The Fairy Tale Of The CO2 Paradise Before 1850...A Look At The Real Science

.

Was the Earth’s biosphere really in a largely stable CO2 balance before 1850?

(Almost) all politicians, scientists from all climate disciplines, the media and international big business are telling us in unison, 1) we are destroying the global climate and 2) the world is on the brink of extinction.

By burning fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas, we are supposedly emitting too much CO2.

This gas is blamed to act as a “greenhouse gas” that traps heat in the atmosphere.

We supposedly face the threat of runaway global warming, if we do not completely stop burning fossil fuels within the next 25 years.

.

.

Picture 1 South Sea beauty: The beautiful Paua mussels (abalone) are only found in New Zealand waters. They form their shells from limestone (CaCO₃), composed of atmospheric CO₂ along with a calcium atom and an additional oxygen atom (Photo: Author)

.

Climate science and the UN IPCC claim, the “natural” pre-industrial CO₂ concentration in the atmosphere has been around 280-300 ppm (molecules of CO2 per million molecules of dry air) for at least several hundred thousand years, with minor fluctuations.

Since the beginning of industrialization (since around 1850), human CO₂ emissions have allegedly increased this value to (as of 2023) 419 ppm⁽¹⁾.

In order to avert a catastrophe in the form of a global temperature rise of more than 1.5 °C since the beginning of the industrial age, humanity should not release more than 336 additional gigatons of CO₂ into the atmosphere (one gigaton is one billion tons, also expressed as a petagram (Pg) in some IPCC publications).

The departure from the former paradise of complete CO₂ harmony between humans and the planet and nature before the fall from grace of industrialization is illustrated in Picture 2a and Picture 2b.

.

Picture 2a. The claims of Pierre Friedlingstein and his co-authors from Earth System Science Data on the annual development of man-made emissions of CO₂and the absorption of the gas in “natural sinks” from 1850 to the present day. Man-made sources are plotted at the top, the fate of man-made CO₂ in the ocean, land and atmosphere reservoirs at the bottom (graphic: Global Carbon Budget 2023⁽¹⁾)

.

.

Picture 2b. Illustration of the cumulative quantities of CO₂ emissions and the CO₂absorbed in the most important sinks since the beginning of the industrial age.

It is assumed that there were no net fluxes of CO₂ from the atmosphere to the ocean before 1850.

A graphical evaluation of the image shows that the ocean has absorbed a total of 180 Gt of carbon emitted by humans in its depths since 1850, while the land plants would have processed 250 Gt of C into long-lived humus.

In contrast, around 290 Gt C supposedly remain in the atmosphere (Graphic: Global Carbon Budget 2023 ) ⁽¹⁾

.

Are these assumptions really correct?

.

The basis of the hypothesis of climate scientists, who assume catastrophic climate change caused by humans, is that before industrialization we had largely closed-loop carbon cycles on Earth that were stable for at least several hundred thousand, if not millions of years, Picture 3.

.

.

Picture 3: Basic assumptions of the authors of the Global Carbon Budget 2023 regarding the Earth’s natural carbon cycle and the consequences of industrialization.

The numbers on the arrows in the top row indicate CO₂ fluxes in Gt C/year, colored circles indicate reservoirs, thin arrows indicate quantitatively known balanced fluxes, thin circular arrows indicate balanced but quantitatively unrecorded fluxes and the red number indicates an assumed budget deficit of -0.4 Gt C/year.

The tiny purple material flow above the transition from blue to yellow-green is not mentioned in the caption (graphic from: Global Carbon Budget 2023 ⁽¹⁾)

.

When looking at Picture 3 above, it is firstly noticeable, the authors have assumed, only vegetation has bound a portion of the CO₂ emitted by humans as biomass and thus at least temporarily removed it from the atmosphere.

The oceans and the atmosphere itself, on the other hand, are assumed to having simply added their respective shares to their existing reservoirs without conversion.

In the atmosphere, this increase amounted to around 290 Gt C (from 595 to 885 Gt C), or from approx. 280 to approx. 419 ppm CO₂ .

In the ocean’s gigantic carbon reservoir of around 37,000 Gt C, however, the increase due to the additional uptake of just 180 Gt C is apparently considered to be so insignificant that it is not accounted for separately.

