By Steve Goreham & Joseph E. Postma
What portion of the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is caused by human CO2 emissions, and what portion is driven by natural factors?
Please consider the charts below. The charts plot the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration, using data from NOAA Mauna Loa, and annual global CO2 emissions, using data from the Global Carbon Project.
The common position of most scientists, including scientists skeptical that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is a problem, is that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is mostly driven by human industrial emissions. The chart from 1959─2023 shows this rough correlation, as you know.
A look at the chart below from 2000─2023, using the same data, shows that the rising atmospheric CO2 concentration appears to be relatively insensitive to annual changes in global industrial CO2 emissions. We of course see the annual variation in atmospheric CO2 from seasonal vegetation changes, which shows that atmospheric CO2 is short-term sensitive to natural factors. But the atmospheric CO2 doesn’t show observable changes in response to changes in human emissions, such as the global emissions drop in the year 2020 due to the COVID-19 economic slowdown.
Note also that the rate of rise in world industrial CO2 emissions appears to have declined from the period from 2000 to 2014 to a lesser rate of rise from 2014 to 2022. But the rate of rise in global atmospheric CO2 concentration appears to be steady, and even rising slightly faster.
From these data, it appears that the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is dominated by natural factors, and that human emissions must be only a small factor.
Executive Director
Climate Science Coalition of America
Steve Goreham is a speaker on energy, the environment, and public policy and the author of the new bestselling book Green Breakdown: The Coming Renewable Energy Failure.
Climate of Sophistry 
Pingback: Carbon Tax Fight! Elon Musk vs. Steve Milloy of JunkScience.com – Newsfeed Hasslefree Allsort
There is around 50 times more co2 in the waters than in the atmosphere
Henry law dictates how many stays in or go out based on atmospheric particle pressure
Max solidity of gasses dictates how many stays in or goes out based on water temperature
Why the heck are we still talking about origins of CO2? The Ideal Gas Law already proves that CO2 has no effect on atmospheric temperatures (R. I. Holmes, Nikolov & Zeller, Connollys). Anyway, 3 CO2 absorption bands are outside Earth’s emission spectrum and therefore can’t back radiate what Earth does not emit and the other is radiating like a blackbody at -80°C? Scientists who still believe that CO2 is a problem I call Cracker Jack box PhDs. They had it as a gift in that box!!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrington_Event
Boston operator (to Portland operator): “Please cut off your battery [power source] entirely for fifteen minutes.”
Portland operator: “Will do so. It is now disconnected.”
Boston: “Mine is disconnected, and we are working with the auroral current. How do you receive my writing?”
Portland: “Better than with our batteries on. – Current comes and goes gradually.”
Boston: “My current is very strong at times, and we can work better without the batteries, as the aurora seems to neutralize and augment our batteries alternately, making current too strong at times for our relay magnets. Suppose we work without batteries while we are affected by this trouble.”
Portland: “Very well. Shall I go ahead with business?”
Boston: “Yes. Go ahead.”
Introduction To Oceanography Paul Webb
Differential Heating of Earth’s Surface
If the Earth was a flat surface facing the sun, every part of that surface would receive the same amount of incoming solar radiation. However, because the Earth is a sphere, sunlight is not equally distributed over the Earth’s surface, so different regions of Earth will be heated to different degrees. This differential heating
of Earth’s surface occurs for a number of reasons. First, because of the curvature of Earth, sunlight only falls perpendicularly to the surface at the center of the sphere (equatorial regions). At any other point on Earth, the angle between the surface and the incoming solar radiation is less than 90o. Because of this, the same amount
of incoming solar radiation will be concentrated in a smaller area at the equator, but will be spread over a much larger area at the poles (Figure 8.1.3). Thus the tropics receive more intense sunlight and a greater amount of heating per unit of area than the polar regions.
Strange how they hate me showing this in a diagram.
Pingback: :: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Paradox – The Veritable Counsel
Indeed.
Let’s treat a flux like we do time.
4pm
1AM
12 noon
You can’t add those to make a new time.
You can average those to come up with an average time.
Which surprisingly is around 9:40 AM.
