But it's obvious this doesn't affect my argument in any way. The two sources just add to make a bigger source, when Ed Berry's mistake is that he doesn't include any of the feedbacks in the carbon cycle.
And, yes, besides atmospheric CO2 going into the ocean and soil, it also goes into the biosphere. Again, that obviously doesn't go affect my argument.
Ed Berry claims humans have only contributed 18 ppm to the rise in CO2 since the start of the industrial era, when the concentration of atmospheric CO2 was about 280 ppm (by mole -- that is, by particle number. Before the industrial era, about 280 of a million air molecules were CO2 molecule. Now it's about 410 out of a million. This is sometimes noted as "ppmv.")
Ed Berry is full of shit. Here's his shitty model:
You don't even have to look at Ed's equations -- because this POS model is obviously wrong for CO2.
It's shitty because the real world of carbon dioxide isn't a bathtub. This is obvious and I just do not understand how a semi-intelligent person does not understand this.
Climate denialism turns the brains of semi-smart people to dog food.
Why is this model wrong? Because CO2 doesn't follow a simple in-out model. CO2 inputs come from burning fossil fuels, and from the ocean, and from the land, and from the biosphere as a result of warming. Even a bit, about 0.5-1%, from volcanoes.
Where does the CO2 go? It goes into the atmosphere and the ocean and the soil. Do you see any of these sinks in Ed Berry's model -- and that they also serve as sources of CO2?
No. NO. Of course not. Ed doesn't do real physics. Or care about it in any way. He's a denier who left science a long time ago.
Ed makes a big deal that his model works for 14C. Well, of course it does -- there is only a single source of atmospheric 14C (cosmic rays), and a single sink (radioactive decay):
Unlike CO2, where sources are burning fossil fuels, the ocean and land (soil), 14C has only one source.
It's perplexing how an intelligent person does not understand this.
Back to reality: in fact, humans are responsible for all of the excess carbon in today's atmosphere. And, in fact, nature still absorbs not only as much CO2 as it admits, but also about 50% more, of what humans emit -- the so-called airborne fraction.
Don't believe me? Consider this -- Ed has been trying to get his paper published for almost two years now. It has been rejected -- he won't say how many times. And he wonders why.... The answer is, because his claims are full of shit!
Some people just refuse to learn. Literally. Climate denialists, like Ed, most of all.
People: if your claim does not agree with the consensus claims honed over a century, the chances are overwhelming that you are mistaken and not thousands of scientists. You'd think someone who once did science would know that.
Climate denialism, and its associated shit, is really excessive egotism. Thinking you know more than everyone -- EVERYONE -- else.
PS: Humans have emitted about 1,600 Gt CO2 since 1850 (Source: WRI CAIT). I wonder where Ed PhD thinks it has all gone.