.

Largely in line with the IPCC

.

The assumptions of the authors of the Global Carbon Budget also correspond in principle to those of the IPCC²⁾, as can be seen in Picture 4.

Please note that the IPCC uses petagrams (Pg) as the unit of measurement instead of gigatons (1 Pg = 1 Gt).

.

.

Picture 4: Simplified diagram of the global carbon cycle (graphic: IPCC Report AR5 WG1 Ch. 5 )²⁾

.

The assumptions on which Picture 4 is based are essentially the same as those of the authors of the Global Carbon Budget.

However, the graphic is much more detailed and therefore more difficult to understand.

The figures also differ from one another.

In terms of order of magnitude, however, Picture 3 and Picture 4 correspond quite well.

One rather insignificant difference lies in the assumptions regarding the fate of the CO₂ absorbed by the ocean: while the IPCC assumes an annual net absorption of 1.6 Pg CO₂ in 2018, the authors of the 2023 Global Carbon Budget assume 2.8 Gt/yr.

The IPCC also indicates a (presumably annual, even if this is not indicated by the red color of the symbols) release of 0.2 Pg C into the sediments of the deep sea, while the authors of the Global Carbon Budget note an imbalance of -0.4 Gt.

.

Official climate science claims that there has been a “nearly eternal” CO₂equilibrium

.

The results published in the “Global Carbon Budget” are based on periodical research that is published as an annual report.

The authors belong to the elite of climate science; the author’s list of the 2023 version contains no less than 123 names.

Graphics from these annual carbon budgets are used by other climate authorities such as the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration‘s (NOAA ³⁾) or the online encyclopaedia Wikipedia⁴⁾ as well as various other climate and CO₂ -related publications.

One of these can also be found in modified form in the IPCC report AR5⁵⁾.

.

However, the entire work has a crucial flaw: it ignores essential scientific principles and the relevant facts. .

.

With regard to the ocean in particular, it is noticeable that the CO₂ absorption capacity of the oceans with increasing CO₂ gas concentration (and thus partial pressure) of the atmosphere is not addressed at all. Why?

.

What actually happens to gases in water?

.

If the CO₂ content of the atmosphere increases, its so-called partial pressure, i.e. the proportion of CO₂ in the atmospheric pressure, also increases.

However, if the pressure of a gas above a water surface increases, more of this gas dissolves in the liquid, Picture 5.

.

.

Picture 5: On the left, an equilibrium has been reached between the pressure of the CO₂ gas trapped in the cylinder and the concentration of the gas molecules in the water.

When the partial pressure increases due to the sinking piston, more CO₂dissolves in the water to compensate (Graphic: Wikimedia, Johannes Schneider, Creative Commons ⁶⁾)

.

Soft Drinks and CO2

.

Everyone knows this from their own experience with cold soft drinks or beer. The “refreshing” effect is achieved by the CO₂ dissolved in water under high pressure.

As soon the container is opened, you can hear the hiss as the pressurized gas escapes.

CO₂ bubbles form in the drink and escape upwards out of the liquid.

If the glass is left standing for a longer period of time, the gas will continue to escape, due to the rising temperature heating until no more bubbles appear.

The drink then becomes stale and no longer tastes good.

.

These laws also apply to the solubility of atmospheric CO₂ in the sea: higher CO₂ ppm causes more gas to be absorbed by oceans.

Cold polar oceans absorb more CO₂ from the air than warm tropical waters.

If sea temperatures rise, the oceans will emit more CO₂.

The corresponding laws of physics (“Henry’s Law” ⁷⁾) mean 96% of any additional CO₂ added to the atmosphere by humans is ultimately absorbed by the ocean.

These facts are not mentioned anywhere in the “Global Carbon Budget”.

This raises doubts about the technical qualifications of the authors – and those of NOAA and IPCC.

.

NOTE: 

Energy-related CO2 was 37.55 Gt, or 4.8 ppm in 2023, about 75% of total human CO2. 
One CO2 ppm in atmosphere = 7.821 Gt.

Total human CO2 was 4.8/0.75 = 6.4 ppm in 2023. See URLs
CO2, human plus natural, to atmosphere = 421.08 ppm, end 2023 – 418.53, end 2022 = 2.55 ppm; to oceans 2.3 ppm (assumed); to forests and other sinks 1.55 ppm; natural CO2 increase is assumed at zero.

