{"id":267483,"date":"2023-07-14T21:43:22","date_gmt":"2023-07-14T19:43:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=267483"},"modified":"2023-07-14T21:43:25","modified_gmt":"2023-07-14T19:43:25","slug":"in-defence-of-non-ipcc-co2-science","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=267483","title":{"rendered":"In Defence of Non-IPCC CO2\u00a0Science"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From Science Matters<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By\u00a0Ron Clutz<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Currently some Zero Carbon zealots are trying to discredit and disappear a peer reviewed study of CO2 atmospheric concentrations because its findings contradict IPCC dogma.\u00a0 The paper is\u00a0World Atmospheric CO2, Its 14C Specific Activity, Non-fossil Component, Anthropogenic Fossil Component, and Emissions (1750\u20132018)<\/strong><\/a>. by Skrable et al. (2022).\u00a0 The link is to the paper and also shows the comments recently addressed to the authors and the editor of the journal, as well as responses by both.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This came to my attention by way of a\u00a0comment by one of the attackers<\/strong>\u00a0on my 2022 post regarding this study.\u00a0 Text is below in italics with my bolds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

D. Andrews 10\/7\/2023<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This post is over a year old, but in the interest of correcting the record, please note the following:<\/em>
1.\u00a0Skrable et al. have conceded that the data<\/strong>\u00a0they \u201cguesstimated\u201d\u00a0bore little resemblance<\/strong>\u00a0to actual atmospheric radiocarbon data.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

2. In a\u00a0reanalysis using good data,<\/strong>\u00a0they still find that the present atmosphere contains more 14C<\/strong>\u00a0than if the entire atmospheric carbon increase since 1750 was 14C -free fossil fuel carbon. But that is no surprise. Atmospheric carbon and carbon from\u00a0ocean\/land reservoirs is continually mixing,<\/strong>\u00a0with the result that net 14C moves to the 14C depleted atmosphere. Because of this mixing, one\u00a0cannot infer the source of the atmospheric carbon increase from its present radiocarbon content.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

3. One can conclude from\u00a0the atmospheric increase being but half of human emissions, that ocean \/land reservoirs are net sinks of carbon, nor sources<\/strong>. The increase is clearly on us, not natural processes.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

4.Because this\u00a0paper was made open access by the Health Physics editor,<\/strong>\u00a0while numerous rebuttals and the partial retraction were kept behind a paywall,\u00a0it got far more attention than it deserved.<\/strong>\u00a0Health Physics has now removed the paywall, making the rebuttals available from their website (for a limited time). See in particular the letters from Schwartz et al. and Andrews (myself).<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Skrable et al. Respond:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

None of the four letters to the editor in the June 2022 issue of\u00a0Health Physics\u00a0include any specific criticism of the assumptions, methodologies, and simple equations that we use in our paper to estimate the anthropogenic fossil and non-fossil components present each year in the atmosphere.\u00a0We have estimated from the \u201cNo bombs\u201d curve, modeled in the absence of the perturbation<\/strong>\u00a0due to nuclear weapons testing, an approximation fitting function of annual expected specific activities.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Annual mean concentrations of CO2<\/sub>\u00a0in our paper are used along with our revised expected specific activities to calculate values of the anthropogenic fossil and non-fossil components of CO2<\/sub>. These values are\u00a0presented in revisions of Table 2a, Table 2, and figures in our paper<\/strong>. They are included here in a revised supporting document for our paper, which provides a detailed discussion of the assumptions, methodology, equations, and example calculations of the two components of CO2<\/sub>\u00a0in 2018.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Annual mean concentrations of CO2<\/sub>\u00a0in our paper are used along with our revised expected specific activities to calculate values of the anthropogenic fossil and non-fossil components of CO2<\/sub>. These values are\u00a0presented in revisions of Table 2a, Table 2, and figures in our paper<\/strong>. They are included here in a revised supporting document for our paper, which provides a detailed discussion of the assumptions, methodology, equations, and example calculations of the two components of CO2<\/sub>\u00a0in 2018.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Our revised results support our original conclusions and produce an even smaller anthropogenic fraction of CO2<\/sub>\u00a0in the atmosphere.<\/strong>\u00a0The file for the revised supporting document, including Table 2, is available at the link: (Supplemental Digital Content link,\u00a0https:\/\/links.lww.com\/HP\/A230<\/a>\u00a0provided by HPJ).<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

