THE CO2 COALITION AND THE ERROR ABOUT THE CO2 EMISSIONS. PART 3
Erik Bye
July 24, 2025
This is the concluding discussion with The CO2 Coalition and their erroneous paper on the CO2 emissions.
Part 1 described my ended membership in the CO2 Coalition and the first part of the CO2 discussion:
https://www.allaboutenergy.net/environment-man-made-all-points-europ e?view=article&id=4409:norway-co2-coalition-and-the-error-part-1&catid =216
Part 2 described the long discussion with the first author of the «hot paper», Ferdinand Engelbeen:
https://www.allaboutenergy.net/?view=article&id=4411:norway-co2-coalit ion-and-the-error-part-2&catid=216&highlight=WyJhbWVyaWthIiwia2Vy aWsiLCJlcmlrIiwiYW1lcmlrYW5pc2NoZSIsImFtZXJpa2FuaXNjaGVuIiwia mFuLWVyaWsiLCJieWUiLCJieWVzIiwiZXJpayBieWUiXQ==
After this long CO2 discussion with Engelbeen, I thought the discussion on CO2 in this connection was ended. However, a direct email from the Coalition initiated a new discussion. This time, with the third author, David Burton, on June 29. He started with a comment to Ed Berry:
My very long comment [on Ed Berry's article] is here:
https://edberry.com/co2coalition/#comment-112348
My comment: The article of Ed Berry is kind of a knife in the Coalition:
From Ed Berry:
Here is the link to my rebuttal to the CO2 Coalition's special document that claims, incorrectly, that human CO2 causes all or most of the increase in atmospheric CO2:
https://edberry.com/co2coalition/
There have been many comments that support my rebuttal, but the CO2 Coalition has refused to defend its invalid claim, just as the Coalition's special document refuses to reference the published papers that prove this CO2 Coalition claim is wrong.
My comment
Initially, I looked upon the mail from Burton as general information, although the paper from Ed Berry was a «killer». (The Burton-mail was the answers Berry had asked for, indicating fuel on the fire!)
In addition, this mail gave me a new opportunity to reveal the error in omitting the natural CO2 from the atmospheric exchange system.
My answer
Hello David
Thanks for the information. I have two simple questions:
1. How do you explain the difference in the emission composition from older to modern times?
2. What phenomena have changed from older to modern times?
Erik
Question from David: What difference in emission composition are you asking about?
My comment:
Is it possible for any misunderstanding? This might be a characteristic discussion strategy. Always express a confusing situation to the opponent.
My answer: From mainly natural to mainly human-caused.
Davids answer:
CO2 emissions are still mainly natural. But natural CO2 emissions are exceeded by natural CO2 removals from the air.
So net natural CO2 emissions are negative. Or, to say the same thing a different way, nature (the net sum of all natural sources and sinks) is removing CO2 from the air.
The rate of human CO2 emissions is greater than the rate of nature's net CO2 removal rate, so the amount of CO2 in the air is increasing.
What has changed is that, starting with the Industrial Revolution, mankind has been gradually increasing the amount of CO2 that it produces, mostly (though not entirely) from fossil fuels
My comment: Are the rates really different? This has to be specified.
My question: How do the sinks discriminate between the two categories?
Davids answer: They don't.
My answer:
Of course not. It is just for the reassuring, that we agree about this.
So, the emission is mainly natural, while the increase is mainly human-caused? This needs evidence, through measurements to convince
me. Harde reported 15% anthropogenic, Koutsoyiannis reported 4-5%, and now Berry contributes with a minor amount of human-caused CO2. I really look forward to seeing your experimental evidence.
My comment:
This is more and more mysterious. But this is obviously not recognized by the Coalition.
From David: Erik,
No, that's incorrect. Except in the immediate vicinity of sources and sinks, CO2 is a well-mixed gas. Other than slight isotopic fractionation, all the sinks draw CO2 from the combined pool of atmospheric CO2.
Mankind is currently adding CO2 to the atmosphere, and "nature" (the net sum of all natural sources and sinks) is removing CO2 from the atmosphere. The reason the CO2 level in the atmosphere is increasing is that humans are adding CO2 faster than nature is removing it.