Forests net CO2 absorption = absorption 15.6 Gt - emission 8.1 Gt = 7.6 Gt, or almost 1 ppm

https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/nasa-satellites-help-quantify-forests...

Oceans Absorb CO2
Sea water has 3.5% salt, NaCl, by weight.
CO2 molecules continuously move from the air into sea water, per Henry’s Law
CO2 and NaCl form many compounds that contain C, O, H, Cl, Ca
They sustain flora and fauna in the oceans, such as plankton, kelp, coral, seagrass, shell fishes, etc.
.
At the surface, seawater pH 8.1, and CO2 421 ppm, the % presence of ions [CO2], [HCO3−], and [CO3 2−] is 0.5, 89, and 10.5; “Free” CO2 is only 0.5%; CO2 out-migration is minimal, given the conditions.
The oceans are a major sink of CO2 (human + natural)
https://tos.org/oceanography/assets/docs/14-4_feely.pdf

.

Oceans Store CO₂ 

.

The IPCC and allied entities readily admit CO₂ is converted into biomass through photosynthesis and stored for up to hundreds of years in the form of wood and humus deposits.

However, the IPCC and associated entities, by omission or commission, create the impression no significant quantities of CO2 are stored in the oceans.

.

There are two major photosynthesis processes in the oceans: 

1) Photosynthesis by short-life creatures, such as plankton, kelp, coral, seagrass.

The resulting biomass is not permanent and decomposes very quickly after the death of the organisms.

The CO₂ produced during decomposition is returned to the water and breaks up into many ionic compounds, which, in turn, promote growth of ocean flora and fauna.

2) Photosynthesis causes the biological synthesis of limestone (CaCO₃), which has proven to be extremely useful in the construction of protective armor against enemies.

This is documented by 3.7 billion year old stromatolites⁸⁾ in Pilbara (Australia).

Colonies of protozoa produced mushroom-shaped calcium deposits.

This recipe was so successful, countless oceanic flora and fauna species have mastered the art of forming calcareous shells.

From single-celled bacteria, to algae, to corals, shellfish, sea urchins, crustaceans, etc., they all rely on the protection provided by hard calcium carbonate shells, Picture 6.

.

.

Picture 6: The calcareous shell of a belemnite (extinct ancestor of squid) from the Devonian period (ca. 360-420 million years ago) embedded in sedimentary rock. Probably found in Morocco (Photo: Author)

.

These calcareous remains are preserved after death.

Under the conditions prevailing in shallow ocean waters (coastline up to a few 100 m), they are so long-lived that over the course of the eons, they have formed essential parts of our landscapes, such as the Jurassic, the Bahamas Banks, the Chalk Cliffs of Dover, the Dolomites, etc.

These processes are on-going on a huge scale, as coral reefs in tropical seas and mussel shells on the beach prove.

These two photosynthesis processes are hardly ever mentioned published IPCC reports.

.

How much CO₂ ends up in coral shells?

.

There are very different figures for CO₂ storage, due to calcification in the sea.

However, the proportion contributed by corals can be estimated quite well.

Tropical corals need shallow, warm water.

They grow on the bases/detritus of their ancestors.

.

After the end of the last glaciation period, about 12,000 years ago, the sea level has risen by around 120 meters, as land ice melted..

As a result, New England is slowly rising and the US east coast south of New York City is slowly sinking

In order to remain on the surface, today’s corals have had to raise their bases.

Atolls: When coal reefs were formed around shrinking volcanoes, they had to compensate for the shrinking volcanic cone over the course of millions of years. 

As the volcano sank, the coral reef became a large circle close to the ocean surface to obtain sunlight

This is exemplified by the study of the Mururoa Atoll in French Polynesia, Picture 7.

.

.

Picture 7: The Mururoa Atoll was misused by France for 188 atomic bomb tests.

It was extensively examined beforehand to confirm the findings.

Here is the colored representation of the “growth rings” over the last 1.8 million years.

The last layer (MIS 1) covers the last 10,000 years (diagram: Montaggioni et al. ⁹⁾)

.

