Comparison of CO2 Sources and Sinks using IPCC data
More questions than answers linger Terigi Ciccone and Gerald Ratzer, 25 June 2025
Introduction
Terigi Ciccone held a lengthy discussion in June 2025 with AI Bot Grok 3 (Grok) to investigate ongoing questions concerning the causes and extent of climate change, as presented by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC). The discussion centered on six significant points of disagreement.Asummary of these six items was provided by Grok and is presented inAnnex B with final comments added by the authors. However, the subject of this article is to discuss only the sixth issue, the Residual CO2 Imbalance in the atmosphere. The goal is to quantify and assess the potential impact that human-produced CO2 may have on weather, climate, and the Earth's biosphere. Specifically, the analysis presented in this article focuses solely on refuting the assumption on the extent and impact of the alleged accumulation of human-made carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere.
Background
Dr. Jay Lehr and Terigi Ciccone (TC) constructed Table 1 below from the raw data published in the UN IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). Unfortunately, the CO2 data in AR4 was not presented in a structured, easy-to-understand format. Consequently, the IPCC data was restructured as shown in Table 1. The data is now presented in standard accounting methods, identifying the sources and sinks, and highlighting any residual CO2 atmospheric amounts. The objective was to determine whether and how human-caused CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere. The interest was precipitated by a draft paper by Dr. Ed Berry (Berry) titled "CO2 Coalition’s not so Golden Science, " dated 13 June 2025, accessible at https://edberry.com/co2coalition/ It appears that the CO2 Coalition's (CO2-C) approach aligns with the UN IPCC methods, which posits that only human-made CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere, and resides in the atmosphere over long periods, ranging from decades to centuries. Whereas Berry asserts the atmospheric lifetime of all CO2 is much shorter, in the 5 to 10-year range.
From the outset of the discussion, it was notable that GROK also aligns dogmatically with theUN IPCC's position, methods, and assumptions. For example, Grok went to great lengths to utilize the isotopic ratio of CO2 13/12 to define what
differentiates human-made CO2 from natural CO2. While this exercise may be academically interesting, TC asserts that this ratio is materially irrelevant because all natural processes of CO2 inventories, usage, and sinks, such as plants, phytoplankton,oceanuptake,etc.,treat allCO2 isotopes chemically and biologically equally. Secondly, the UN IPCC has long maintained that, before the industrial age, anatural CO2 equilibriumexistedonEarthbetween allsources andsinks,preventing CO2 from accumulating in the atmosphere. Here is one of the ways showing how Grok addressed this issue: "The IPCC was established in 1988, and its initial assessments began addressing the carbon cycle and the equilibrium between natural CO2 sources such as respiration and ocean outgassing and sinks like photosynthesis and ocean uptake. The First Assessment Report, published in 1990, discussed the carbon cycle and the role of natural processes in maintaining stable atmospheric CO2 levels. This indicates that the assumption of a natural balance was likely present from the IPCC's earliest comprehensive evaluations. However, the concept itself is a foundational idea in climate science that likely predates the IPCC, suggesting its inclusion in the IPCC's framework from the outset… Thus, while a precise date isn't specified, the IPCC first assumed a natural balance between CO2 sources and sinks with its early assessments, particularly by the release of the First Assessment Report in 1990. This assumption has remained a cornerstone of its work since the 1990s."
TC observation:
1. It is evident that, to this date, this foundational cornerstone of the IPCC, and more recently also by the CO2-C, has no reliable/repeatable empirical data or evidence to support this foundational assumption. Further, it appears that this assumption can't even be derived from First Principles Analysis, nor by any established laws of chemistry, biology, or atmospheric physics.
2. Notwithstanding Grok's adherence to the standard UN IPCC narrative, it is an invaluable tool for researching data and archives, as well as performing basic analytics on data records.
What does Table 1 show us?