…
The fossil CO2 figures are calculated from economic data: the amount of coal, oil & natural gas produced and burned. The "land use change emission" figures are model-derived, and very rough, but certainly much smaller than fossil CO2 emissions.
Mankind also removes a little bit of CO2 from the atmosphere, but it is negligible: much smaller than the uncertainties in the emission numbers. So human removals of CO2 can be ignored for most purposes.
Warmest regards, Dave
My comment:
He is still arguing that although the sinks do not discriminate, they handle the natural and anthropogenic CO2 amounts differently. I do not think he actually realizes the consequences of no discrimination. Then, it is impossible to come any further without experiments.
A new mail from me:
The amount of fossil CO2 in the atmosphere is in the range 5-10%. This means that the amount of natural CO2 is about 3000 GT. With a residence time of 4.2 years, the total amount of CO2 will be exchanged within 4.2 years at the same speed for both natural and human-caused CO2. This should not be questionable, since the two types of the CO2 molecule are chemically identical, except for the isotopes. There are no evidence for the flux-situation you are suggesting, and it is by no means irrelevant to include the natural CO2 in the budget.
This means that the CO2 Coalition is completely wrong in this question, and the ABSTRACT and your article should be corrected.
During the debate with the Coalition, I have met arguments like:
- junk and bad science
- a large consensus within the Coalition
- the natural CO2 is irrelevant
- no knowledge of the work of Tom Segalstad
This is far from the normal scientific standard.
I have also noticed that you use the characteristic «confused». I am not a specialist in human behaviour and prefer to discuss the science and not the personality.
Regards Erik
My comments:
By these answers, I am approaching a final countdown of this discussion with David.
Some colleagues of mine have warned me for starting this discussion. The Coalition is not open to a rational discussion of the failure in their natural
sink model. Without experiments, an acceptable scientific basis for this sink model is not achievable.
Then I got the last essential mail from David, with a surprising last line:
(I'm not distinguishing between "natural" and anthropogenic CO2.)
My comment:
Not distinguishing. Does he recognize the consequences of this statement?
Mail to David:
Thanks for the highly clarifying statement in your last mail:
«I'm not distinguishing between 'natural' and anthropogenic CO2.»
Most of the misunderstanding from the CO2 Coalition in this CO2-discussion is then explained.
This supports my suggestion that this paper:
«The Human Contribution to Atmospheric CO2».
should be thoroughly corrected:
Looking upon this discussion, one might think «much ado about nothing», from the Coalition:
From the personal invitation by William Happer to me to be a member of the Coalition, to the personal exclusion of me as a member, done by Gregory Wrightstone after 1 1/2 months.
Then a long mail-discussion with Ferdinand Engelbeen to the closure of the whole case now, through the final mail-discussion with you.
And finally, your statement, given above, should be a valid way out of all your errors, including using consensus as a quality assurance for the paper
cited above, and the unscientific statement that it is irrelevant to include the natural CO2 in the flux-situation. And describing the increase in the atmospheric CO2 concentration in modern times as mainly due to anthropogenic CO2.
Regards Erik Documatation
Here are three scientific articles that give a good and rational description of the CO2 emissions and the flux situation:
https://www.allaboutenergy.net/?view=article&id=4382:comparison-of-co 2-sources-and-sinks-using-ipcc-data&catid=212&highlight=WyJjaWNjb25l Il0=
https://www.allaboutenergy.net/?view=article&id=4392:earths-hidden-co 2-uncertainties-and-the-climate-debate&catid=212&highlight=WyJjaWNjb 25lIl0=
https://www.allaboutenergy.net/?view=article&id=4395:critique-earths-hi dden-co2-uncertainties-and-the-climate-debate&catid=212&highlight=Wy JjaWNjb25lIl0=
Concluding remarks
We, The Calition and I, do agree that the «sinks» do not discriminate between the natural and human-caused CO2 emissions. At the same time, the Coalition claims that the natural CO2 a removed faster than the human-caused CO2. These can not be evident at the same time.
Here, I have tried to argue with the lack of evidence for the models of the Coalition. It is up to the readers to decide…