Scientists agree on the ACTUAL cause of CO2 increase


We are pleased to feature the following article by Ed Berry, followed by  a couple of the comments it received as it is highly informative and contributes strongly to the resurgence of Reason-over-hysteria in the hijacked field of climate science.

Koutsoyiannis et al agree with Berry, Harde, and Salby on the cause of the CO2 increase


Ed Berry, PhD, Theoretical Physics, CCM

Koutsoyiannis et al. (2023) prove that increase in global temperature causes the increase in atmospheric CO2, and not vice-versa. That is a significant proof.

Also, because increased temperature does not control human CO2 emissions, and human CO2 emissions are about 4% of the total of human and natural emissions, they AGREE — with Berry (2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2023a, 2023b), Harde (2017, 2019, 2023), Harde and Salby (2021a, 2021b, 2022), and Salby (2013, 2016, 2018) — that natural CO2 causes the increase in atmospheric CO2 and human emissions are insignificant to climate.

Below is a pdf copy of Koutsoyiannis et al. (2023). No Tricks Zone and Judith Curry also reviewed Koutsoyiannis et al. (2023).

Yet, there are scientists who walk among us who still claim human CO2 emissions cause all the CO2 increase above 280 ppm, and the natural CO2 level remained at 280 ppm.

They claim the e-time for human CO2 is hundreds of years while the e-time for natural CO2 is 3.5 years. This belief contradicts the CO2 Equivalence Principle that says, since human and natural CO2 molecules are identical, their e-times are identical.

Their belief needs a demon in the atmosphere to trap human CO2 and let natural CO2 flow out of the atmosphere. This has the makings of a good fairy tale. Unfortunately, all free-world countries base their climate laws on this myth.

Koutsoyiannis et al. (2023) write the following (quotes):

Nonetheless, as a side product, in the Appendices to the paper, we provide several indications of the following (Page 18):

  1. The dependence of the carbon cycle on temperature is quite strong and indeed major increases of [CO2] can emerge as a result of temperature rise. In other words, we show that the natural [CO2] changes due to temperature rise are far larger (by a factor > 3) than human emissions (Appendix A.1).
  2. There are processes, such as the Earth’s albedo (which is changing in time as any other characteristic of the climate system), the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the ocean heat content in the upper layer (represented by the vertically averaged temperature in the layer 0–100 m), which are potential causes of the temperature increase, unlike what is observed with [CO2], their changes precede those of temperature (Appendices A.2A.4).
  3. On a large timescale, the analysis of paleoclimatic data supports the primacy of the causal direction → [CO2], even though some controversy remains about this issue (Appendix A.5).

The human CO2 emissions due to the burning of fossil fuels have largely increased since the beginning of the industrial age. However, the global temperature increase began succeeding the Little Ice Period, at a time when human CO2 emissions were very low.

This role can be summarized in the following points, examined in detail and quantified in Appendix A.1. (Page 19)

  • Terrestrial and maritime respiration and decay are responsible for the vast majority of CO2 emissions [32], Figure 5.12.
  • Overall, natural processes of the biosphere contribute 96% to the global carbon cycle, the rest, 4%, being human emissions (which were even lower in the past [33]).
  • The biosphere is more productive at higher temperatures, as the rates of biochemical re- actions increase with temperature, which leads to increasing natural CO2 emission [2].
  • Additionally, a higher atmospheric CO2 concentration makes the biosphere more productive via the so-called carbon fertilization effect, thus resulting in greening of the Earth [34,35], i.e., amplification of the carbon cycle, to which humans also contribute through crops and land-use management [36].

Conclusions (Page 22):

  1. All evidence resulting from the analyses of the longest available modern time series of atmospheric concentration of [CO2] at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, along with that of globally averaged T, suggests a unidirectional, potentially causal link with as the cause and [CO2] as the effect. This direction of causality holds for the entire period covered by the observations (more than 60 years).
  2. Seasonality, as reflected in different phases of [CO2] time series at different latitudes, does not play any role in potential causality, as confirmed by replacing the Mauna Loa [CO2] time series with that in South Pole.
  3. The unidirectional → ln[CO2] potential causal link applies to all timescales resolved by the available data, from monthly to about two decades.
  4. The proposed methodology is simple, flexible and effective in disambiguating cases where the type of causality, HOE or unidirectional, is not quite clear.
  5. Furthermore, the methodology defines a type of data analysis that, regardless of the detection of causality per se, assesses modeling performance by comparing observational data with model results. In particular, the analysis of climate model outputs reveals a misrepresentation of the causal link by these models, which suggest a causality direction opposite to the one found when the real measurements are used.
  6. Extensions of the scope of the methodology, i.e., from detecting possible causality to building a more detailed model of stochastic type, are possible, as illustrated by a toy model for the T-[CO2] system, with explained variance of [CO2] reaching an impressive 99.9%.
  7. While some of the findings of this study seem counterintuitive or contrary to mainstream opinions, they are logically and computationally supported by arguments and calculations given in the Appendices.

End quotes.


  1. No Tricks Zone has another one today by Stewart Harris although it doesn’t appear to present any new data or methodology. When will someone that has the public ear and the courage to get this into public circulation show up? I wrote this for the Bozeman paper but they will not touch it.:

    Demetris Koutsoyiannis, and three coauthors have published a new scientific data analysis that should be front page news. Its conclusion states: “However, if we stick to the facts, two things are clear: (i) changes in CO₂ concentration have not been warming the planet; (ii) climate models do not reflect what the observational data tell us on this issue.”

    So all, and I mean ALL, of the problems predicted by climate models are scientifically unsupported. None of the imagined climate catastrophes we hear about every day can be attributed to CO2 let alone anthropogenic CO2. The law suits that site litanies of imagined climate damages are unsupported by any scientific data. The 75 trillion recommended in the latest version of the Green New Deal is aimed at a problem that does not exist.

    So what is our response to this new paper that is added to the growing number that falsify the assumption of human caused dangerous climate change? Does the climate change industry have enough control of the world’s finances and imagination to just continue this fantasy, draining the assets of almost everyone to fill the coffers of the privileged few with no environmental benefit possible? Do we let the media continue to frighten our children with these now thoroughly refuted lies to get wider coverage?

    I am struck with the constricting immorality on so many levels of this lie and yearn to see the freedom that the truth could bring. I fear I am a voice crying in the wilderness drowned out by the lie’s noise, denigrated as misinformation and dismissed as an uninformed crank. Follow the data not the hype.

Dear Ed,

As you know, you and I are united in our support of adherence to the scientific method but have very different political opinions.

It is pleasing that Koutsoyiannes et al have added to the body of support for your finding that global temperature controls the magnitude of atmospheric CO2 concentration; n.b. this is the opposite of the claim by climate alarmists (e.g. the UN’s IPCC) that atmospheric CO2 concentration controls the CO2 concentration.

I have opposed the climate scare for four decades because there was – and is – no empirical evidence for the scare. Throughout that time, I have been reviled, insulted and attacked by proponents of the scare, and those attacks have not stopped.

Now, some opponents of the scare are ignoring and/or rejecting your findings because opposition to the scare is a useful tool for attacking their political opponents, so some of them are attempting to undermine me; i.e. I am now being attacked from all sides.

Everybody knows people are often forgiven for being wrong but rarely forgiven for being right. I am pleased your work is being supported by a growing body of published findings, but I write with good will to warn that this does not mean you will be acknowledged soon: as Galileo said when leaving for exile, “But they do move”.


Please visit Ed Berry for more great articles

The above was featured on UK Reloaded


The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)


Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.


Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.


Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.