1. AR4 tells us that in 2005, natural sources released a total of 772 Gigatonnes (Gt) of CO2, while humans contributed 29 Gt, resulting in a total of 801 Gt of CO2 in the atmosphere. As shown, human activities accounted for approximately 3.6%, and nature for the remaining 96.4%.
2. It also tells us that a total of 788 Gt was consumed from all sources. This suggests that the Earth is indeed experiencing a natural CO2 deficit, as Dr. Patrick Moore has claimed. Fortunately, the additional 16 Gt of CO2 needed by the plants and biosystem was provided by human activity, leaving a residual safety reserve of 13 Gt, or 1.6% of total CO2 production.
3. Now, the IPCC has long asserted that CO2 is well mixed in the troposphere. Since all the isotopes are chemically equivalent, it is safe to assume that the humanmade is consumed by all the sinks in proportion to their atmospheric content. Therefore, the human-made portion of the residual imbalance is a miserly 0.06%.
What has transpired since 2005? And what does it mean?
Tables 3 and 5 present thecomparabledatafor2023 and2024,asprovidedby Grok. Let's see if anything stands out as summarized in Tables 3 and 5.
1. Natural CO2 production is unchanged from 2005 to 2023. However, human CO2 activities increased by 42%, from 29 gigatons (Gt) to 41 Gt in 2023. The 12 Gt – the 42% increase may seem huge in the headlines. But in the global context, it is a trivial 0.015 fraction or 1.5%.
2. We see a minuscule increase in total CO2 production in 2024, from 815 GT, but much of that is offset by increased consumption, rising from 772 Gt in 2005 to Table 1 by Author1
785 Gt in 2024. However, as widely published by NASA/NOAA, there has been a substantial increase in the greening of the Earth. And the increased photosynthesis has gobbled up much of the increased human-made CO2.
3. As shown in Table 5, line b), the 12.5 Gt of increased human-made CO2 is neutralized by the increased 12.5 Gt consumption by the increased plant and biolife. 4. Also noticeable is the increased CO2 uptake by the oceans in both Tables 2 and 4, which appears to be in line with the ocean/atmospheric balancing of maintaining a ratio of about 50 parts for the waters for each part to the air.
Conclusion and Final observation:
Notice that, over the 19 years covered by this study, human-made CO2 appears to have increased substantially by about 43%, and the headlines continue to scream andsellfearandpanic.However,incontext,thehuman-causedresidualatmospheric CO2 imbalance (the total atmospheric accumulation) has increased by a mere 12.5 Gt, equivalent to approximately 1.5% of the total global emission of 815 Gt.
Sources and references:
1. The CO2 Coalition, December 2024. The Human Contribution to Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. How Human Emissions Are Restoring Vital Atmospheric CO2. By Ferdinand Engelbeen, Renee Hannon, and David Burton. https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Human-Contribution-toAtmospheric-CO2-digital-compressed.pdf
2. CO2 Coalition’s not so Golden Science. June 2025. Edwin X Berry, Bigfork, Montana. https://edberry.com/co2coalition/
3. Terigi Ciccone discussion with Grok. June 2025. https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMg%3D%3D_305668cb-9ce8-4439-b0d0bf38ef58c005
Table 2 by Grok: 2023 data, Gt CO2/yr
Imbalance (Atmospheric Increase): 19.1 Gt/yr (811.8 –
Notes:
• All values are in Gigatonnes of CO2 per year (GtCO2/yr).
• The imbalance of 19.1 GtCO2/yr represents the net annual increase in atmospheric CO2.
• Percent human-made CO2 = 5.1% (41.1 / 811.8)
• 2023 Percent residual imbalance = 2.4% (19.1 / 811.8)
• 2023 Percent human-made residual imbalance = 1.0% (19.1 X 5.1%)
Table 3 comparison data AR4 to 2023
Table 4 by Grok: 2024 data GtCO2/yr
Imbalance (Atmospheric Increase): 19.5 GtCO2/yr
Notes:
• All values are in Gigatonnes of CO2 per year (GtCO2/yr).
• Human-made CO2: Estimated at 41.5 GtCO2/yr, based on projections of fossil fuel emissions and land-use changes for 2024.
• Natural Production and Consumption: Adjusted slightly from 2023 estimates to reflect minor year-over-year changes in natural fluxes.
• Imbalance: The estimated 19.5 GtCO2/yr reflects the projected net annual increase in atmospheric CO2 for 2024.
Table 5 comparison AR4 to 2024
Annex B, Summary of Our Discussion
As drafted by Grok
We had a detailed discussion about climate science, covering six key topics where we couldn’t reach full agreement. While we found some common ground, like the link between temperature spikes and natural climate patterns, our views diverged on what’s driving these changes. The biggest sticking point was the residual CO2 imbalance how much of it comes from human activity versus natural sources. Here’s a breakdown of the six points, ending with that final disagreement.
1. Temperature Spikes, ENSO, and Submarine Eruptions
• TC View: You pointed out that temperature spikes, like those in 1998 and 2016, line up with the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and submarine volcanic eruptions, such as Axial Seamount and Nishino Shima. You think these underwater eruptions add significant heat to the oceans, boosting global temperatures during El Niño years.
• My View: I agreed that ENSO drives short-term temperature changes and that submarine eruptions might add some local heat. But I argued that the ocean’s huge heat capacity limits their global impact. ENSO is the main player, with eruptions as a smaller factor compared to human greenhouse gas emissions.
• Where We Differ: You feel submarine eruptions play a bigger role in warming than I acknowledge, while I see them as a minor contributor next to ENSO and human causes.
2. Volcanic Activity: Cooling vs. Warming
• TC View: You separated volcanic effects into two types: explosive land eruptions that cool the planet by releasing sulfates, and submarine basaltic eruptions that warm it by adding heat and CO2 to the oceans. You leaned on Dr. Peter Ward’s ideas, suggesting submarine eruptions are a major warming driver.
• My View: I agreed there’s a difference between eruption types, but I said the heat from submarine eruptions spreads out too much in the ocean to affect global
temperatures significantly. Human CO2 emissions, I argued, outweigh this effect by far.
• Where We Differ: You think submarine eruptions are undervalued as a warming source, while I believe their impact is tiny compared to human activity.
• TC Summary rebuttal for points 1 and 2: a) Below is a sample of the data provided to Grok by TC, illustrating a near-perfect correlation between the ENSO index and the UAH satellite global temperatures, encompassing both the high El Niño temperatures (red lines) and the low temperatures of La Niña. The larger arrows represent a small sample of the numerous submarine volcanic eruptions that contribute to ocean warming. b) Grok repeats the mistakes made by the IPCC about how the ocean bottom doesn't need to warm the entire ocean. Instead, it creates localized vertical heat columns in the waters, which subsequently create regional atmospheric heat blobs as repeatedly observed in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska (Wyss Yim).
3. CO2 Release from Oceans
• TC View: You argued that CO2 comes out of the oceans because of geologic and volcanic warming, not as a response to human-driven warming. You see this as a natural process pushing up atmospheric CO2 levels.
• My View: I said yes, warming oceans release CO2, but it starts with human CO2 warming the planet. This extra heat then triggers more CO2 release as a feedback loop. Human emissions kick it off, not volcanic activity.
• Where We Differ: You see volcanic warming as the main CO2 driver, while I say it’s human CO2 that sets the chain reaction in motion.
• TC Summary rebuttal: Solar radiation doesn't penetrate more than bout 100 meters below the surface, so it can't significantly warm the deep, cold ocean waters. The deep, cold waters dissolve significantly more CO2 than the warmer near-surface waters. It then bubbles slowly up to the surface and the atmosphere.
4. Water Vapor Feedback and the "Missing Heat"
• TC View: You explained the 33°C gap between Earth’s effective temperature (255 K) and its surface temperature (289 K) with gravitational auto-compression and moist air, not greenhouse gases. You think this “missing heat” comes from those factors.
