39pm:

First, the paper concludes that “The percentage
of the total CO2 due to the use of fossil fuels from
1750 to 2018 increased from 0% in 1750 to 12%
in 2018, much too low to be the cause of global warming.”

The premise of this argument is incorrect and
indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of
the causal link between anthropogenic emissions
and rising atmospheric CO2.

So no firm rebuttal other than they were wrong. Grin

"Atmospheric CO2 concentrations had remained roughly steady, at about 280 ppm, for several thousand years (Prentice et al. 2001)."

Even though Greenland Ice Cores disagree. And of course the trouble with CO2 in the firn from ice cores. Roll Eyes

"The reason for this was that the fluxes into and out of the atmosphere were in balance (Siegenthaler and Sarmiento 1993). "

Balance is a human construct. So what they are saying is that CO2 had no effect at all on climate. Even when CO2 levels rose before the ice ages. Roll Eyes

And also that the established science is correct. No room for any doubt whatsoever.

"In summary, even though a relatively small fraction of the CO2 molecules in the atmosphere at a particular time have a recent, direct fossil fuel origin, this does not mean that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is not due to anthropogenic emissions and does not mean that this is not the cause of global warming. "

So they completely dismiss C¹⁴, which is what they have previously hung their respective hats on. Roll Eyes

"We would need much more than a misunderstanding about the cause of the increase in atmospheric CO2 to overthrow these extremely robust conclusions."

So now we can't use C¹⁴. Oh dear.

"Powell: “Geological materials like coal, oil, and natural gas are so old that they no longer have any carbon-14.”

So by studying isotopes, scientists can measure exactly how much of the carbon in the atmosphere today came from fossil fuels. "

https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2018/11/isotopes-point-to-the-culprit-behind-...

Bugger. The science was apparently still good 5 years ago. And Yale Climate Connections has beautiful media network to keep happy with alarm. Roll Eyes

Yale Climate Connections and drought is one. Wink

He does have a blog - "How to Be a Climate-Change Activist without Becoming an Alarmist".

"We ask you to consider the peer-review failure in this case and to carry out a post-hoc review, which we are confident will produce a more reasonable outcome."

It was reviewed and it wasn't retracted.

But perhaps you can tell us the exact ratio of Anthro and natural CO2. Wink

Good one.

I also read that Scrable letter to the editors and the two way bet gist was jumping out.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged