37CVC The Effect of Human Emissions on the Level of Atmospheric CO2

The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) contradicts itself on the effect of human CO2 emissions on atmospheric CO2. The IPCC makes the following assumptions about the effect of human CO2 emissions on atmospheric CO2: (a) Natural CO₂ stayed constant at 280 ppm after 1750. (b) Human CO₂ caused all the CO₂ increase above 280 ppm. (c) Human CO₂ turnover time is 100’s or 1000’s of years. These assumptions predict that human CO₂ is 140 ppm or 33% of today’s CO₂ level of 420 ppm. The IPCC defines the equilibrium levels of natural carbon in land, air, surface ocean, and deep ocean carbon reservoirs. IPCC also includes the flows between adjacent reservoirs. IPCC estimates the errors in its numbers for these levels and flows to be about 20%. The IPCC says the outflow of natural carbon in each reservoir is equal to its carbon level divided by its “turnover” time. Since IPCC’s natural carbon data is at equilibrium, we can calculate IPCC’s six turnover times for its four reservoirs. The IPCC says the turnover time for the outflow of natural atmospheric CO2 is “about 4 years,” and IPCC’s level and flow data show the turnover time to be 3.5 years. Here are some problems with IPCC’s three assumptions. Human and natural CO₂ molecules are identical. Therefore, human CO₂ turnover time is the same as the natural CO2 turnover time of 3.5 years. This makes IPCC’s assumption (c) invalid. With IPCC’s assumption (c) invalid, human CO2 cannot be the cause of 33% of today’s atmospheric CO2. As a first approximation, at equilibrium, the percent of human CO₂ in atmospheric CO₂ will equal the percent of human CO₂ in the total human plus natural CO₂ inflow, which the IPCC says is about 5%, making human CO2 5% of today’s atmospheric CO₂, not 33% as IPCC’s assumption (c) claims. Berry (2021, 2023) derived a complete carbon cycle numerical model using IPCC’s natural carbon cycle data. The IPCC did not derive such a model. Berry’s model replicates IPCC’s natural carbon cycle even if all carbon is initially put in any one of the four reservoirs. Berry’s model allows, for the first time, the direct calculation of the effect of human CO2 emissions on atmospheric CO2, according to IPCC’s own data. His calculation is thoroughly checked by other scientists, and it shows human CO₂ is 8% of atmospheric CO2 as of 2020, using IPCC’s own data. It is important to add that Berry’s model supersedes all the arguments about “exchange” or “replacement” of CO2 molecules. In fact, Berry (2021) first proved that human and natural carbon cycles can and should be computed independently and then added together to get the total human and natural carbon cycle. Berry (2023) shows how his carbon cycle model supersedes the Joos carbon cycle model. No one has shown there is any math or physics error in Berry’s carbon cycle model, and it was first published in 2021. In addition, the exponential return of D14C from its bomb level of 700 to its original balance level of zero shows the effect of human carbon is insignificant. If human carbon were indeed 33% of atmospheric carbon as the IPCC claims, then the D14C balance level would have been reduced to – 330. D14C data support the argument that human CO₂ is 0% of atmospheric CO₂. Additionally, COVID-19 regulations reduced human CO₂ emissions by about 20% for a year. Yet, this decrease in CO2 emissions had no effect on the steady increase in CO₂. This supports the argument that natural CO2 dominates atmospheric CO2. Summary. True climate science follows valid data and valid physics. The argument presented here should be reviewed and discussed widely because of its implications that human CO2 is not significant to climate change as almost everyone assumes. This research has significant implications on restricting of human CO₂ emissions and implementing carbon capture schemes with the intent to lower the CO₂ level. Also, some government agency should fund Berry to extend his research and allow him to program his carbon cycle model in Python to make it more available to other scientists. That alone would be very valuable to the IPCC and to climate science.