With respect to the elements of our paper (Skrable et al. 2022), our responses to this lengthy letter to the Health Physics Journal, which mostly contains\u00a0extraneous comments and critiques that are wrong, are as follows:<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. Assumptions:<\/strong> No specific critique of our assumptions is given in the letter. Other related criticisms include the value of S(0), the specific activity in 1750, and the assumption that bomb- produced 14C being released from reservoirs was not significant. Our use of the likely elevated S(0) value is explained and justified in the paper. Regarding the use of bomb-produced 14C recycling from reservoirs to the atmosphere, we did express our belief that this influence would be small because most of it remains in the oceans, and the entire bomb 14C represents a small fraction of all 14C present in the world.<\/em><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. Methodology:<\/strong> No specific critique of our methodology is given in the letter. The major thrust of our paper was to describe a simple methodology for determining the anthropogenic portion of CO2 in the atmosphere, based on the dilution of naturally occurring 14CO2 by the anthropogenic fossil-derived CO2, the well-known Suess effect as acknowledged by Andrews and Tans.<\/em><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  3. Equations:<\/strong> Our D14C equation expressed in per mil was obtained from the \u039414C equation reported by Miller et.al referenced in our paper. Our D14C equation is the same as NOAA\u2019s \u039414C equation, and it does not agree with that in the letter. Our equation was not used to calculate D14C values. Rather, we extracted annual mean D14 values directly from a file provided by NOAA and used them to calculate annual mean values of the specific activity. The annual mean D14C values in our paper are consistent with those displayed in a figure by NOAA  (https:\/\/gml.noaa.gov\/ccgg\/isotopes\/c14tellsus.html<\/a>).<\/em><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  4. Results:<\/strong> As a consequence of our disagreement in (3) above, many of the comments, criticisms, and suggestions of why we did certain things are wrong in paragraph 3 and others.<\/em><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  5. Technical Merits:<\/strong> The letter does not have any specific comments or criticisms of the simple equations used to estimate all components of CO2 by either of two independent pathways, which rely on the estimation of the annual changes since 1750 in either the 14C activity per unit volume or the 14C activity per gram of carbon in the atmosphere.<\/em><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  6. Practical Significance:<\/strong> Andrews and Tans do not agree with our conclusion (10) on page 303 of our paper, which includes the practical significance of our paper that is not recognized by Andrews and Tans.<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    We stand by our methodology, results, and conclusions.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    HPJ Editor Brant Ulsh Responds<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The commentors argued that the Skrable paper is outside the scope of\u00a0Health Physics. I disagree. The journal\u2019s scope is clearly articulated in our Instructions for Authors (https:\/\/edmgr.ovid.com\/hpj\/accounts\/ifauth.htm<\/a>):\u00a0 \u00a0. . . The\u00a0Skrable et al. paper is solidly within our scope and adds to a body of similar research previously published in Health Physics.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The commentors asserted that the authors should have submitted their paper to a more relevant (in their opinion) journal (e.g., Journal of Geophysical Research or Geophysical Research Letters). It is not clear to me\u00a0how the commentors could know what journals the authors submitted their manuscript to prior to submitting it to Health Physics.<\/strong>\u00a0In their response to this criticism in this issue, Skrable and his co-authors revealed that\u00a0they had indeed previously submitted<\/strong>\u00a0a similar version of this manuscript\u00a0to the Journal of Geophysical Research, but that journal was unable to secure two qualified peer-reviewers.<\/strong>\u00a0I am assuming\u2014though the authors did not state so\u2014that part of the difficulty in securing peer-reviewers stemmed from the\u00a0interdisciplinary nature of their work, which straddles radiation and atmospheric sciences.<\/strong>\u00a0This leads to the last criticism I will address.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The commentors stated that the peer-reviewers selected by the Journal are unqualified<\/strong>\u00a0to review Skrable et al. (2022) due to a lack of expertise in atmospheric sciences. Again, as\u00a0Health Physics employs double-blind peer-review, and the identities of reviewers are kept confidential,<\/strong>\u00a0it is not at all clear how the commentors could have known who reviewed this paper and their qualifications to do so. Regardless, this claim is without foundation. In fact,\u00a0both peer-reviewers were selected specifically for their expertise in atmospheric science\/meteorology\/climate science.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    In closing,\u00a0I stand behind my decision to publish<\/strong>\u00a0Skrable et al. (2022) in Health Physics. I\u00a0invite our readers to examine the original paper, the criticisms<\/strong>\u00a0in the Letters in this issue,\u00a0and the authors\u2019 responses<\/strong>\u00a0to these criticisms and come to their own informed conclusions of this work.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Full Defence in Previous Post:  By the Numbers: CO2 Mostly Natural<\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