A new average that is not 4PM, 1AM or 12 noon.
Just posed a question on Twitter_X that will get the clowns foaming at the mouth:
Joe, you are welcome to pop in and comment:
“You think you can add fluxes as if they were energy. What kind of proof is that? Let’s make it simple. Using the solar constant: How many joules enter the Earth’s system and exit each second on average. Yes, variables exist but we are averaging with broad strokes.
*In a 24-hour period.
So far, no takers on the climate clown side.
They absolutely would not admit that it balances.
The furry is calling…
Eli Rabett
@EthonRaptor
Postma knows as much thermo as you. You do realize that the Webb Space Telescope only works because of a multilayer heat shield? If you want to see the details about heat shields Eli did that in detail ~a decade ago https://rabett.blogspot.com/2015/04/eli-an
Heat SHIELD…not temperature amplifier!
See how they just conflate things and make connections up out of nowhere!? Makes no sense to connect something which stops temperature increase to something which amplifies temperature.
It does when they remove the value of Q out of the thermodynamics.
Cultivated hive mind
They must protect the hive in the info war, even if the mind is on the subject retarded
There is a famous story about how Columbus tricked natives into giving him and his travelers their stockpiles.
Columbus was charting the Americas and came across a tribe. Columbus needed food for his men, but the natives did not have any to spare. Columbus came up with a devious plan to scare the natives into giving him their stockpiles. He warned them that God was angry with them for denying him. He warned that God would block out the sun tomorrow, and it would stay that way until they gave Columbus what he needed.
Of course, Columbus knew this eclipse was coming months in advance. They have been predicting eclipses for ages. This eclipse will come and go no matter what the natives do.
When the eclipse did happen, the natives were terrified. They immediately capitulated and threw themselves at Columbus and his God’s mercy. They gave him everything he asked.
The eclipse lasped, and Columbus went along his way.
Careful you do not fall for a similar trick like the natives did.
https://historycollection.com/12-greatest-military-bluffs-history/3/
The real story
CD… You’re right. They say just about anything. Absolutely no reasoning. Its like you talk to robots.
This dude https://twitter.com/aSinister has a serious hard on for you, Joe. I think he’s a cyber stalker.
Haha lol oh no
CD… That was fun!!!
Jim does not even understand a flux.
CD… Could Jim D be a bot?
According to the climate lies…….. The more water or the larger you make the cooling system in your car……. The hotter your car will run……. Or better still the longer it will take to cool down…..!!!!!!
Hi Joe. Had a friend post this last night. Happened 8pm Darwin time. North Australia CST.
Thought this is a very unique capture for a IPHONE 10. The helix caught my attention. I am wondering if you have any comments to add to this amazing capture. https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/k68a7zdaixgzuplw9569q/2024-02-26-232140.png?rlkey=nazherfs1nf8eglkksakv719q&dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/bkn63ydw1ox2dmxilenhz/2024-02-26-232258.png?rlkey=peafpx4n4z6lonxt5kwompvux&dl=0
Very strange!
Can you also plot the cumulative CO2 emissions (the integral of annual emissions) vs CO2 concentration? That should be smoother, and it’s also more apples-to-apples to compare total CO2 emitted vs total CO2 in the atmosphere, instead of annual CO2 emitted vs total in the atmosphere.
I beat the crap out of co pilot but it finally conceded I was right.
“However, you’re correct that these additional phonons do not necessarily increase the peak temperature of the solid.
While additional phonons increase internal energy, their impact on peak temperature depends on the overall energy flow.
If the solid is already radiating heat (via photons), the additional phonons contribute to internal energy without significantly altering the peak temperature.”
Almost like I was talking to a climate scientist.
Does this analysis by President Javier Milei seem familiar?
The problem is methodological in nature it’s about a model versus reality. Reality is always very complex to analyze so it’s analyzed by using models, but normally if a model doesn’t match reality you throw away the model, and the thing about the neo-classical model is that when the model doesn’t match reality they get mad at reality calling it a market failure.
https://youtu.be/cjONc43KsEo?t=172
Camera spotted green incoming laser during Texas wild fires
https://vigilantnews.com/post/dengue-fever-surges-by-400-in-brazil-after-bill-gates-backed-gmo-mosquitos-released/
https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-63/first-reading
“Advocating genocide
318 (1) Every person who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life.
