Bartemis: on mass balance and the cause of changing levels of atmospheric CO2

At some point in this debate, on the part of those who want humans to be in the driver’s seat, you will encounter the faux “mass balance” argument. This argument goes as follows.

We have natural inputs N, natural sink activity S, and human inputs H. The rate of change of atmospheric level L is then

L = N + H – S

It is observed that L is approximately 1/2 of H, hence

N – S := -0.5*H

Since natural sources are less than natural sinks, nature cannot be the driving force.

Tommy rot. Sink activity is a dynamic feedback response. As such, there is a portion of the sinks which responds to natural forcing, call it SN, and a portion that responds to human inputs, call it SH. We have

N – SN := -0.5*H + SH

SH can be any value between 0.5*H and total H. If it is greater than 0.5*H, then nature on its own is a net source.

People invested in the naive, stupid, and jejune “mass balance” argument have a mental block. They ask, how is it possible for the rise to be natural if nature in its entirety is a net drain? After all, you cannot increase a quantity if you are always subtracting away from it.

The answer is that this is a problem in dynamic flows. There is a consistent flow into the system, and a consistent flow out. When you have such a flow regime, there are two ways that you can increase the amount in the reservoir: 1) put more flow in, 2) take less flow out. Nature then can be seen as the source of the rise if it is taking less out than it otherwise would be, i.e., if N – S is less negative than it would be if nature on its own were not a net source.

The temperature relationship above establishes unequivocally that the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 is essentially entirely a natural process. Facile arguments like the faux mass balance above are rationalizations using flawed logic to establish original sin in the CO2 religious canon.