CO2 Sequestered by Coral

.

In his study, Montaggioni determined a maximum coral growth rate of 8 mm/y.

If this is extrapolated to the current total global coral area¹⁰⁾ of 423,589 km², this results in a calcium carbonate production of 8.75 Gt CaCO_3/y.

This corresponds to a maximum fixation of slightly more than 1 Gt C/y, or 3.7 Gt CO2/y.

One CO2 ppm in atmosphere = 7.821 Gt.

.

In addition, a considerable part of the growth also takes place to the sides of the coral reefs.

Storms, waves or voracious fish repeatedly break off pieces of coral from the reef and its flanks.

These fragments sink to the seabed and build up a cone of rubble on the flanks of the reef.

The mass of this debris cone is built up along the way, so to speak, as the reef grows in height.

Therefore, the amount of carbon sequestered annually can confidently be estimated at a total of 2 Gt/yr. or 7.4 Gt CO2/y, or almost 1 ppm

At the same time, coral reefs account for only 0.12% of the total area of the oceans.

It should be noted, these figures are maximum values: it is hardly possible to seriously estimate average values.

.

Calcification Across All Oceans and Across All Latitudes

.

In addition to corals, countless other organisms produce large quantities of durable calcium carbonate shells from CO₂ and calcium ions.

These include cyanobacteria and uni-cellular green algae on the carbonate platform of the Bahamas, which thrive several times a year in such masses, their calcareous shells color the water milky white, visible on satellite photos.

Over millions of years, these tiny single-celled organisms have piled up the Bahamas carbonate platform to a thickness of about 4.5 km.

The much larger Florida platform reaches a thickness of up to 12 km.

.

The total ocean-wide calcium carbonate production by tiny organisms with calcareous shells, which occur in shallow waters, but in many cases also in the entire near-surface ocean, is estimated by various authors to range from < 1 Gt C yr^{-1 11)} to 1.6 Gt C yr^{-1 12)} and 2 Gt C yr^{-1 13)} up to 4.7 Gt C yr^{-1 14)} and 5 Gt C yr^{-1 15)}. .

Energy-related CO2 was 37.55 Gt, or 4.8 ppm in 2023, about 75% of total human CO2. 

Total human CO2 was 4.8/0.75 = 6.4 ppm in 2023

About 10 to 40% of these emissions are permanently stored as limestone in the oceans, in the same year

Picture 8.

.

.

Picture 8: The red helmet snail Cassis rufa lives in the Indian Ocean, eats sea urchins and forms a very massive calcareous shell (Photo: Author)

.

Statements about CO₂ retention times in the atmosphere of more than 2-3 decades or even tens of thousands of years¹⁶⁾ are therefore not credible.

It is true, a certain proportion of the shell production returns to solution, as it sinks into deeper ocean areas.

However, the enormous range of published figures listed above hints, current measurement methods are far from realistically capturing all the sources and influencing factors of the processes in the ocean.

.

Interestingly, one of these publications gives a value of 4.7 Gt C yr^{-1 14)} for annual calcium carbonate sequestration in the ocean.

One of its authors is the well-known ocean and climate researcher Corinne Le Quéré.

It is quite surprising, this same Ms. Le Quéré, who published her work in 2019, has not mentioned permanent storage of human CO₂ emissions absorbed in oceans in any her contributions to the Global Carbon Budget.

Or, she may have mentioned it, but it was not added to the published versions, because it would conflict with the "official narrative".

.

The IPCC’s CO₂ Construct is Scientifically Untenable

.

The climate-catastrophe construct of the IPCC and allied entities stands and falls with the assertion, CO₂ accumulates in the atmosphere for a long time and thus endangers the earth’s thermal balance.

This is why the guardians of the "official narrative" are trying to conceal the fact, considerable quantities of CO₂ are permanently stored as limestone in the ocean through natural processes.

They are particularly embarrassed by the fact, these mechanisms have been taking place in the oceans for eons and large quantities of CO2 are stored in rocks.

.

Therefore, there must be correspondingly large sources of CO₂ replenishment in nature.

This means, the IPCC’s entire model of the CO₂ cycle collapses.

