Bottom Line: “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.” Now for the rest from the Health Physics journal (tracking radiation safety) and it gets deeper than my Physics for Biology majors back in college.
That line is from the actual study that has this as its Abstract (reformatted, emphasis mine):
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.
14C is better known as C14 – now think carbon dating. Anthropogenic = manmade.
It continues.
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.
Note that? All the Left wails about is CARBON! CARBON! CARBON! This study studies WHICH carbon isotopes are found and what are the relationships between the varying isotope quantities. But look at that underlined bit above: it is telling us that it can be quantified if WE (burning fossil fuels) are responsible for the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. And as that “Bottom line” above states, the Left has a conundrum to try to explain away when compared to “natural occurring” CO2.
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.
Ward Clark at RedState continues to pull things apart. Since the ‘Grok is more politicial than earth chemistry, I’m only going to abstract a couple more bits since the main point has been made already:
- “There are natural two-way exchanges of CO2 between the atmosphere and the ocean and terrestrial biosphere. In this work, the authors calculated annual mean CO2 components, starting with evidence of those levels in 1750 and proceeding through the current date — in other words, starting before the Industrial Revolution. They examined a number of influences and the isotope ratios of C12, C13, and C14, including accounting for outliers like atmospheric nuclear weapons tests. In short, they were able to determine, by examining ratios of C12, C13, and C14, the amount of carbon that was from a human-caused source, assuming a start point of zero in 1750. The goal was to determine the ratios of human-origin vs. natural-origin CO2 in the atmosphere.“
I.E., by examining the relative ratios over time, we can see how Man has changed the atmosphere leading, as the Eco-Socialists and Greenies wish us to believe, to Climate Armageddon (“CA”).
Sidenote: Even as they’ve said that with varying length of predictions, and continue to make MORE dire predictions, not a single one has come true over the last 50 years. But folks like Lurch (John Kerry) and AlGore and Erlich, and many others keep sounding like the Commies when they say “well NEXT time, we’ll get it right!”.
And while the post copy/pastes a comparison of the differing values of expected vs actual to show that humans are causing the increased CO2 versus natural means (if my decades-in-the-past studies still hold up), the conclusion shows “they put up and others have to shut up – we should shut them down”:
These results, especially those for D14C, negate the claims that all or most of the increase of CO2 since 1750 has been due to the burning of fossil fuel.
Which, I guess, brings us back to belching volcanoes and other natural rifts in landmass and undersea release points (spitballing here)? The study is behind a paywall but the RedState author got access and listed the last 3 of the 10 “zinger” conclusions. Summarizing (my words):
8. Others have played games with presentation of C13 & C14 ratios with the chart axis (“by a factor of 1,000”) to give the false nuance that WE are responsible when it isn’t the case. Yes, go read the scientific details at the post if you have such a background as I’m already long here.
9. We’re back to changes in the Earth’s orbit about the sun and “cyclic changes of solar radiation”: up and down for the non-fossil fuel component of the total CO2 atmosphere measure.
And the last I’m just going to quote verbatim:
10. The assumption that the increase in CO2 since 1800 is dominated by or equal to the increase in the anthropogenic component is not settled science. Unsupported conclusions of the dominance of the anthropogenic fossil component of CO2 and concerns of its effect on climate change and global warming have severe potential societal implications that press the need for very costly remedial actions that may be misdirected, presently unnecessary, and ineffective in curbing global warming.
Science is NEVER settled – after all, the “consensus” used to be that the Earth was flat and that everything in the Universe orbited the Earth. However, better data, instead of belief systems, alter that consensus as it should – and sometimes radically. Like Michael Mann’s hockey stick was discredited.
That last line is killer: stop doing stupid stuff by government that isn’t warranted by the science.
The problem here isn’t just about co-opting the science, it’s about co-opting Democracy into a neo-aristocracy of central planners and those addicted to obtaining Power over others as shown by my multiple Treehugger commentaries.
This is the kind of science you never see discussed much outside of the journals in which it’s presented, not only because it’s tedious and difficult for lay people to get through, but because it doesn’t fit the Left’s climate change narrative. But the conclusions are inescapable; anthropogenic CO2 was not found to be a significant driver of climate change, especially when compared to other influences.
(H/T: RedState via 12ft.io)
