Not a peer reviewed article, and it is wrong. Rebuttal below.
Dear Editor,
We are writing to comment on a recent paper published in your journal, Health Physics. The
paper is titled World Atmospheric CO2, Its 14C Specific Activity, Non-fossil Component,
Anthropogenic Fossil Component, and Emissions (1750–2018) by Skrable, Chabot & French
(Skrable et al. 2022)(hereinafter called “the paper”).
Our comment is two-fold: We will first highlight the fundamental error the authors make,
then briefly discuss the implications of publishing such work.
Firstly, the paper concludes that “the percentage of the total CO2 due to the use of fossil fuels
from 1750 to 2018 increased from 0% in 1750 to 12% in 2018, much too low to be the cause
of global warming.”
The premise of this argument is incorrect, and indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of
the causal link between anthropogenic emissions and rising atmospheric CO2. The fact that
atmospheric CO2 has been rising at only about half the rate of anthropogenic emissions
establishes that the natural environment is a net carbon sink and has been actively opposing
the rise for at least the last 60 years. Hence we know that anthropogenic emissions,
predominantly from fossil fuel combustion and land use change, involve more than sufficient
carbon to entirely explain the post-industrial rise (Canadell et al. 2021).
<snip>
In summary, even though a relatively small fraction of the CO2 molecules in the atmosphere -
at a particular time - have a recent, direct fossil fuel origin, does not mean that the increase in
atmospheric CO2 is not due to anthropogenic emissions and does not mean that this is not the
cause of global warming. That the increase in atmospheric CO2 since the industrial revolution
is due to anthropogenic emissions is a scientific conclusion about which we can be extremely
confident (Friedlingstein et al. 2020; Canadell et al. 2021). Similarly, that this is the dominant
cause of global warming is also a conclusion about which there is great confidence (Eyring et
al. 2021; Masson-Delmotte et al. 2021). We would need much more than a misunderstanding
about the cause of the increase in atmospheric CO2 to overthrow these extremely robust
conclusions.
Secondly, throughout the paper, the authors have (i) failed to cite numerous related, and
relevant, earlier publications in this field, and (ii) demonstrated a lack of fundamental
understanding of biogeochemical carbon cycle processes. For example, suggesting:
“It appears in the figure that Earth is still in the Holocene interglacial period that
started 11,500 y ago. Its peak temperature change over the 11,500 years, thus far in
1950, appears to be significantly less than those over the three previous interglacial
periods. Its peak CO2 appears less than 300 ppm and less than the peak value in the
previous interglacial period. Thus, the increase in CO2 that Earth has been
experiencing since 1800 appears to have started more than 5,000 years ago.”
This statement ignores an entire body of scientific literature (on Holocene and modern
climate change), and then arrives at a non-sequitur conclusion based on that ignorance.
Under any normal peer review circumstances, a combination of failing to properly cite the
state of the science, alongside a demonstrated lack of understanding and clarity in writing,
would have led to immediate rejection of this work.
Therefore, that this manuscript was published suggests a major failure in the Health Physics
peer review process.
https://andthenthere...ablecomment.pdf