Earth and climate – an ongoing controversy
Even assuming that CO2 is some sort of wonder gas as climate alarmists like to claim, the percentage of total CO2 from the use of fossil fuels is much too low to be the cause of global warming, according to this detailed research.
H/T Jeremy
– – –
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, says Climate Change Dispatch.
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 C14 (Carbon-14) specific activity, concentrations of the two components, and their changes from values in 1750.
The specific activity of C14 in the atmosphere gets reduced by a dilution effect when fossil CO2, which is devoid of C14, 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 [fuel] component.
Full study here.
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
Who’d a thunk it? Me, actually.
Ed Berry says:
“The level or concentration of atmospheric CO2 is in units of ppmv (parts per million by volume in dry air). However, it is customary to omit the “v” and write ppm. To convert CO2 in ppmv into the mass of carbon in PgC (petagrams), multiply the ppmv by 2.12. GtC (Gigatons of carbon) is numerically equivalent to PgC.”
You can use that 2.12 to simplify and correct your argument.
Also, it is easier and more meaningful to argue in percentages. For example, IPCC’s data say the CO2 inflow from human emissions is about 5% of the inflow from natural emissions.
Therefore, to the first approximation, the equilibrium percentage of human CO2 in the atmosphere is about 5% or about 20 ppm. To this, we must add the effect of the new carbon that human emissions add to the carbon cycle.
That is what my calculations do using IPCC’s data. The result from this calculation is that human emissions, as of 2020, have added about 33 ppm to the atmosphere. This means nature has added about 100 ppm.
Also, my paper calculates the effect of land use change and finds it has no effect on the level of CO2 in the atmosphere because its small inflows are quickly moved to the deep ocean.”
https://edberry.com/blog/climate/climate-co2-temp/skrable-chabot-and-french-limit-human-co2-effect-to-48-ppm-in-2020/?__s=9scch9q34uoq2c5t2iaa
Meanwhile…
Met Office predicts the collapse of society following climate disaster
15 January 2022
It is a bleak forecast even by the Met Office’s standards – the complete collapse of society leaving armed militias and criminal gangs to roam the land unchallenged.
That is one of the doomsday scenarios set out in a report commissioned by the UK’s weather service to model the potential consequences of climate change.
The extraordinary report, called Shared Socio-economic Pathways and developed for the Government-funded UK Climate Resilience Programme, sets out supposedly ‘plausible futures’ as a result of global warming.
. . .
The Meteorological Office report, which was carried out by Cambridge Econometrics, the UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, and the universities of Edinburgh and Exeter, does however suggest a way of averting this future – by rejoining the EU.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10406521/Met-Office-predicts-collapse-society-following-climate-disaster.html
– – –
Climate cultist comedy 🤣
[…] New Study: Amount Of CO2 From Fossil Fuels Too Low To Cause Global Warming […]
Global warming news…
Millions under weather alerts as major winter storm hits US and Canada
Published 1 hour ago
The US National Weather Service (NWS) said the storm would hit much of the eastern third of the country over the next two days, with more than 1ft (30cm) of snow expected in some areas.
The huge storm system is approaching the eastern US from the Midwest.
Snow and ice could result in “dangerous travel, power outages, and tree damage”, the NWS warned.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-60017300
Reblogged this on Climate Collections.
“Heresy!! Heresy. Burn the heretic.”
[paraphrasing the usual suspects on the blogs when you say, “CO2 is plant food.”]
Facts won’t bother the sanctimonious.
As far as proof that CO2 didn’t cause an increase in Global Mean Temperature, one need only graph the last 50 years of GMT against the Mauna Loa CO2 atmospheric concentration. No correlation.
Correlation doesn’t prove causation, but lack of correlation falsifies causation.
Gamecock says:
January 17, 2022 at 3:08 am
===================
thanks Gamecock, great observation
Hi gamecock-whose/which GMT chart did you use?
Venus at 1 AU distance from the sun, would be colder than Earth.
CO2 is not a strong greenhouse gas.
Venus at it’s current distance from the sun [0.723 AU] absorbs and emits about 160 watts per square
meter in terms of global average.
Earth at 1 AU from the Sun absorbs and emits about 240 watt per square meter
Venus at Earth distance would absorb a lot energy from the sun.
Venus atmosphere would collapse and be colder than Earth.
Venus lack a surface which can absorb much of the energy of sunlight.
Our Moon is similar in that it can’t absorb much energy from the sun.
But were Venus at 1 AU distance it should have higher average surface temperature as
compared to Moon- because Venus has an atmosphere, despite not absorbing as much
as our Moon.
Though Venus would deadly cold for humans whereas the vacuum of the Moon is neither
cold or hot {nor any actual temperature}.
This is the same analysis discussed in our blog post.
On CO2 Sources and Isotopes
by Ron Clutz
A recent rigorous analysis was published, creating discussion among those concerned with global warming/climate change science. The paper is World Atmospheric CO2, Its 14C Specific Activity, Non-fossil Component, Anthropogenic Fossil Component, and Emissions (1750–2018) by Kenneth Skrable, George Chabot, and Clayton French at University of Massachusetts Lowell.
The analysis employs ratios of carbon isotopes to calculate the relative proportions of atmospheric CO2 from natural sources and from fossil fuel emissions. The results are welcomed by skeptics and repulsed by warmists.
. . .
This post attempts to explain the logic of the analysis for a general audience, with excerpts in italics with my bolds.
https://rclutz.com/2022/01/19/on-co2-sources-and-isotopes/
[…] New Study: Amount Of CO2 From Fossil Fuels Too Low To Cause Global Warming […]