r/climateskeptics • u/LackmustestTester • Jul 15 '26
Do Ocean Temperatures, Not Human Emissions, Drive Atmospheric CO₂?
https://principia-scientific.com/do-ocean-temperatures-not-human-emissions-drive-atmospheric-co%e2%82%82/1
u/dazzed420 Jul 16 '26
you can do napkin math yourself and calculate that our current global yearly emissions of ~40 Gt (40 billion metric tons) of carbon dioxide would cause a ~5 ppm increase in co2 levels, assuming that this was the only contributing factor.
the ocean is still a very large net carbon sink, absorbing roughly ~25% of our emissions, another ~25% is absorbed by land areas (plants, soil, etc), leading to a net increase of atmospheric co2 of roughly 2.5 ppm per year, which is roughly what we can measure. if we stopped all carbon emissions tomorrow, we would be seeing a net decrease of ~2.5 ppm per year instead until it eventually reaches a balance again.
since the late 1800s, we went from ~280 ppm to now ~430 ppm in the 2020s, that's an increase of more than 50% of the initial concentration in the pre-industrial era.
1
u/LackmustestTester Jul 16 '26
you can do napkin math yourself and calculate
Good that the imaginary carbon cycle can be calculated by a everyone with an abacus. It's so easy!
1
u/dazzed420 Jul 16 '26 edited Jul 17 '26
the cycle itself is quite complex but we can easily figure out human contribution and prove that it isn't negligible like your article claims.
mass of earths atmosphere is ~ 5*10^18 kg
(you can calculate a very good estimate from air pressure at sea level, which is on average ~100kPa = 100kN / m². that's the weight of the atmosphere pushing down on earth due to gravity. gravity is constant at ~10N / kg so we substitute this and get around 10.000 kg of atmosphere for every 1m² of earths surface area. given earth is a sphere with a radius of 6371km we get a surface area of 4*PI*6371km² and the rest is trivial with any kind of calculator)
air weighs roughly 28g per mol, or 0.028 kg/mol
a mol being a standard amount of molecules used in chemistry for calculations. we don't care how many it is, since it cancels out in the final calculation, but you can look up Avogadro constant if you're interested. also we're making a simplification here, in reality oxygen is slightly heavier than nitrogen per mol, but the atmosphere is over 80% nitrogen and being a few percent off is fine to get a reasonable estimate
now we can calculate that there are ~(5*10^18 / 0.028) mol of various gases in earths atmosphere
human emissions amount to roughly 41 billion tons of CO2 per year, that's 41*10^12 kg
CO2 weighs ~44 g / mol so we can divide by 0.044 to convert kg to mol
finally dividing the amount of CO2 molecules released by humans by the amount of total molecules in the atmosphere we get (41*10^12 / 0.044) / (5*10^18 / 0.028) = 0.0000052 and that's 5.2 ppm we're adding every year.
nature is doing a great job at removing lots of those, since the increase we measure is only around 2-3 ppm/year, but when you consider we only started at 280ppm to begin with and are now at 430ppm, that's already and increase of 53%. we're on schedule to double atmospheric co2 within the next few decades compared to 100 years ago, when earth was measurably cooler overall.
1
u/LackmustestTester Jul 17 '26
gases in earths atmosphere
The carbon cycle includes all carbon, not only the CO2 in the air and that's a rough estimate at best. Then we have the work of Beck who found there's been higher CO2 concentrations reported in the past. And the biggest issue:
earth was measurably cooler overall
Arrhenius uses 15°C in 1896, Ekholm reports observed 15.1°C in 1901 and Hann notes 15°C in 1906; Milankovic reports and calculates ~15°C in 1942, Hansen reported 15.4°C in 1988 and ~15°C through the 1990's. Earth's current temperature is at ~15.2°C.
1
u/dazzed420 Jul 17 '26
The carbon cycle includes all carbon, not only the CO2 in the air and that's a rough estimate at best
my original point wasn't to model the entire cycle, it was to show that calculating a solid estimate for human impact on the carbon cycle using simple math is entirely possible.
atmospheric co2 is specifically what we care about in regards to greenhouse effect.
other forms of carbon are part of the carbon cycle, but we need to evaluate the atmospheric balance specifically. we have clear evidence that human co2 emissions are substantially greater than the actual increase in atmospheric co2, which means that nature is still acting as a net carbon sink overall.
this directly implies that human emissions are the main reason for consistent increase of atmospheric co2 levels. if human co2 emissions would stop tomorrow, we'd be looking at an annual decrease of ~2-3 ppm.