    This post compiles several independent proofs which refute those reasserting the \u201cconsensus\u201d view attributing all additional atmospheric CO2 to humans burning fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The IPCC doctrine which has long been promoted goes as follows. We have a number over here for monthly fossil fuel CO2 emissions, and a number over there for monthly atmospheric CO2. We don\u2019t have good numbers for the rest of it-oceans, soils, biosphere\u2013though rough estimates are orders of magnitude higher, dwarfing human CO2. So we ignore nature and assume it is always a sink, explaining the difference between the two numbers we do have. Easy peasy, science settled.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The non-IPCC paradigm is that atmospheric CO2 levels are a function of two very different fluxes. FF CO2 changes rapidly and increases steadily, while Natural CO2 changes slowly over time, and fluctuates up and down from temperature changes. The implications are that human CO2 is a simple addition, while natural CO2 comes from the integral of previous fluctuations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    1.  History of Atmospheric CO2 Mostly Natural<\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

    This proof is based on the 2021 paper World Atmospheric CO2, Its 14C Specific Activity, Non-fossil Component, Anthropogenic Fossil Component, and Emissions (1750\u20132018)<\/strong><\/a> by Kenneth Skrable, George Chabot, and Clayton French at University of Massachusetts Lowell.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The analysis employs ratios of carbon isotopes to calculate the relative proportions of atmospheric CO2 from natural sources and from fossil fuel emissions.\u00a0<\/mark><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The specific activity of\u00a014<\/sup>C in the atmosphere gets reduced by a dilution effect when fossil CO2<\/sub><\/strong>, which is devoid of\u00a014<\/sup>C,\u00a0enters the atmosphere<\/strong>. We have used the results of this effect\u00a0to quantify the two components: the anthropogenic fossil component and the non-fossil component.\u00a0<\/strong>\u00a0All results covering the period from 1750 through 2018 are listed in a table and plotted in figures.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    These\u00a0results negate claims that the increase in total atmospheric CO2<\/sub><\/strong>\u00a0concentration C(t) since 1800 has been\u00a0dominated by the increase of the anthropogenic fossil component.<\/strong>\u00a0We determined that in 2018,\u00a0atmospheric anthropogenic fossil CO2\u00a0<\/sub>represented 23%<\/strong>\u00a0of the total emissions since 1750 with the\u00a0remaining 77% in the exchange reservoirs.<\/strong>\u00a0Our results show that the percentage of the total CO2<\/sub>\u00a0due to the use of fossil fuels from 1750 to 2018 increased from 0% in 1750 to 12% in 2018,\u00a0much too low to be the cause of global warming.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

    The graph above is produced from Skrable et al.\u00a0dataset Table 2. World atmospheric CO2,<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0its C\u201014 specific activity, anthropogenic\u2010fossil component, non fossil component, and emissions (1750 \u2010 2018).\u00a0 The\u00a0purple line<\/strong>\u00a0shows reported\u00a0annual concentrations of atmospheric CO2<\/strong>\u00a0from Energy Information Administration (EIA)\u00a0 The starting value in 1750 is 276 ppm and the final value in this study is 406 ppm in 2018, a gain of 130 ppm.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The\u00a0red line<\/strong>\u00a0is based on EIA estimates of\u00a0human fossil fuel CO2 emissions<\/strong>\u00a0starting from zero in 1750 and the sum slowly accumulating over the first 200 years.\u00a0 The estimate of annual CO2 emitted from FF increases from 0.75 ppm in 1950 up to 4.69 ppm in 2018. The\u00a0sum of all these annual emissions<\/strong>\u00a0rises from 29.3 ppm in 1950 (from the previous 200 years) up to 204.9 ppm (from 268 years).\u00a0 These are estimates of historical FF CO2 emitted into the atmosphere, not the amount of FF CO2 found in the air.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Atmospheric CO2 is constantly in two-way fluxes between multiple natural sinks\/sources, principally the ocean, soil and biosphere. The annual\u00a0dilution of carbon 14 proportion is used to calculate the fractions of atmospheric FF CO2 and Natural CO2 remaining in a given year.<\/strong>\u00a0The\u00a0blue line<\/strong>\u00a0shows the\u00a0FF CO2<\/strong>\u00a0fraction rising from 4.03 ppm in 1950 to 46.84 ppm in 2018.\u00a0 The\u00a0cyan line<\/strong>\u00a0shows\u00a0Natural CO2<\/strong>\u00a0fraction rising from 307.51 in 1950 to 358.56 in 2018.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The details of these calculations from observations are presented in the two links above, and the logic of the analysis is summarized in my previous post\u00a0On CO2 Sources and Isotopes<\/strong>. \u00a0<\/a>The table below illustrates the factors applied in the analysis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

