Evidently Global CO2 Levels Are Not All About Us
A new paper provides isotopic evidence of the relative importance of fossil fuels in increasing atmospheric CO2 since 1750
Below is the abstract of a paper to be published next month in Health Physics that provides isotope-based evidence of the relative contributions of anthroprogenic versus natural reservoir contributions of CO2 to atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.
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.
The complete paper can be downloaded from: https://journals.lww.com/health-physics/fulltext/2022/02000/world_atmospheric_co2,_its_14c_specific_activity,.2.aspx
Let's write a paper that says we do not understand actual research and climate change without outright lying admitting it. Wow. This is wrong on so many levels.
Hi Larry,
I appreciate many of your contrarian takes, but this is a badly written single paper (that includes quotes from Wikipedia) from a journal with a 1.3 impact factor. Is this really newsworthy? This is not my field of expertise, but it doesn't even include a conflict of interest statement.
(I agreed to copy this from a personal correspondence, to share with other readers)