• My View: I said compression sets the temperature gradient in the atmosphere, but it’s greenhouse gases like CO2 and water vapor that trap heat and warm the surface. Water vapor amplifies the warming started by CO2, not the other way around.
• Where We Differ: You credit compression and moist air for the warming, while I say greenhouse gases are the key to explaining it.
• TC Summary rebuttal: The term water vapor amplifier is a non-scientific construct; there's no such physical process. In proper scientific terms, what the IPCC refers to as water vapor feedback is the warming effect caused by the adiabatic auto-compression cycle of warm, moist air, which is powered upward by convection and downward by gravity. It's the same physical process that warms the bicycle tires and the air inside when you inflate them.
5. The 255 K Temperature
• TC View: You said 255 K is the temperature 5-6 km up in the atmosphere, not what the surface would be naturally radiating. You argued that the surface is warmer (289 K) due to the compression of moist air, not greenhouse gases.
• My View: I explained that 255 K is Earth's effective radiating temperature, where outgoing energy balances incoming sunlight. Without greenhouse gases, the surface would be 255 K too. The extra 33°C comes from gases trapping heat, not just compression.
• Where We Differ: You attribute the main cause to compression, while I insist that greenhouse gases are also needed to account for the surface warmth.
• TC Summary rebuttal: In the 1990s, the IPCC assumed that the radiative temperature of the Earth's surface was 255 K; however, this assumption was incorrect. Subsequent observation confirmed that the 255 K is the air temperature at an altitude of approximately 5-6 km, which corresponds to the altitude where the majority of the CO2 radiation is emitted into space. There is no GHG radiation emitted from the surface into space due to thermalization. The manufactured deception of the missing 33 C of heat is fully explained by the adiabatic auto compression discussed in point 4 above, plus the 1-3 K provided by the thermalization of the GHG photonic energy thermalized into sensible heat below the 5-6 Km of altitude.
6. The Residual CO2 Imbalance
• TC View: You calculated a 13 GtC (gigatonnes of carbon) imbalance in atmospheric CO2, with humans contributing just 0.468 GtC or 3.6% based on our 29 GtC emissions out of 802 GtC total production (from IPCC AR4 data). You said pinning the whole imbalance on humans violates first principles, since there’s no natural law requiring CO2 equilibrium, and historical data doesn’t back it up.
• My View: I argued that before humans started adding CO2, natural sources and sinks were balanced CO2 levels stayed steady for millennia, as shown in ice cores. Our extra 29 GtC throws that off, and since natural sinks can’t absorb it all, the full 13 GtC imbalance is from us. I used a bathtub example: the tub was stable until we poured in more water, causing the overflow.
• Where We Differ: You see the imbalance as split between natural and human sources, proportional to their CO2 output. I say it’s all human-driven
because the natural system was in balance before we interfered. You called my view a violation of first principles, arguing there’s no law mandating equilibrium, while I say the pre-industrial stability proves it was balanced. We couldn’t bridge this gap, and it seems further talk wouldn’t settle it.
• TC Summary rebuttal: This subject is discussed in detail in this article.
Closing Note
We agreed on some things, like the ENSO-temperature link and eruption type differences, but parted ways on what’s driving climate change. You lean toward natural factors submarine eruptions, volcanic CO2, and compression while I point to human CO2 and greenhouse gases as the dominant forces. The residual CO2 imbalance was our biggest clash, with no resolution in sight. Thanks for the thoughtful exchange, it really highlighted how tricky these questions can be!
TC Summary rebuttal: TC asserts that the cause of temperature variations is a few dozen natural forces and cycles, and the human contribution, i.e., the Greenhouse gases and the Greenhouse effect, are immeasurably small. The details of the science for this assertion are provided in the paper titled
"A Simplified Explanation of Climate Science for Policy Makers and High School Students."
By Terigi Ciccone - Gerald Ratzer Communicating author: terigiciccone@gmail.com