    C(t) is total atm CO2, S(t) is Seuss 14C effect, CF(t) is FF atm CO2, CNF(t) is atm non-FF CO2, DE(t) is FF CO2 emissions<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Summary<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Despite an estimated 205 ppm of FF CO2 emitted since 1750, only 46.84 ppm (23%) of FF CO2 remains, while the other 77% is distributed into natural sinks\/sources. As of 2018 atmospheric CO2 was 405, of which 12% (47 ppm) originated from FF.\u00a0 \u00a0And the other 88% (358 ppm) came from natural sources: 276 prior to 1750, and 82 ppm since.\u00a0 Natural CO2 sources\/sinks continue to drive rising atmospheric CO2, presently at a rate of 2 to 1 over FF CO2.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    2.\u00a0 Analysis of CO2 Flows Confirms Natural Dominance<\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
    \"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

    Figure 3. How human carbon levels change with time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Independent research by Dr. Ed Berry focused on studying flows and level of CO2 sources and sinks.\u00a0 The above summary chart from his published work presents a very similar result.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The graph above summarizes Dr. Berry\u2019s findings. The lines represent CO2 added into the atmosphere since the 1750 level of 280 ppm. Based on IPCC data regarding CO2 natural sources and sinks, the black dots show the CO2 data. The small blue dots show the sum of all human CO2 emissions since they became measurable, irrespective of transfers of that CO2 from the atmosphere to land or to ocean.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Notice the CO2 data is greater than the sum of all human CO2 until 1960. That means nature caused the CO2 level to increase prior to 1960, with no reason to stop adding CO2 since. In fact, the analysis shows that in the year 2020, the human contribution to atmospheric CO2 level is 33 ppm, which means that from a 2020 total of 413 ppm, 280 is pre-industrial and 100 is added from land and ocean during the industrial era.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    My synopsis of his work is\u00a0IPCC Data: Rising CO2 is 75% Natural<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    A new carbon cycle model shows human emissions cause 25% and nature 75% of the CO2 increase<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0is the title (and link) for Dr. Edwin Berry\u2019s paper accepted in the journal Atmosphere August 12, 2021.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    3. Nature Erases Pulses of Human CO2 Emissions  <\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

    Those committed to blaming humans for rising atmospheric CO2 sometimes admit that emitted CO2 (from any source) only stays in the air about 5 years (20% removed each year)  being absorbed into natural sinks.  But they then save their belief by theorizing that human emissions are \u201cpulses\u201d of additional CO2 which persist even when particular molecules are removed, resulting in higher CO2 concentrations.  The analogy would be a traffic jam on the freeway which persists long after the blockage is removed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    A recent study by Bud Bromley puts the fork in this theory.\u00a0 His paper is\u00a0A conservative calculation of specific impulse for CO2<\/strong><\/a>.\u00a0 The title links to his text which goes through the math in detail.\u00a0 Excerpts are in italics here with my bolds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    In the 2 years following the June 15, 1991 eruption of the Pinatubo volcano,<\/strong>\u00a0the natural environment removed more CO2 than the entire increase in CO2 concentration due to all sources<\/strong>, human and natural, during the entire measured daily record of the Global Monitoring Laboratory of NOAA\/Scripps Oceanographic Institute (MLO) May 17, 1974 to June 15, 1991.\u00a0Then, in the 2 years after that, that CO2 was replaced plus an additional increment of CO2.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The data and graphs produced by MLO also show a reduction in slope of total CO2 concentration following the June 1991 eruption of Pinatubo, and also show the more rapid recovery of total CO2 concentration that began about 2 years after the 1991 eruption.\u00a0This graph is the annual rate of change (i.e., velocity or slope) of total atmosphere CO2 concentration. This graph is not human CO2.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

