Picture this: it’s a hot day, and you grab a soda can that’s been in the sun. You crack it open—psssht—and CO₂ fizzes out, tickling your nose, maybe spraying your shirt if you’re slow. It’s a tiny chaos, a burst you can’t control. Now imagine that fizz across the ocean’s sun-warmed surface, covering 71% of Earth, bubbling CO₂ into the air we breathe. Wild, right? A bit mad. I reckon it's a missing piece of the climate puzzle.
The IPCC pins it all on smokestacks—11 billion tonnes of carbon a year from fossil fuels. Even skeptics like the CO₂ Coalition echo this, leaning on guys like Ferdinand Engelbeen who do their maths by the consensus numbers on this issue of CO₂ origins.
But they might have it all back to front and be leaving out ocean chemistry and biology. In fact, I’m convinced they are.
The Keeling Curve—CO₂’s climb from 280 to 420 ppm—carries their blame. But what if the ocean’s fizzing more than they think? Their rock-solid evidence could be mostly myth.

I’ve been digging into this with Ivan Kennedy, my second guest for the webinar series ‘Towards a New Theory of Climate Resilience’. That was back in February and I’m still to process the audio from this discussion.
Instead, my focus has been on writing technical papers. Ivan and I are working through a hypothesis that could perhaps flip the climate script.
Engelbeen claims fossil fuels’ isotopic fingerprint—light ¹²C (isotope C12) dragging the air’s ¹³C-to-¹²C ratio from -6.5‰ (per mille)* to -8.5‰ since 1850—is proof of coal and oil’s guilt. Ocean CO₂, averaging 0‰ from deep waters, should nudge it up—not down. Case closed.
Except. That ¹²C/¹³C tale’s shakier than they admit. What if the ocean’s surface, warmed by the sun, fizzes CO₂ richer in ¹²C than the deep oceans 0‰?
Calcification—limestone forming in seawater—might churn out CO₂ at -10‰ or lower, diluting that delta 13 signal just like fossil fuels. It’s not the deep ocean I’m on about—it’s the top 65 meters, the mixed layer, where sunlight and warmth cause biological action. So much action that it has built the biosphere’s great carbonate deposits, even the White Cliffs of Dover.
Ivan and I talked some of this over—Great Barrier Reef, North Pacific—during our webinar (soon my first podcast—thanks for waiting!). Calcification’s no sleepy trick; it’s a biological buzzsaw—corals, algae, phytoplankton like coccolithophores churning limestone. In summer blooms, they might pump out tonnes of CO₂, light on ¹³C. Our Thermal Acid Calcification (TAC) hypothesis says nature’s pitching in more than you might think.
Ponder this next time you sip a soda: could the ocean be bubbling up a CO₂ twist?

TAC’s perhaps a second plank in my New Theory of Climate Resilience. Subscribe for irregular updates, and to know about next webinars.

In churn and current, me with that silver scuba air tank at the surface above the mixing layer at the Great Barrier Reef. And the top/feature image is of my scuba buddies diving off the edge from Myrmidon Reef that is already at the edge, photographed by underwater photographer, scuba buddy and boat skipper Jenn Mayes.
This is Part 2 of How Climate Works. Part 1 was with Bill Kininmonth. I never properly processed the audio from Part 1, and I accepted the AI summary of our meeting click here.
Postscript

