Is It Really Our CO₂?

[Sunsettommy]

Normally I don't post articles that require a paid subscription but the Author has unlocked three of his articles for everyone to see in full, I am a paid subsciber because he is very good writer and rational scientist.

I chose this one to post.

===================

Irrational Fear

Is It Really Our CO₂?​

New Evidence Questions Humanity’s Role in the Carbon Cycle​

Dr. Matthew Wielicki
Jun 21, 2025
Excerpt:

Questioning the Fundamental Basis of Climate Science and Policy​

As an isotope geochemist, I’ve spent years studying the subtle signatures that reveal Earth’s hidden stories. Isotopes, variants of elements like carbon, act as chemical fingerprints, tracing the movement, age, and origin of materials through time. They don’t lie, and they don’t bend to narratives. Early in my career, I was struck by the Suess Effect, a shift in atmospheric carbon isotopes that seemed to pin the rise in CO₂ squarely on fossil fuel combustion. The evidence was compelling: burning ancient coal and oil, devoid of radiocarbon (¹⁴C) and depleted in ¹³C, was diluting the atmosphere’s isotopic ratios. It didn’t make me fear catastrophic climate change, but it convinced me humans were reshaping the atmosphere.

Now, I’m not so sure. Recent discoveries and lingering contradictions suggest the story isn’t as clear-cut as we’ve been told. At the heart of climate science lies a critical assumption: we fully understand the carbon cycle, the complex dance of carbon through air, oceans, plants, soils, and rocks. This assumption underpins every climate model, policy, and trillion-dollar investment. But what if the foundation is shakier than we thought? What if nature is playing a larger role in rising CO₂ than we’ve accounted for?

Let’s explore the cracks in this narrative and ask a critical question: Are we really responsible for the carbon in the atmosphere?

Cracks in the Foundation​

The carbon cycle is Earth’s grand accounting system, tracking how carbon moves between vast reservoirs: the atmosphere (850 petagrams of carbon, PgC), oceans (38,000 PgC), soils, vegetation, and fossil fuels. According to the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report (AR6, Working Group 1, Chapter 5), natural processes like photosynthesis, respiration, and ocean-atmosphere exchange shuffle hundreds of gigatons of carbon annually, orders of magnitude more than human activity, which adds roughly 9.5 PgC per year through fossil fuel combustion and land-use changes. Figure 5.12 in the IPCC report illustrates this beautifully, with yellow arrows showing natural fluxes and pink arrows marking human contributions. The deep ocean alone holds 40 times more carbon than the atmosphere, and natural fluxes dwarf our emissions.

LINK

 

[sparky]

don't volcano's spew Co2?

~S~

 

[EMH]

1. CO2 does not matter since it is not warming the atmosphere
2. IPCC can never be trusted
3. there is a desire of CO2 FRAUD to claim wild variances of CO2 in the past with virtually no evidence to support the claim. For example, Jurassic, CO2 FRAUD tries to blame the warming during Jurassic on CO2, never mind no evidence.

 

[Sunsettommy]

don't volcano's spew Co2?

~S~

Yes to varying amounts, but we measure only a small number of Volcanoes thus have no solid numbers to build on how much is actually being emitted.

 

[ReinyDays]

Early in my career, I was struck by the Suess Effect, a shift in atmospheric carbon isotopes that seemed to pin the rise in CO₂ squarely on fossil fuel combustion. The evidence was compelling: burning ancient coal and oil, devoid of radiocarbon (¹⁴C) and depleted in ¹³C, was diluting the atmosphere’s isotopic ratios. It didn’t make me fear catastrophic climate change, but it convinced me humans were reshaping the atmosphere.

What an idiot ... why should I read anymore? ... he admits to being easily fooled ... thank God he went into chemistry instead ...

The cool people all knew CO2's mass is too small to "reshape the atmosphere" ... what a laugher ... I'll bet this guy's been sniffin' O-18 ... that stuff causes brain damage ... there's your Suess Effect for ya ...

 

[sparky]

no solid numbers

well why not? one would think some sort of quantifiable science would have addressed it Sunny.....

I'll bet this guy's been sniffin' O-18

the new crack? by golly you're riding on the egde of the new wave Reiny! I'm votin' for you!~

~S~

 

[Captain Caveman]

Yes to varying amounts, but we measure only a small number of Volcanoes thus have no solid numbers to build on how much is actually being emitted.

And erosion emits approx 68 megatons per year, similar in size/amount to volcanoes.

 

[ding]

Normally I don't post articles that require a paid subscription but the Author has unlocked three of his articles for everyone to see in full, I am a paid subsciber because he is very good writer and rational scientist.