Offence motivated by hatred
Start of inserted block
320.1001 (1) Everyone who commits an offence under this Act or any other Act of Parliament, if the commission of the offence is motivated by hatred based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life.”
Cosmic coincidence
There are 2 solar eclipse paths in the USA
They are separated by 6 years, 6 months, 6 weeks, and 6 days
“One of the alarmists linked me a standard textbook, https://globusgreen.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/atmosphere-ocean-climate-dynamics-marshall-plumb.pdf
On Page 20: Suppose that the Earth is, after all, flat. Specifically, consider it to be a thin circular disk (of radius 6370 km), orbiting the Sun at the same distance as the Earth; the planetary albedo is 30%.
etc. – They know it’s a model and somehow think the effect works like their model does. That’s cognitive dissonance at its finest, a textbook case.”
–LackmustestTester
That’s so fn insane. Why would they think that a flat model would work the same way as a spherical one? Bonkers! Why not try orbital mechanics with that assumption? Because you CANT! So then why for climate!? It’s so fn insane.
That’s a great quote reference!
Joe. I think that you wil like this one:
Khmelinskii I, Woodcock L.V., 2024. On earth system dynamics’ hypothetical “greenhouse effect”. Glob J Ecol 9(1): 042-050. https://www.peertechzpublications.org/articles/GJE-9-195.php
The beauty of Gibbs’ classical thermodynamics is that for all reversible processes, however many, however complex, whatever may be our ignorance of mechanisms and time scales, reversible heat (Qrev) defines the state functions [14], enthalpy (1st law Hess) DH = Qrev, and entropy (2nd law, Carnot) entropy DS = Qrev/T. No matter what the reversible path complexity of the cycle of intermediate processes, no matter how great our ignorance of kinetic mechanisms of these processes, at a constant thermodynamic equilibrium state of air, at a fixed recording station, at constant composition, is defined only by its Temperature (T) and Pressure (p). Then, with T and p fixed, the heat change Qrev = DH = TDS = 0 for all cyclic processes if the GWI is zero, as seen in Figure 1 from 1850 to 1920.
Albedo reduction (at least in part), is contributed to FDs. Curious why TMLCs are the main target. I can’t wrap my head around why, at least not yet.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-99033-1
Ubiquity and impact of thin mid-level clouds in the tropics | Nature Communications
Over on twatter I’ve had an interesting 3-day OA argument with a “chemist”. As usual no matter how correct you are they will not concede.
My last post…
The entire ocean is not becoming acidic. refusing t accept these facts makes you a grifter not a science enthusiast. The only way pH will change to acidic is if it stops raining and carbon sequestrations in the ocean halts. Show me proof of that? You can’t.
His reply? 😂
Once again you are confabulating ‘acidifying’ and ‘acidification’ with ‘acidic.’ They are different things, your confabulation is predicated on mocking the implausible future so that you can deny the evidenced present. Congratulations on your new logical fallacy.
What a class A wanker.
Great barrier reef coral cover is at record high levels
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/08/12/peter-ridd-on-great-barrier-reef-recovery-technical-details-of-coral-cover-statistics-and-background/
Here is a south china sea PH coral proxy
https://www.cato.org/blog/sixteen-decade-long-seawater-ph-record-south-china-sea
Can clearly see that the PH value oscillates around PH 8. What is alkaline and far away from being acidic. So the whole term “acidification” and other forms of the term are misleading
Great barrier reef coral proxies show the same long term trend
”
Most coral is found in the “coral triangle”. There the water is on average around 2 degrees warmer than the great barrier reef area. So thinking that warmer water will destroy the great barrier reef coral is ridiculous..
In the last 3 days I’ve learned more about OA and chemistry than I ever wanted to know. I did find out they flat out lie and atmospheric CO2 has absolutely no noticeable impact on ocean chemistry.
Carbonate precipitation is all about the corrals. It is sad and laughable thy are so deceitful.
