increase in diffuse radiation by the volcano enhanced the terrestrial carbon sink and contributed to the temporary decline in the growth rate of atmospheric carbon dioxide after the eruption.

Our team finds their writing to be very questionable; interesting application of estimates. This "scattered light" must be researched further as it is so questionable. What wavelength density? How much is reflected back into space? What measurement techniques ?

Ellsworth G. Dutton, a former meteorologist with NOAA's Climate Monitoring and Diagnostics Laboratory in Boulder, Colo., traced the effects of Pinatubo's cloud with ground-based instruments that directly measure the strength of sunlight. Dutton says his results show a 20 to 30 percent decline in the amount of solar radiation that reaches the ground without being scattered or reflected, and a 2 to 4 percent decline in total solar radiation.

Weather satellites confirm cooling in the lower atmosphere, recording a global drop of more than 0.5 C since last June, with this June being 0.2 C cooler than average, according to John Christy of the University of Alabama at Huntsville and Roy Spencer of NASA's Earth Science Lab at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville. Christy says their data indicate that the greatest cooling, 1.0 C, occurred in the northern midlatitudes -- an area that includes the continental United States -- while temperatures in the southern hemisphere have dropped by only 0.3 C.

This is the conclusion of my own paper:

The environment demonstrated a measured capacity to absorb 239 times the human-produced CO2 when very conservatively calculated. Simply said, the natural environment is controlling CO2 concentration. Human CO2 emissions are not causing growth of atmospheric CO2. CO2 concentration in the natural environment is controlled primarily by global temperature, most immediately by surface temperature, primarily sea surface temperature. These temperatures are controlled by various natural forces, but that topic is beyond the scope of this paper. We can state that since an amount equal to human CO2 emissions plus all other CO2 were absorbed rapidly by the environment, then there is no net warming or net cooling resulting from net human CO2 emissions. Human CO2 emission flux is a minor perturbation which is rapidly returned to trend by much larger CO2 absorption flux.
Scientist P. Stallinga, PhD concluded, "The correlation between temperature and [CO2] is readily explained by another phenomenon, called Henry’s Law: The capacity of liquids to hold gases in solution is depending on temperature. When oceans heat up, the capacity decreases and the oceans thus release CO2 (and other gases) into the atmosphere. When we quantitatively analyze this phenomenon, we see that it perfectly fits the observations, without the need of any feedback [1]. We thus now have an alternative hypothesis for the explanation of the observations presented by Al Gore. The greenhouse effect can be as good as rejected and Henry’s Law stays firmly standing. We concluded that the effect of anthropogenic CO2 on the climate is negligible and the effect of the ocean temperature on atmospheric [CO2] is exactly, both sign and magnitude, equal to that as expected on basis of Henry’s Law.” (Stallinga, P., 2018, Stallinga, P., 2020)
Where did the CO2 go after Pinatubo? It was held in the oceans primarily, but also in cooler soils and in biosphere. The Henry’s coefficient adjusted downward due to the lower sea surface temperature, resulting in much less CO2 being emitted from the cooled tropical ocean, soils and biosphere. Meanwhile, colder water in higher latitudes continued absorbing CO2, so the net global average CO2 concentration, and the slope of CO2 concentration, and the acceleration of CO2 concentration declined. About 2 years after Pinatubo, when the cloud belt dissipated and normal insolation of tropical oceans returned, then an enormous and rapidly accelerating CO2 emission returned, surpassing the average acceleration prior to Pinatubo. Professor Murry Salby provides calculations and graphs showing that the observed long-term slope of CO2 concentration is explained by a series of such offsets. "There is no evidence of a systematic trend in temperature [referring to the actual mean global UAH satellite record for global anomalous temperature.]” (Salby, 2018, beginning about 16:30 time mark in the video.).
Concerning the Pinatubo perturbation, Stallinga and Khmelinski write, "In total, the natural contribution is negative 50% of the anthropogenic emissions (i.e., a sink; Sabine et al. estimate 48% ( Sabine, C.L. et al, 2014), plus fluctuations, with these fluctuations being of the same order of magnitude as the anthropogenic emissions… We have thus direct proof of Henry’s Law that predicts such effects of temperature on the carbon-dioxide content in the atmosphere. Oceans undeniably outgas and absorb CO2 from the atmosphere and they govern the dynamics, the correlation of [CO2] with temperature.” (Stallinga, P. and Khmelinski, I. 2018) In other words, human emissions are absorbed by nature.

Kauppinen and Malmi explain, "Low cloud cover controls practically the global temperature.” "The IPCC climate sensitivity is about one order of magnitude too high, because a strong negative feedback of the clouds is missing in climate models. If we pay attention to the fact that only a small part of the increased CO2 concentration is anthropogenic, we have to recognize that the anthropogenic climate change does not exist in practice. The major part of the extra CO2 is emitted from oceans [6], according to Henry‘s law. The low clouds practically control the global average temperature. During the last hundred years the temperature is increased about 0.1°C because of CO2. The human contribution was about 0.01°C.” (Kauppinen & Malmi, 2018)

Since most of Earth’s surface around the equator that was obfuscated by the Pinatubo cloud belt was tropical ocean, we safely infer that the rapid deceleration of CO2 concentration was caused by cooling of millions of kilometers of tropical ocean surface. This resulted in a net CO2 gas absorption impulse over 230 times larger than net human emission impulse during same period. We expect that continuing this study into its next phases will yield a matrix of supporting evidence and, theoretically, a calibration curve for human-CO2 emission, based on measurements rather than estimates, so that the pernicious claims of global climate change due to human-produced CO2 can be summarily dismissed.
The argument that human-CO2 emission is causing global climate change is shown to have no scientific merit.
CREDITS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Posted by: Dana Mathewson at April 30, 2022 04:02 PM (GIKgf)

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at May 01, 2022 09:40 AM (Ms87g)

Hide Comments | Add Comment