I chose this one to post.

===================

Irrational Fear

Is It Really Our CO₂?​

New Evidence Questions Humanity’s Role in the Carbon Cycle​

Dr. Matthew Wielicki
Jun 21, 2025
Excerpt:

Questioning the Fundamental Basis of Climate Science and Policy​

As an isotope geochemist, I’ve spent years studying the subtle signatures that reveal Earth’s hidden stories. Isotopes, variants of elements like carbon, act as chemical fingerprints, tracing the movement, age, and origin of materials through time. They don’t lie, and they don’t bend to narratives. Early in my career, I was struck by the Suess Effect, a shift in atmospheric carbon isotopes that seemed to pin the rise in CO₂ squarely on fossil fuel combustion. The evidence was compelling: burning ancient coal and oil, devoid of radiocarbon (¹⁴C) and depleted in ¹³C, was diluting the atmosphere’s isotopic ratios. It didn’t make me fear catastrophic climate change, but it convinced me humans were reshaping the atmosphere.

Now, I’m not so sure. Recent discoveries and lingering contradictions suggest the story isn’t as clear-cut as we’ve been told. At the heart of climate science lies a critical assumption: we fully understand the carbon cycle, the complex dance of carbon through air, oceans, plants, soils, and rocks. This assumption underpins every climate model, policy, and trillion-dollar investment. But what if the foundation is shakier than we thought? What if nature is playing a larger role in rising CO₂ than we’ve accounted for?

Let’s explore the cracks in this narrative and ask a critical question: Are we really responsible for the carbon in the atmosphere?

Cracks in the Foundation​

The carbon cycle is Earth’s grand accounting system, tracking how carbon moves between vast reservoirs: the atmosphere (850 petagrams of carbon, PgC), oceans (38,000 PgC), soils, vegetation, and fossil fuels. According to the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report (AR6, Working Group 1, Chapter 5), natural processes like photosynthesis, respiration, and ocean-atmosphere exchange shuffle hundreds of gigatons of carbon annually, orders of magnitude more than human activity, which adds roughly 9.5 PgC per year through fossil fuel combustion and land-use changes. Figure 5.12 in the IPCC report illustrates this beautifully, with yellow arrows showing natural fluxes and pink arrows marking human contributions. The deep ocean alone holds 40 times more carbon than the atmosphere, and natural fluxes dwarf our emissions.

LINK

 

[EMH]

View attachment 1191816

FUDGE


Actual data from atmosphere shows NO WARMING...

Key claim against global warming evaporates

Satellite and weather balloon data used to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening turns out to be based on faulty analyses, according to three new studies.

www.nbcnews.com

"satellite and weather balloon data have actually suggested the opposite, that the atmosphere was cooling."


Translation from NBC: for more than 3 decades of rising atmospheric CO2, the highly correlated satellite and balloon data showed precisely NO WARMING in the atmosphere until getting FUDGED in 2005....


and no rise in Surface Air Pressure

= Earth atmosphere not warming

 

[ding]

FUDGE


Actual data from atmosphere shows NO WARMING...

Key claim against global warming evaporates

Satellite and weather balloon data used to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening turns out to be based on faulty analyses, according to three new studies.

www.nbcnews.com

"satellite and weather balloon data have actually suggested the opposite, that the atmosphere was cooling."


Translation from NBC: for more than 3 decades of rising atmospheric CO2, the highly correlated satellite and balloon data showed precisely NO WARMING in the atmosphere until getting FUDGED in 2005....


and no rise in Surface Air Pressure

= Earth atmosphere not warming

You don't even know what the data says. You aren't intelligent enough to understand it.

 

[EMH]

You don't even know what the data says

So NBC is lying???

LOL!!!

They go into great detail about the pathetic excuses used for the fudge job that doesn't even match their excuses....

 

[Hafar1014]

View attachment 1191816

Its been higher long before any industry existed

 

[justoffal]

Normally I don't post articles that require a paid subscription but the Author has unlocked three of his articles for everyone to see in full, I am a paid subsciber because he is very good writer and rational scientist.

I chose this one to post.

===================

Irrational Fear

Is It Really Our CO₂?​

New Evidence Questions Humanity’s Role in the Carbon Cycle​

Dr. Matthew Wielicki
Jun 21, 2025
Excerpt:

Questioning the Fundamental Basis of Climate Science and Policy​

As an isotope geochemist, I’ve spent years studying the subtle signatures that reveal Earth’s hidden stories. Isotopes, variants of elements like carbon, act as chemical fingerprints, tracing the movement, age, and origin of materials through time. They don’t lie, and they don’t bend to narratives. Early in my career, I was struck by the Suess Effect, a shift in atmospheric carbon isotopes that seemed to pin the rise in CO₂ squarely on fossil fuel combustion. The evidence was compelling: burning ancient coal and oil, devoid of radiocarbon (¹⁴C) and depleted in ¹³C, was diluting the atmosphere’s isotopic ratios. It didn’t make me fear catastrophic climate change, but it convinced me humans were reshaping the atmosphere.

