CO2 Does Not Drive Temperature; Temperature Drives CO2

Carbon dioxide is added to the atmosphere naturally when organisms respire or decompose (decay), carbonate rocks are weathered, forest fires occur, and volcanoes erupt, etc.

 

It is 94% Nature to 6% Human yearly emissions, thus I was close.

HA HA HA HA HA!!!

It is very easy to find it on the internet......

 

The only item in your list capable of significant influence on global average CO2 level and temperatures would be forest fires.

When I ask Artificial Intelligence "In the USA, approximately what percentage of annual production of carbon dioxide is due to natural causes not influenced by human activity and energy production?” it responds with ….

"The exact percentage of annual carbon dioxide (CO2) production due to natural causes not influenced by human activity and energy production can vary from year to year, but it is estimated to be relatively small compared to human activities. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), as of my last knowledge update in September 2021, natural sources such as wildfires, volcanic eruptions, and respiration of plants and animals contribute a relatively small percentage of annual CO2 emissions, estimated to be less than 5% of total global emissions.

The overwhelming majority of CO2 emissions are a result of human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil, and natural gas for energy production and transportation. These human-induced emissions are the primary drivers of the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations and are responsible for the majority of the observed global warming and climate change."

 

See my above post, #203. You have it exactly BACKWARD.

 

No, I gave you the CURRENT classification which you didn't address and didn't counter.

It seems you first demand evidence then when I didn't on something well known you get unhappy but when I gave you hard evidence you get mad you are unhappy both ways.... LOL.

Stop embarrassing yourself here.

 

Your prejudice is your prison....

 

No link and no mention of Natures yearly emissions at all as what you present is highly misleading.

LOL.

 

I'm afraid he's right and you're the one who has it backwards.

 

Your “evidence” is a publication by a climate denier who uses three letters to sound “scientific”. Fossil fuels remain the #1 cause of global warming and climate change.

 

Want a link? Here: https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt

Try plugging in my question and see what you get.

 

Not a credible site.

 

You ask Artificial Intelligence as a reference?

That's the most bizarre answer I've ever seen.

 

Here's a credible site.
Carbon Dioxide 101

netl.doe.gov
https://netl.doe.gov › coal › carbon-storage › faqs › ca...


Natural CO2 sources account for the majority of CO2 released into the atmosphere. Oceans provide the greatest annual amount of CO2 of any natural or ...

 

All the way back in 1977 Shell Oil said consumption of fossil fuels would warm the planet and change weather and climate.

 

Yep. And it’s part of the carbon cycle. The oceans absorb a huge amount of CO2 and it acidifies the ocean, bleaching coral. But it is a cycle. Human production of CO2 by burning fossil fuels and forests is not part of a cycle. It only adds to the CO2 burden. THAT is the problem.

 

It references the IPCC, a very good and highly scientific source.

 

So what? That's just deflection.

 

Nope. Now you're trying to switch topics. The discussion is about the proposition that temperature drives CO2 rather than the other way around. You've come up empty trying to rebut that.

 

So do I. Do you plan to take my word for claims? Meanwhile:
Rock Weathering as a CO₂ Sink Or?: A New Perspective
Charles Rotter
In a recent study led by the University of Oxford, the traditional view of natural rock weathering as a CO₂ sink has been challenged. Contrary to popular belief, rock weathering can also act as a significant CO₂ source, on par with the emissions from volcanoes. . . .

 

You’ll say anything!

 

Science says you’re wrong and you just keep denying it. Humans add to the CO2 content of the atmosphere. This has been proved. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This is well known. Greenhouse gas increases, mainly CO2 and methane, result in rising average global temperature and climate change. This has been proved to be the best and most likely conclusion in peer-reviewed study after study.

Bottom line: you’re wrong and are grinding your biased axe. That’s all.

 

Sorry, but you can't just keep "saying the magic words." Your claims are without foundation. Meanwhile, some science:
New Studies: Selection Bias In Datasets Advances A False Narrative The Sun Has No Climate Impact
By Kenneth Richard on 5. October 2023

Share this...
Solar forcing may have a 4 to 7 times greater effect on climate change than current climate models indicate, which may mean modern climate change is predominantly natural rather than anthropogenic.
Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) attribution may be significantly dependent on the choice of dataset.

Advocates of AGW may only use Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) reconstructions that align with the perspective that the Sun has little to no impact on climate. Consequently, climate models may only use the PMOD’s model-based satellite data (which shows a declining trend since 1980) rather than the ACRIM (which shows an increasing TSI trend from the 1980s to 2000s).

The biased selection of long-term TSI reconstructions that show little to no variability are also preferred over TSI reconstructions with large variability. For example, the uncertainty in the estimate of the increase in TSI since the Maunder Minimum (1645-1715) ranges anywhere from 0.75 W/m² to 6.3 W/m² (Yeo et al., 2020). AGW advocates will, of course, select the lowest TSI change value (0.75 W/m²) and reject the higher values (6.3 W/m²), as then it is much easier to attribute modern warming to anthropogenic activity rather than to solar forcing.

The IPCC has selected one TSI dataset in the latest (2021) report for its global warming attribution assessments and climate models (GCMs). The dataset of course aligns only with the view modern warming is human-caused, and not natural, and thus it depicts a declining TSI trend since 1980 (PMOD) and almost no variability since the Maunder Minimum.

A new study (Connolly et al., 2023 with press release) identifies 27 other TSI estimates (purposely) ignored by the IPCC, several of which suggest modern warming may be up to 71-87% natural – especially if the temperature stations that do not show a strong artificial urban warming bias are used.

“Several of these different solar activity estimates suggest that most of the warming observed outside urban areas (in rural areas, oceans, and glaciers) could be explained in terms of the Sun.”



Image Source: Connolly et al., 2023 and press release
Another new study (Scafetta, 2023) suggests the Sun’s real climate impact may be 4-7 times larger than just from TSI (radiative) forcing alone, as the solar activity variations may mechanistically affect cloud albedo, which has been observed to drive 1-3 W/m² per decade changes in shortwave forcing (McLean, 2014).

“Thus, at least about 80% of the solar influence on the climate could be generated by processes other than direct TSI forcing.”

Climate models do not allow for any solar influence beyond the small, flat radiative forcing changes associated with TSI forcing, as this way it can be claimed that natural factors have little to no bearing on climate change.

Alternative solar activity records, as shown in TSI #2 Model below, have the Sun’s total impact directly linked to global temperature changes, including for recent decades.



Image Source: Scafetta, 2023

 

Yeah, acid rain dissolves limestone, releasing CO2. It’s part of the carbon cycle. Fossil fuels aren’t.

 

Fossil fuels are a tiny part, and CO2 does not drive temperature.

 

You’re out-numbered.