This is probably the reason why oceanic calcification is not correctly represented in official and authoritative documents, such as the IPCC report on “The Physical Science Base” or the "Global Carbon Project".

.

Also, Henry’s Law is not mentioned in either of the publications cited here; a most egregious omission.

This blatant suppression of essential, scientifically proven facts is the Achilles heel of the IPCC

climate-catastrophe construct.

In commercial terms, this dubious IPCC construct has led to the worldwide financial scam involving wind, solar, EV, heat pump, battery, etc. that aims to reduce "global warming, fight climate change" and would require tens of $trillions to achieve the unattainable goal of Net Zero by 2050

Anyone with doubts about the IPCC construct should ask for these facts to be thoroughly questioned and aired.

Sources:

• https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/15/5301/2023/ (Pierre Friedlingstein et al)
• https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-5/
• https://globalocean.noaa.gov/allies-in-extreme-indonesia/
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle
• https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-5/
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Partialdruck_2.svg
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry%27s_law
• https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromatolith
• https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267048756Pacific_Ocean
• https://allencoralatlas.org/atlas/#1.00/0.0000/-145.0000
• https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/B002803
• https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/X
• https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10498-015-9282-y
• https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2018GB006110
• https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/93GB02524
• https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2010/12/co/

.

US Energy Consumption in 2023

Over 77.1 quad (82.4%) came from fossil fuels and 8.1 % (8.7%) from nuclear fuels

After 35 years and several hundred $billion of subsidies, only 8.2 quad (8.8%) came from renewables, such as:

1) wind,

2) pre-existing and new hydro,

3) pre-existing and new bio (mostly tree burning),

4) solar

1 quad = 10^15 Btu

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/visualized-u-s-energy-...

.

World Energy Consumption in 2023

According to the Energy Institute's 2023 Statistical Review of World Energy, world primary energy consumption was 620 Exajoules (EJ) in 2023. Breakdown by sector:

Fossil Fuels: 505 EJ (81.5%), of which 

1 EJ = 0.94781707774915 x 10^15 Btu, slightly less than a quad

https://www.energyinst.org/statistical-review.

The Role of CO2

In the tropics and subtropics, CO2 a weak photon absorber, plays no measurable role, because, near the surface, it is outnumbered by about 65 to 1 by water vapor, WV, a strong photon absorber.

Plus, WV, 18, is lighter than CO2, 44, and air, 29, so it condenses into clouds at about 2000 meter elevation, which, with prevailing winds, are transported to northern latitudes, to areas underserved by the sun, especially during winter.

That means the WV and clouds we see up north come from faraway places, because up north there is not enough energy to evaporate the water, which often is near or on the ground as dew, ground fog, snow and ice.

But, even up north, near the surface, CO2 plays no measurable role, because WV outnumbers CO2 at least 34 to 1.

CO2 begins to play a measurable role when the presence of WV is lower, say 3 to 1, at about 3000 m elevation, which is above the clouds. WV freezes on all dry air molecules and on CO2, pollen, aerosols, etc.

Any sunlight is reflected, refracted or absorbed by the WV molecules, not the CO2 molecules, because they are covered with ice. The thermal effect of the absorption is miniscule, compared to the absorption near the earth surface.

At colder temperatures above the clouds, any emitted photons would have longer wavelengths beyond the CO2 15 micrometer absorption window. However, WV would absorb these photons, because it has a much wider window starting at about 15 micrometer.

A photon, a vibrating package of energy with a wavelength, has no mass, moves at the speed of light in a vacuum, which is many orders of magnitude greater than the speed of molecules, measured in hundreds of meter/second.

At higher elevation, temperature is less, density is less, there are fewer molecules/m^3 or moles/m^3, there are fewer collisions, because molecules are further apart.

The average kinetic energy of molecules decreases. See URL

KE = 3/2 RT = 3/2 x 8.314 J / (mol K)

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-albany-chemistry/chapter/the-kinetic-molecular-theory/#:~:text=Key%20Concepts%20and%20Summary,the%20mass%20of%20its%20molecules

.

No liberal arts journalists would ever write this, because it is way above their heads. They stick to the over-simplified, scare-mongering talking points provided by a mostly western cabal consisting of the IPCC, Corporate Media, self-serving elite $stakeholders, bureaucrats and associated entities.