The evidence says: NO. Firmly NO.
Gasoline and jetfuel use have dropped off vertically during this China corona virus lockdown, and so have their prices, leading crashes in stock markets. But the generally accepted standard lab at Mauna Loa, which for many decades has been measuring net global CO2 atmospheric concentration, shows CO2 concentration is still increasing.
The UN IPCC and other organizations claim that human CO2 emissions, primarily from burning fossil fuels, are the largest contributor to the ongoing and increasing trend in global atmospheric CO2 concentration. But fossil fuel use is down 50% or more and CO2 is still increasing? How can this be?
This is very strong evidence that CO2 emissions from humans are insignificant, with trivial effect on atmospheric CO2 concentration and therefore insignificant to global warming and climate change. This is not the only instance. Professors Murry Salby and Jamal Munshi and others have previously demonstrated that the human contribution to the global net atmospheric concentration is too small to measure, and therefore human-produced CO2 cannot be significantly affecting global warming or climate. Those papers and references can be found on this blog.
Human-caused (anthropogenic) global warming by carbon emissions from use of fossil fuels is a gigantic fraud, far larger than the Enron fraud that sent Bernie Madoff to jail. Eventually, the climate fraudsters will also see justice.
Reference for graphs: https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/?fbclid=IwAR2DJlIKsQppKyQOErX0v9m_0ROgshG6CBzHfHBbi1TJP-luTjpyRV3Jrq4
Much like the 2008 recession, but more sharply defined, this unplanned experiment on CO2 emissions from economic activity, including cement manufacturing in addition to hydrocarbon fuel consumption, show show a change of CO2 in the atmosphere. IIRC, and the graphs indicate that th eannual peak in CO2 at Mouna Loa occurs in May. I have always wondered about mixing, etc. and the lag of getting “uniform” air to Hawaii. The other sites that do this show slightly different but significant ppm values than Hawaii, so mixing isnt perfect. It will be interesting to see if a signal of reduced anthro CO2 emissions can be teased out of the data. I suspect that will be the case, which could then better bracket what it is that economic acitivity is contributing. This needs to be watched carefully; but fortunately the data is readily available for anyone to grind out changes – or lack thereof. My gut says we are overestimating the human contribution of CO2 going into the atmosphere.
Thanks for your comments Pete. The data show that human-produced CO2 will not be detected, is not detectable by normal statistics tools in the Mauna Loa data. Try it. The data is easily downloadable to a speadsheet. The human contribution of CO2 from fossil fuels is much less than the seasonal variations in net global atmospheric concentration. Professors Jamal Munshi and Murry Salby and others have clearly shown that there is no correlation between fossil fuel emissions and CO2 emissions. And, you can simply prove it to yourself instead of believing any expert. Since the fossil fuel contribution is too small to detect in the overall trend, we do not have data that might inform whether the anthropogenic fraction is so small that it is insignificant, lost in the noise of the massive flux of global CO2 emissions and absorptions by nature, or alternatively whether the carbon sinks, sources and balance are adjusting to the injection of gigatons CO2 emissions of fossil fuels, or some combination of these two alternatives. Check out this paper: https://www.academia.edu/33779445/RESPONSIVENESS_OF_ATMOSPHERIC_CO2_TO_FOSSIL_FUEL_EMISSIONS_UPDATED. Also this talk by Prof Murry Salby arrives at the same conclusion using 3 separate tests of his hypothesis. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1cGqL9y548&feature=youtu.be
In the standard OSHA method for measuring CO2 in air, 400 ppmv is above the lower limit of quantitation, but not by much. However, if the human component is estimated at 40 ppmv to 120 ppmv, that falls beneath the lower limit of detection and far below the lower limit of quantitation. We don’t have a measured trend for the human component.