Short term bicarbonate ions contribute to the overall alkalinity. The average pH of the ocean runs between the same pH average as aqueous calcium bicarbonate for that reason. In saltwater, bicarbonate ions contribute to the overall alkalinity (about pH 8.1). No surprise the pH “resets” to that pH. But they want to deny facts for fiction.
I even gave him the equations, he refused to accept “they had any impact on pH”. This wanker sits in tea clubs with other chemists and makes crap up.
The oceans have a carbon cycle just like the atmosphere has a climate cycle. That balance:
>carbon input (from silicate weathering).
>carbon removal (through shell formation and sediment burial).
CaSiO3 + H2CO3 → CaCO3 + H2O + SiO2 CaCO3 + H2CO3 → Ca(HCO3)2:
CaSiO₃ + H₂CO₃ → CaCO₃ + H₂O + SiO₂
>calcium silicate (CaSiO₃)
>carbonate (CaCO₃)
>water (H₂O)
>silica (SiO₂)
CaCO₃ + H₂CO₃ → Ca(HCO)
>calcium carbonate (CaCO₃)
>carbon dioxide (H₂CO₃)
>calcium bicarbonate (Ca(HCO₃)₂).
Thank you Pierre, for the chemistry lessons, they came in handy. 😁👍
If this is anywhere near true it could have been invented decades ago but that would have helped sustain a larger population not deplete it. I have strong doubts but I’m not a physicist.
Revolutionary Technology Defies the Laws of Physics #podcast #randallcarlson #science #ancient (youtube.com)
Following is a synopsis of a chapter in a book I just read. I shows the deceit of the UN IPCC.
According to Dr John Abbot and Dr John Nicol in chapter 19, “The Contribution of Carbon Dioxide to Global Warming”, of the book “Climate Change – The Facts 2017”, 120 years ago, a Swedish chemist, Professor Svante Arrhenius, made calculations not based on any observed data as he said he did not have the instrumentation to make the measurements and so was forced to use theoretical calculations in trying to quantify the effect on the atmosphere of doubling CO2. He published a paper in 1896 that said the result of doubling CO2 would cause a temperature rise of 5 to 6॰ C. His crude calculations and results thereof are embedded in all of the IPCC climate models thus predicting this large amount of warming.
In the 1980s, Dr Barrett’s research at Imperial College showed that nearly all of the radiation that can be absorbed by CO2 had been captured within 100 meters of the ground and that doubling of CO2 would result in an increase of radiation absorption by CO2 of just 1.5%.
Along comes Professor Alfred Laubereau and his coauthor Hristo Iglev in 2013 using modern spectroscopy to measure the absorptivity of IR radiation by CO2 deriving a direct temperature rise attributable to CO2 of about 0.26॰C for the period between 1880 and 2010 with a rise of CO2 from 290 to 385 ppm.
Later, in 2014, Dr Douglas Lightfoot and Dr Orval Mamer undertook detailed experiments to calculate atmospheric radiative forcing for doubling of CO2 from 275 to 550 ppm. They arrived at an increase of .33॰C for the doubling of CO2.
The values found by Lightfoot and Laubereau for temperature rise are similar “and an order of magnitude less that the values currently inserted into the General Circulation Models [used by the IPCC] that are used to influence global energy policy and emissions limits.”
Instead of considering the results by the aforementioned scientists with expertise in spectroscopy the IPCC ignores them and extrapolates from the crude calculations of speculative theory by Svante Arrhenius made over 120 years ago in 1896.
The problem is so many others proved it did not happen. Radiative forcing from a colder body in turn to heat a warmer body does not exist. ALL of those experiments are occluded from the IPCC literature or even worse, smeared.
Do you have a link to any of these failed experiments by any chance CD Marshall? That I can share with the greenie “SOURCE” guys.
Joe can name them he did posts on them.
I always start at the beginning…Fourier & Wood.
Nahle is another one these can be found on PSI.
Nahle Nails Shut Climate Scare Coffin | Principia Scientific Intl. (principia-scientific.com)
https://x.com/DavidDibbell/status/1899897875137544604