    More recently is his study\u00a0Scaling the size of the CO2 error in Friedlingstein et al.<\/strong>\u00a0<\/a>\u00a0Excerpts in italics with my bolds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Since net human emissions would be a cumulative net of two fluxes, if there were a method to measure it, and since net global average CO2 concentration (i.e., NOAA Mauna Loa) is the net of two fluxes, then we should compare these data as integral areas. That is still an apples and oranges comparison because\u00a0we only have the estimate of human emissions, not net human emissions<\/strong>. But at least the comparison would be in the right order of magnitude.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

    That comparison would look something like the above graphic. We would be\u00a0comparing the entire area of the orange quadrangle to the entire blue area,<\/strong>\u00a0understanding that the tiny blue area shown is much larger than actually is because the amount shown is human emissions only, not net human emissions. Human CO2 absorptions have not been subtracted. Nevertheless, it should be\u00a0obvious that (1) B is not causing A, and (2) the orange area is enormously larger than the blue area.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Human emissions cannot be driving the growth rate (slope) observed in net global average CO2 concentration.<\/mark><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    4.  Setting realistic proportions for the carbon cycle.<\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

    Hermann Harde applies a comparable perspective to consider the carbon cycle dynamics. His paper is Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO2 residence time in the atmosphere. <\/strong><\/a>Excerpts with my bolds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

    Different to the IPCC we start with a\u00a0rate equation for the emission and absorption processes<\/strong>, where the\u00a0uptake is not assumed to be saturated<\/strong>\u00a0but scales proportional with the actual CO2 concentration in the atmosphere (see also Essenhigh, 2009; Salby, 2016). This is justified by the observation of an exponential decay of 14C. A fractional saturation, as assumed by the IPCC, can directly be expressed by a larger residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere and makes a distinction between a turnover time and adjustment time needless.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Based on this approach and as solution of the rate equation\u00a0we derive a concentration at steady state, which is only determined by the product of the total emission rate and the residence time.<\/strong>\u00a0Under present conditions the natural emissions contribute 373 ppm and anthropogenic emissions 17 ppm to the total concentration of 390 ppm (2012). For the average residence time we only find 4 years.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The stronger increase of the concentration over the Industrial Era up to present times can be explained by introducing a\u00a0temperature dependent natural emission rate as well as a temperature affected residence time.<\/strong>\u00a0With this approach not only the exponential increase with the onset of the Industrial Era but also the concentrations at glacial and cooler interglacial times can well be reproduced in\u00a0full agreement with all observations.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    So, different to the IPCC\u2019s interpretation the steep increase of the concentration since 1850 finds its\u00a0natural explanation<\/strong>\u00a0in the self accelerating processes<\/strong>\u00a0on the one hand by stronger degassing of the oceans as well as a faster plant growth and decomposition, on the other hand by an increasing residence time at reduced solubility of CO2 in oceans. Together this results in a dominating temperature controlled natural gain, which contributes about 85% to the 110 ppm CO2 increase over the Industrial Era, whereas the\u00a0actual anthropogenic emissions of 4.3% only donate 15%.<\/strong>\u00a0These results indicate that almost all of the observed change of CO2 during the Industrial Era followed, not from anthropogenic emission, but from changes of natural emission. The results are\u00a0consistent with the observed lag of CO2 changes behind temperature changes<\/strong>\u00a0(Humlum et al., 2013; Salby, 2013), a signature of cause and effect. Our analysis of the carbon cycle, which exclusively uses data for the CO2 concentrations and fluxes as published in AR5, shows that also\u00a0a completely different interpretation of these data<\/strong>\u00a0is possible, this\u00a0in complete conformity with all observations and natural causalities.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    5.  More CO2 Is Not a Problem But a Blessing<\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

    William Happer provides a framework for thinking about climate, based on his expertise regarding atmospheric radiation (the \u201cgreenhouse\u201d mechanism).\u00a0 But he uses plain language accessible to all.\u00a0 The Independent Institute published the transcript for those like myself who prefer reading for full comprehension.\u00a0 Source:\u00a0How to Think about Climate Change \u00a0<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    His presentation boils down to two main points:\u00a0 More CO2 will result in very little additional global warming. But it will increase productivity of the biosphere.\u00a0 My synopsis is:\u00a0Climate Change and CO2 Not a Problem \u00a0<\/strong><\/a>Brief excerpts in italics with my bolds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

