New Light on Man-made Climate Change

Written by Ronald Wayne Pate


Three major foundational assumptions embedded in the programming of General Circulation Models (GCM’s) used to “project” future climates, are identified. The empirical data acquired in three separate research projects are shown to invalidate these assumptions. It is concluded that the computer models are invalid and that CO2-emissions-reduction programs will fail to alter natural climate change.


All claims for human-induced “Climate Change,” formerly known as Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), are based on the output of computer models (GCM’s), in other words, the claims are not based on empirical data.

The computer programs have three major assumptions embedded:

1. Variations in atmospheric CO2 concentrations are predominantly caused by mankind’s use of fossil fuels.

2. The major sources of CO2 are located in the developed world.

3. Atmospheric temperature is driven by the atmospheric CO2 concentration.

This article presents the results of three research projects that have found empirical evidence which invalidates all three of the programmers’ assumptions.


1. Mankind’s use of fossil fuels has a negligible effect on atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

2. The world’s major sources of CO2 emissions are the heavily forested regions in Africa, Asia, and South America with sparse human populations and little industrial development. The heavily populated and industrialized areas of North America and northern Europe are net sinks of CO2.

3. Atmospheric CO2 arises from natural sources in proportion to the integral of atmospheric temperature.

4. CO2-emissions-reduction programs, targeting the economies of the developed nations in an attempt to reduce atmospheric CO2 concentrations, will fail.

5. CO2-emissions-reduction programs, for the purposes of reducing atmospheric temperatures and preventing climate change, will fail.


This section will provide evidence in support of each of the conclusions.

Mankind’s use of fossil fuels has a negligible effect on atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

Common estimates of annual global emissions of CO2 from all sources, natural and man-made, total 211 +/- 15 Gt C (Appendix). Mankind’s contribution is estimated to be 9.5 Gt C (2010) which is 9.5/211 = 4.5 % of total emissions. So, total anthropogenic emissions are less than 1/3 of the 30 Gt C error-band for total emissions. This means that, should anthropogenic emissions be totally eliminated, it would not be possible to verify such a small change in total CO2…it would be lost in the overall uncertainties.

The world’s major net sources of CO2 emissions are the heavily forested, tropical regions…The heavily populated and industrialized areas…are net sinks of CO2.

In August, 2011, Prof. Murry Salby, Climate Chair, MacQuarie University, Australia, startled all sides in the climate debate by announcing his findings based upon 10 years of satellite data. In particular, he identified the regions that were the major CO2 emitters.

“Notice [the emitters] are not found in the industrialized centers…the Ohio River Valley of the US, northern Europe, not even China. Rather, [the emitters] appear over the Amazon basin, tropical Africa, and southeast Asia. Those regions have ittle population, let alone industrialization” (Ref. 1).

In June, 2009, the Japanese space agency, JAXA, launched the IBUKU satellite which, among other objectives, was to “discover how much each region needs to reduce CO2 emissions.”

In announcing their results, they reported that, “… industrialized nations emit far less carbon dioxide than the Third World.” The Japanese satellite map showed that the regions that were net absorbers of CO2 [were]…”predominantly those developed nations of Europe and North America; thus indicating built-up environments absorbed more CO2 than they emitted into the atmosphere.”

In contrast, the bulk of the regions recognized as so-called ‘carbon polluters’ were in the undeveloped, densely forested, equatorial regions of Africa and South America (Ref. 2).

Atmospheric CO2 arises from natural sources in proportion to the integral of atmospheric temperature.

Figures 1, 2, and 3 show the divergence of temperature from apparent correlation with CO2 (CO2-T divergence) just prior to the turn of the century. Figure 2 shows, in addition, an earlier CO2-T divergence prior to 1977 that is representative of repeating cycles of observed warmings and coolings with a periodicity of approximately 60 years. The present divergence is not unique.

Ronald Pate fig1


Ronald Pate fig 2


Ron Pate fig 3

Since CO2 cannot be controlling the atmospheric temperature, as shown by the CO2-T divergence, there are other heat sources…the subject of on-going studies…driving the temperature. Analysis has shown that CO2 varies as the integral of temperature. Using IPCC data Prof. Murry Salby has shown, in the plot of “CO2 from Native Emissions” on Figure 3, the excellent agreement between the integral of temperature and the variations of CO2 (Ref. 3).

CO2-emissions-reduction programs, targeting the economies of the developed nations in an attempt to reduce atmospheric CO2 concentrations, will fail.

As shown above, the developed nations are predominantly net sinks of CO2. Therefore, mitigation efforts would be futile for this group. The predominant net sources of CO2, being the regions that are heavily forested, with small populations and little industrialization, will present formidable obstacles to mitigation attempts.

Most importantly, since human emissions constitute less than 5% of the total of annual CO2 emissions, the balance (95%), comprised of natural emissions, is provided by respiration (humans, animals, phytoplankton) and such temperature-dependent processes as ocean out-gassing, soil bacteria decomposition, soil de-gassing, etc. These are all processes over which mankind has no control.

