Press release January 30, 2020
The amount of anthropogenic carbon dioxide conflicts with the observations
The amount of the anthropogenic carbon dioxide only 9% - the IPCC 31% - and the residence time 16 years – the IPCC over 10 000 years.
According to the IPCC, the increased amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) of 270 gigatons carbon (GtC) is totally anthropogenic originating from the burning of fossil fuels. Anthropogenic CO2 can be sorted out from the natural CO2 by isotopic measurements – measurement unit permille, ‰. Plants and fossil fuels (originating from plants) have a permille value -28‰ and before using fossil fuels, the permille value of atmospheric CO2 was -6.35‰. The permille value of the atmospheric CO2 in 2017 was -8.5‰, which means that only 73 GtC anthropogenic CO2 was in the atmosphere, a huge discrepancy to the IPCC amount of 270 GtC.
The high latitude cold oceans absorb yearly about 85 GtC carbon dioxide, which is transported by cold ocean currents to the tropical seas, where warm sea waters absolve CO2 back to the atmosphere. Plants photosynthesize CO2 about 130 GtC each year and respirate about the same amount back into the atmosphere. Due to these huge CO2 flows, about 25% of the total atmospheric CO2 of 865 GtC will be changed yearly. The yearly human CO2 emissions are about 10 GtC and it is only 5% of the total recycling amount of CO2.
Media follows up the trend of the total CO2 in the atmosphere because according to the IPCC (The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) CO2 is the main reason for global warming. The CO2 level of the year 2017 was 407 ppm corresponding to the total CO2 amount of 865 GtC. But media has been not been interested in how much anthropogenic CO2 is in the atmosphere because the IPCC does not report it.
Two stable carbon isotopes are isotope 12C about 98.9% and the rest 1.1% is the isotope 13C. Plants prefer the isotope 12C and therefore CO2 of plants and fossil fuels have less isotope 13C. The measurement unit of the relationship 13/12C is permille and the amount of CO2 originating from fossil fuels can be diagnosed measuring permille value.
“The reason for this particular situation is the fact that the IPCC has used in its assessment reports a carbon recycling model (Ref. 1), which has concluded that the increased amount of 270 GtC of the atmospheric CO2 since 1750 is solely anthropogenic by nature. According to this study, it takes more than 10 000 years before the atmosphere can get rid of anthropogenic CO2 even if the fossil emissions would be stopped. Simple mathematics shows that if there is 270 GtC anthropogenic CO2, its permille value would be about -13‰, but the real measured value is -8.5‰. Probably due to this huge difference, there are no references to the observed permille values or the model-calculated permille values in the referred study and for this reason, the IPCC is silent about this issue. Since the error is so massive, the correctness of this carbon cycle model can be questioned”, says Ollila.
“The permille value of my own carbon cycle model 1DAOBM-3 (Ref. 2) is the same as the observed value, the anthropogenic CO2 absorbed by the oceans corresponds to the observations in the year 1994, the residence time of the anthropogenic CO2 is 16 years being the same as the residence time of the radiocarbon 14C in the atmosphere due to the nuclear bomb tests, and also the CO2 amount of 123 GtC absorbed by the biosphere is in line with research studies witnessing the greening of the Earth. According to my model, the level of the present CO2 concentration would decrease to 50 percent in 50 years and the total exit would take about 600 years”, says Ollila
1. Joos, F., Roth, R., Fuglestvedt, J.S., Peters, G.P., Enting, I.G. et al., 2013. Carbon dioxide and climate impulse response functions for the computation of greenhouse gas metrics: a multi-model analysis. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 13: 2793–2825. DOI:10.5194/acp-13-2793-2013.
2. Ollila, A. Analysis of the simulation results of three carbon dioxide (CO2) cycle models. Ph. Sc. Int. Jl. 23(4), 1-19, 2020. http://www.journalpsij.com/index.php/PSIJ/article/view/30168.