    This is\u00a0an important slide. There is a lot of history here<\/strong>\u00a0and so there are two historical pictures. The top picture is Max Planck, the great German physicist who discovered quantum mechanics. Amazingly,\u00a0quantum mechanics got its start from greenhouse gas-physics and thermal radiation,<\/strong>\u00a0just what we are talking about today. Most climate fanatics do not understand the basic physics. But\u00a0Planck<\/strong>\u00a0understood it very well and he was\u00a0the first to show why the spectrum of radiation from warm bodies has the shape<\/strong>\u00a0shown on this picture, to the left of Planck. Below is a smooth blue curve. The horizontal scale, left to right is the \u201cspatial frequency\u201d (wave peaks per cm) of thermal radiation. The vertical scale is the thermal power that is going out to space.\u00a0If there were no greenhouse gases<\/strong>, the radiation going to space would be the area under the blue Planck curve. This would be the\u00a0thermal radiation that balances the heating of Earth by sunlight.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    In fact, you never observe the Planck curve if you\u00a0look down from a satellite.<\/strong>\u00a0We have lots of satellite measurements now. What you see is something that looks a lot like\u00a0the black curve<\/strong>, with lots of jags and wiggles in it. That curve was\u00a0first calculated by\u00a0Karl Schwarzschild,\u00a0who first figured out how the real Earth, including the greenhouse gases in its atmosphere, radiates to space.\u00a0<\/strong>That is described by\u00a0the jagged black line<\/strong>. The important point here is\u00a0the red line. This is what Earth would radiate to space if you were to double the CO2 concentration<\/strong>\u00a0from today\u2019s value. Right in the middle of these curves, you can see a gap in spectrum. The gap is caused by CO2 absorbing radiation that would otherwise cool the Earth. If you double the amount of CO2, you don\u2019t double the size of that gap.\u00a0You just go from the black curve to the red curve, and you can barely see the difference.<\/strong>\u00a0The gap hardly changes.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The message I want you to understand, which practically no one really understands, is that doubling CO2 makes almost no difference.<\/mark><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The alleged harm from CO2 is from warming, and the warming observed is much, much less than predictions.\u00a0In fact, warming as small as we are observing is almost certainly beneficial<\/strong>. It gives slightly\u00a0longer growing seasons<\/strong>. You can ripen crops a little bit further north than you could before. So, there is completely good news in terms of the temperature directly. But there is even better news.\u00a0By standards of geological history, plants have been living in a CO2 famine during our current geological period.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

    So, the takeaway message is that\u00a0policies that slow CO2 emissions are based on flawed computer models which exaggerate warming<\/strong>\u00a0by factors of two or three, probably more. That is\u00a0message number one.<\/strong>\u00a0So, why do we give up our freedoms, why do we give up our automobiles, why do we give up a beefsteak because of this model that does not work?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Takeaway message number two<\/strong>\u00a0is that if you really look into it,\u00a0more CO2 actually benefits the world.<\/strong>\u00a0So, why are we demonizing this beneficial molecule that is making plants grow better, that is giving us slightly less harsh winters, a slightly longer growing season? Why is that a pollutant? It is\u00a0not a pollutant at all, and we should have the courage to do nothing about CO2 emissions<\/strong>. Nothing needs to be done.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    See Also Peter Stallinga 2023 Study<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Footnote:  The Core of the CO2 Issue Update July 15<\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

    An adversarial comment below goes to the heart of the issue:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \u201cThe increase of the CO2 level since 1850 are more than accounted for by manmade emissions.\u00a0 Nature remains a net CO2 sink, not a net emitter.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The data show otherwise.\u00a0 Warming temperatures favor natural sources\/sinks emitting more CO2 into the atmosphere, while previously captured CO2 shifts over time into long term storage as bicarbonates.\u00a0 In fact, rising temperatures are predictive of rising CO2, as shown mathematically.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
    Temps Cause CO2 Changes, Not the Reverse. 2023 Update<\/a><\/blockquote>

    CO2 Fluxes Not What IPCC Telling You<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n