Now, I’m not so sure. Recent discoveries and lingering contradictions suggest the story isn’t as clear-cut as we’ve been told. At the heart of climate science lies a critical assumption: we fully understand the carbon cycle, the complex dance of carbon through air, oceans, plants, soils, and rocks. This assumption underpins every climate model, policy, and trillion-dollar investment. But what if the foundation is shakier than we thought? What if nature is playing a larger role in rising CO₂ than we’ve accounted for?

Let’s explore the cracks in this narrative and ask a critical question: Are we really responsible for the carbon in the atmosphere?

Cracks in the Foundation​

The carbon cycle is Earth’s grand accounting system, tracking how carbon moves between vast reservoirs: the atmosphere (850 petagrams of carbon, PgC), oceans (38,000 PgC), soils, vegetation, and fossil fuels. According to the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report (AR6, Working Group 1, Chapter 5), natural processes like photosynthesis, respiration, and ocean-atmosphere exchange shuffle hundreds of gigatons of carbon annually, orders of magnitude more than human activity, which adds roughly 9.5 PgC per year through fossil fuel combustion and land-use changes. Figure 5.12 in the IPCC report illustrates this beautifully, with yellow arrows showing natural fluxes and pink arrows marking human contributions. The deep ocean alone holds 40 times more carbon than the atmosphere, and natural fluxes dwarf our emissions.

LINK

The very first thing I said 20 years ago when the concept of anthropogenic carbon dioxide pollution was used as an excuse to Jack money out of people's pockets.... The ocean is the largest carbon sink on Earth by far and the temperature of the water is directly proportional to the content of its dissolved gases.

 

[ding]

So NBC is lying???

LOL!!!

They go into great detail about the pathetic excuses used for the fudge job that doesn't even match their excuses....

Not necessarily. The planet doesn't warm in a straight line. It's more complicated than that.

 

[ding]

Its been higher long before any industry existed

Actually it hasn't.

You'd have to go back more than 15 million years ago.

 

[EMH]

Not necessarily. The planet doesn't warm in a straight line. It's more complicated than that.

Earth's temperature is 99% about how much ice it has. Right now it has 9 million cubic miles, and is slowly adding to that.

How much ice Earth has is 99% about where land is relative to the poles. 97% of Earth ice is on the two land masses closest to the poles, and land moves tectonically.

90% on Antarctica, 7% on Greenland, the two continent specific ice ages of today. Both are adding ice.

Antarctic Circle is on average 50F colder than Arctic and calves/puts 10 times the ice into the oceans vs Arctic, and that ice is extremely cold ice, -150F ice...

Antarctic Circle cools Earth more than Arctic.

All about WHERE LAND IS relative to the poles...

 

[ding]

Earth's temperature is 99% about how much ice it has. Right now it has 9 million cubic miles, and is slowly adding to that.

How much ice Earth has is 99% about where land is relative to the poles. 97% of Earth ice is on the two land masses closest to the poles, and land moves tectonically.

90% on Antarctica, 7% on Greenland, the two continent specific ice ages of today. Both are adding ice.

Antarctic Circle is on average 50F colder than Arctic and calves/puts 10 times the ice into the oceans vs Arctic, and that ice is extremely cold ice, -150F ice...

Antarctic Circle cools Earth more than Arctic.

All about WHERE LAND IS relative to the poles...

It's the effect ice and snow has on the planet's albedo, not the ice itself.

 

[EMH]

Actually it hasn't.

View attachment 1191982

You'd have to go back more than 15 million years ago.
View attachment 1191984

What is the "data" on atmospheric CO2 15 million years ago??

 

[EMH]

It's the effect ice and snow has on the planet's albedo, not the ice itself.

That is a part of it, but it isn't the cause of the ice, the position of land is.


There is a 100% correlation between land within 600 miles of an Earth pole and land being in ice age.

Good luck refuting that....

 

[justoffal]

It's the effect ice and snow has on the planet's albedo, not the ice itself.

Stooooop.....just stop it! You're going to hurt their feelings! Now look what you've done! They're all going to run home and hug you their windmill shaped teddy bears! Some of them will be in the closet for weeks.... You really have to be more sensitive!