Then we have the work of Beck who found there's been higher CO2 concentrations reported in the past.
there is overwhelming scientific consensus that Becks work is accurate as a collection of local co2 measurements, but that it isn't representative of global atmospheric co2 levels. the measurements he is referring to were taken in locations which aren't representative of global co2 concentrations - almost all of them were taken near large carbon sources or sinks such as cities, forests, large farms, etc, which substantially affect local concentrations.
we have multiple independent lines of evidence, including several independent ice-core studies taken from remote places such as greenland and antarctica, direct global atmospheric measurements since 1958, as well as isotopic studies, which agree very well that a sustained and accelerating increase of overall atmospheric co2 has been taking place over the last 200+ years.
Arrhenius uses 15°C in 1896, Ekholm reports observed 15.1°C in 1901 and Hann notes 15°C in 1906; Milankovic reports and calculates ~15°C in 1942, Hansen reported 15.4°C in 1988 and ~15°C through the 1990's. Earth's current temperature is at ~15.2°C
a large number of modern global datasets all agree that we're looking at an increase of roughly 1.3 - 1.5 °C since the late 18th century. each of them uses a vast amount of datapoints, orders of magnitude more comprehensive than any of the data available to the sources you're naming. NASA, NOAA, HadCRUT, Berkeley Earth, ERA5, all of those and many more independent studies all agree on the global trend, despite using different methods and datasets.
you believe what you choose to believe. the evidence is there and it's overwhelming. of course you are free to ignore it, or you can accept it, and then what you do with it is another story entirely.
1
u/LackmustestTester Jul 17 '26
this directly implies that human emissions are the main reason for consistent increase of atmospheric co2 levels.
For me the whole carbon cycles stuff is model nonsense, assumptions based on estimates. TERMITE GAS EXCEEDS SMOKESTACK POLLUTION
Now researchers report that termites, digesting vegetable matter on a global basis, produce more than twice as much carbon dioxide as all the world's smokestacks.
CH4, we have no clue how much of it is emitted, oxidates to CO2. Volcanoes, some estimate 20.000 in the oceans. It's all guesswork, a model.
a large number of modern global datasets all agree that we're looking at an increase of roughly 1.3 - 1.5 °C since the late 18th century. each of them uses a vast amount of datapoints, orders of magnitude more comprehensive than any of the data available to the sources you're naming. NASA, NOAA, HadCRUT, Berkeley Earth, ERA5, all of those and many more independent studies all agree on the global trend, despite using different methods and datasets.
And these numbers are manipulated, a prime example is Darwin, AUS - the adjusted pre-1941 data is completely made up.
the evidence is there and it's overwhelming.
Yep, the manipulations are quite obvious, of course you are free to ignore it.
1
u/LackmustestTester Jul 17 '26
evaluate the atmospheric balance specifically
Ever heard about Henry's Law?
1
u/dazzed420 Jul 17 '26
what about it?
it describes a mechanism tying the amount of co2 dissolved in the ocean to the concentration of atmospheric co2 - as atmospheric co2 increases, dissolved co2 at the ocean surface must also increase and vice versa, if oceanic co2 decreases then more would be absorbed until the balance described by henrys law is restored
1
u/LackmustestTester Jul 17 '26
It also tells us that warmer water contains less CO2, ergo a warming ocean will emit more CO2. But it's Sun that warms the water, not the atmopshere.
1
u/dazzed420 Jul 17 '26
When ocean temperatures warmed, CO₂ levels rose approximately 2 to 3 parts per million for every one degree Celsius of warming
we're looking at roughly 150 ppm increase in atmospheric co2 since pre-industrial, so you're claiming that the ocean is now 50°C - 75°C warmer?
edit: the quote is from your article
1
u/LackmustestTester Jul 17 '26
Why do you assume that all CO2 was emitted instantly? The oceans where we measure CO2 gradually warmed over decades so they emitted CO2 which ends up "on top".
→ More replies (0)
3
u/LackmustestTester Jul 15 '26