CO2-emissions-reduction programs for the purposes of reducing atmospheric temperatures and preventing climate change, will fail.

As reported above, analysis of empirical data has shown that CO2 varies as the integral of temperature; therefore, temperature controls CO2. This CO2 temperature-dependence is verified by data from ice-core studies which show temperature changes always preceding CO2 changes, often by many decades.

Both the GCM algorithms and current mitigation strategies have it backwards by assuming that CO2 controls temperature and climate change.


In the development of the GCM’s, fundamental atmospheric processes were assumed:

a. mankind’s use of fossil fuels was responsible for the rise in CO2 concentrations;

b. the major sources of CO2 were in the developed nations;

c. atmospheric temperatures were driven by the CO2 concentration.

It has been shown that mankind’s annual CO2 emissions, at less than 5%, are dwarfed by the 95% of emissions from natural processes.

Measurements by satellite of the distribution of CO2 concentrations have revealed that heavily forested and underdeveloped regions are net sources and regions with built-up environments are net sinks.

After 1998 and prior to 1977, CO2 and temperature were divergent, thereby negating any illusion of correlation. Using IPCC data, excellent agreement was shown between CO2 variations and the integral of temperature. Thus, temperature controls CO2 concentration and not the reverse as programmed in the GCM’s.

Being based on false premises, both the GCM algorithms and current mitigation strategies will fail to produce the intended consequences on atmospheric temperatures and climate change.


1 Salby, Murry 2011/08/02; Global emissions of CO2–the contribution of natural sources, lecture, Sidney Institute, Au, video @ 09:20

2 O’Sullivan, John 2011/10/31; New satellite data contradicts carbon dioxide climate theory, Home Climate Realists website,

3 Salby, Murry 2012/07/24; Climate change: what we know and what we don’t, lecture, Sidney Institute, Au, video @ 30:00


Ronald Wayne Pate, P. Eng., MSE Information & Control, U.Michigan, 1966, work: Aerospace & Industrial Instrumentation/Controls.


Annual Carbon Dioxide Emissions Gt C per annum

Respiration (Humans, animals, phytoplankton) 45 to 52

Ocean out-gassing (tropical areas) 90 to 100

Volcanic and other ground sources 0.5 to 2

Ground bacteria, rotting and decay 50 to 60

Forest cutting, forest fires 1 to 3

Anthropogenic emissions Fossil Fuels (2010) 9.5

TOTAL 196 to 226.5

Source: Dr. Dietrich Koelle


Tags: , , , , ,

Comments (6)

  • Avatar




    aren’t you able to distinguish CO2 in
    (short term) cycles like Respiration [(Humans, animals, phytoplankton) 45 to 52 GT]

    and non cyclic (cycle > 1000 ka] emissions added annually in a cumulative way (how many GT fossil fuels since 1980?)?

    • Avatar



      Huh! I mean not disrespect,tyyyyyyyyyg0t6666666666666666666666666666666666666666 but only tht I
      cannot decyper what you are writing about.

      • Avatar



        Sorry! the kitten likes the number keys! 🙂

      • Avatar



        [quote name=”ewiljan”]Huh! I mean not disrespect,… but only tht I
        cannot decyper what you are writing about.[/quote]

        In the appendix annual emissions are listed.

        fossil fuels are there listed to the emission due to (human (and bacteria)) respiration.

        Whatever you release as CO2 (e.g.form the cereals you were eating) was in the atmosphere a year (or two) ago before the corn/wheat grew. This is (in a first approach) CO2 neutral as the CO2 content in the atmosphere is concerned.

        The fossil fuel part is added year by year and this figure should be accumulated.

  • Avatar



    I have estimated that carbon dioxide has a net cooling effect of about 0.002 C degree.

    [b]The whole concept of radiative forcing being the primary determinant of surface temperatures is seriously flawed.[/b]

    If it were correct, then water vapour (the most dominant so-called “greenhouse gas”) should be making moist regions far hotter than dry regions on Earth. My study of empirical data in the Appendix of my [url=]paper[/url] reveals water vapour has a cooling effect.

    The reason water vapour cools is the same reason that carbon dioxide also cools. Each emits and absorbs radiation which always only ever transfers heat from warmer to cooler regions, the cooler regions being usually at higher altitudes in the troposphere. Such radiation has a levelling effect on the temperature gradient, reducing it by about a third from that gradient which otherwise would be caused by gravity, as explained in my paper.

    It happens on all planets, methane reducing the gradient by less than 5% on Uranus and carbon dioxide reducing it a little on Venus. Such reductions in the gradient cause the temperature plot to rotate and thus intersect the surface at a lower “supporting” temperature, with the results explained in Section 9 of my paper.

Comments are closed