From a paper by Werner Berner et al. 1980. In Radiocarbon, Vol 22, No.2. pgs. 227-235. Suggesting higher carbon dioxide levels just a few thousand years ago.
************
When we say deep ocean carbon is 0‰ (per mille), we're talking about its carbon isotope ratio, specifically the δ¹³C value. This is a measure of how much carbon-13 (¹³C) is present relative to carbon-12 (¹²C), compared to a standard reference.
In this case, 0‰ doesn’t mean there’s no carbon-13 in the deep ocean—it means the ratio of ¹³C to ¹²C in deep ocean dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) is about the same as the standard reference, which is usually the Vienna Pee Dee Belemnite (VPDB). A δ¹³C of 0‰ indicates no enrichment or depletion of ¹³C relative to that standard.
Now, why is deep ocean carbon around 0‰? It’s because the deep ocean is a massive, well-mixed reservoir of carbon that’s been cycled through various processes over long timescales. Surface ocean carbon starts with a δ¹³C of about +1 to +2‰ due to photosynthesis, where phytoplankton preferentially take up ¹²C, leaving the surface water slightly enriched in ¹³C. But as organic matter sinks and decays, it releases carbon back into the deep ocean. This process, along with the mixing of water masses, balances out the isotopic signature. The deep ocean ends up with a δ¹³C close to 0‰ because it reflects a long-term average of all these inputs—biological, physical, and chemical—without much net fractionation.
In terms of carbon-13, this means the deep ocean has a pretty stable and "neutral" amount of ¹³C compared to the global carbon cycle. It’s not heavily skewed like surface waters or organic matter (which can be -20‰ or lower due to that photosynthetic preference for ¹²C). So, a δ¹³C of 0‰ tells us the deep ocean is kind of a baseline, a big pool where carbon isotopes have settled into equilibrium over thousands of years.
Ferdinand does not get it. Every year ca. 100 billion tons ( a ton = 1000kg)
of carbonate gasses out and therefore a similar amount of CO2 dissolves each year where it is cold. The human amount is greatly exagerated and does not do anything but to give extra immediate CO2 to the biosphere. Ennersbee was right. The heat from more volcanic activity is bringing more CO2 and more warmth. It enables better yields and more food for mankind. Thank God!
"My point is that denying that the current increase of CO2 is man-made, against all evidence, reflects badly on items where the skeptics of AGW have much more solid arguments…"
No, it is the key point.
"Cohenite, you can’t compare the cause of the overall changes over millions of years to the seasonal and year by year changes over the past years…"
Yes you can, I just did it.
Cohenite, you can't compare the cause of the overall changes over millions of years to the seasonal and year by year changes over the past years...
Enormous amounts of CO2 were removed out of the atmosphere between 60 and 120 million years ago during the Cretaceous era and dropped the CO2 level from some 2000 ppmv to some 1000 ppmv. That all was done by tiny creatures, called coccolithophores, layer by later, 0.1 mm/year up to several hundreds of meters thick layers of carbonate rock.
Today we are CO2 starved and it is a good point that humans add a lot of buried CO2 back to the atmosphere...
My point is that denying that the current increase of CO2 is man-made, against all evidence, reflects badly on items where the skeptics of AGW have much more solid arguments...
'What he doesn’t seem to understand is that the variability of the increase in the atmosphere is the result of the variability in net sink (not net source!) capacity of nature… In every year of the past 67 years, nature was more sink than source, thus not the cause of the increase…"
Whenever I see that argument I just post this:
https://geocraft.com/WVFossils/CO2_Temp_O2.html
Thanks Ferdinand.
I am attempting a model based on ocean chemistry that explains maximum degassing in April-May at measured at Mauna Loa, following winter in the Northern Hemisphere.
For sure there are abiotic and, also, biotic processes. For sure there is precipitation of calcite into seawater as a thermodynamic abiotic response. As regards the biotic, enzymes, specifically carbonic anhydrase speed up the reaction of carbon dioxide reacting with water to produce hydrogen ions and bicarbonate ions important for photosynthesis and also coral building, and there are phytoplankton that are also photosynthesising and calcifying.
The chart that you have modified to fit your own schema is no longer consistent with the foundational work of Ivan Kenney and colleagues, that I am building on, and extending. You can read the associated ocean chemistry as explained by Kennedy et al. 2022 in the following research paper: https://www.mdpi.com/2673-7264/2/4/28 .
Note in the results section of this paper that the Aloha data shows maximum concentrations of C02 in seawater and lowest pH values in late summer. This is at the same time as the atmospheric oscillation pC02 is minimal, clearly not equilibrated.
The chart as shown in my blog post (that you now show reversed), originally indicated variations in thermodynamic constants with temperature that favour precipitation of CaCO3 in summer with pH falling, coupled with absorption of CO2 from the atmosphere from spring. In autumn and winter, the process is reversed, dissolving calcite (x moles) and releasing CO2 to air (y moles), with calcite dissolution in colder water exceeding CO2 emissions (x > y).
Thanks for your continued interest.
Dear Jennifer,
I have made a small change to your "Thermal effects" graph, included here:
https://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/thermal_effects_002.png
Where the cold/warm arrows are in the right direction and the input from the atmosphere into the oceans (ΔpCO2 = 7 μatm) is added.
The 7 μatm is the result of many ocean surveys, compiled by Feely et al:
https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel2331/exchange.shtml
and following sections, or direct to the maps:
https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel2331/maps.shtml
and next section.
I don't know the effect of temperature on the solubility of solid carbonates, as far as I know there is no direct inorganic deposit in open oceans, neither solution of disposed carbonate.
Coccoliths need a lot of energy to get carbonate shells out of bicarbonates. That of course comes from the sun. As these tiny creatures thrive in all waters, I am not sure if there is any effect of temperature. Seeding with iron (and sand deposits by wind form the deserts) seems to introduce algal blooms, thus probably a lack of nutrients as limiting factor.
Ancient Coccoliths were disposed off in thick layers during the Cretaceous period and one of such deposits in particular, Pee Dee Belmnite was used as the standard for the δ13C measurements. That means that calcification of Ehux (and of coralline sponges) is δ13C neutral, not a firm drop, if the deposit was pure chemical.
Best regards,
Ferdinand
More CO2 in the air, from whichever source, is the cause for better harvests: ask the gh farmers in the NL. More CO2 also causes more greening of desserts- should be visible in AU - due to giving plants more resistance to drought.
Due also to more warming, tree growth boundaries on mountains and positive latitudes are moving upwards...everything is better with more CO2. Instead of thanking God for supplying more food we are faced with mankind who continues to work against Him, by trying to reduce CO2. I wonder. Are we back like it was in the days of Noah, that Jesus speaks of?
Cohenite, I did read the comment of Bob Cormack and he produces following text:
"If AGW were correct about the equilibrium between natural emissions of CO2 and sinks the atmospheric increase would mirror the ACO2 emissions; it doesn’t. That means that sinks and natural CO2 emissions vary and are not in equilibrium."
That is under a picture where human emissions per year are twice as high (!) than the average increase in the atmosphere, be it with a large variability.
What he doesn't seem to understand is that the variability of the increase in the atmosphere is the result of the variability in net sink (not net source!) capacity of nature... In every year of the past 67 years, nature was more sink than source, thus not the cause of the increase...
That there is such a small (!) variability in net sink capacity, while natural fluxes in and out are quite high (about 25% of all CO2 in the atmosphere) is very remarkable. Probably the result of opposing CO2 fluxes between vegetation and atmosphere vs. oceans and atmosphere and the small influence of year by year temperature variations (3.5 ppm/°C).