I’m halfway through the paper. It’s easy reading for a first take. If what he says is true, the IPCC model is incredibly flawed. I can understand “compartmentalization” of different parts of the CO2, such as in the ocean, or in shellfish, or minerals, versus that in the atmosphere. But, along with the author, I can’t see any justification for treating CO2 differently depending on whether it was “naturally” or “anthromorphically” generated. That’s like a chemical bill of attainder.
Also, its very interesting that a simple exponential model (what he calls “e-time” engineers call “time constant”) accounts better for 14CO2 decay from nuclear weapons tests better than the IPCC model.
If what he says is true, how can the IPCC model creators have been so dumb? Overfitting a model violates Occam’s Razor, and usually doesn’t work out well.
Finally, to your second comment, about wild fires and volcanoes... is there any reason to believe they’re worse over the past century than they were before? Or was there a dip in CO2 due to a fire/volcano quiet period in the late 18th century?
Personally I doubt the accuracy of the 210 PPM figure from over a hundred years ago and how they came to that conclusion.
The same with their claims about global temperature average of a hundred years ago. What measuring apparatus was used and where were all the thermometers located?
If I can control the data input I can also control the data output.......
I don't think there was any significant event that caused a rise in PPM but rather the current 410 level is actually the norm since the science is sophisticated enough to actually read it as opposed to 100 years ago.....