The paper challenges the dominant scientific consensus (as represented by the IPCC) on the role of human fossil fuel emissions in driving the rise in atmospheric CO₂ levels. It argues that natural processes, particularly ocean outgassing driven by sea surface temperatures (SSTs), are the primary contributors to modern CO₂ increases, with anthropogenic emissions playing a minor role. The authors build their case using observational data (e.g., from Mauna Loa Observatory), isotopic records (δ¹³C and ¹⁴C), time-series modeling (ARIMA), and simple carbon flux models. They cite prior work by contrarian researchers like Murry Salby, Hermann Harde, Edwin Berry, and others, while dismissing IPCC models as “misleading constructs.”

The paper reviews debates on the carbon cycle, incorporating data from sources like CDIAC (fossil emissions) and HadISST (SST anomalies).

It emphasizes the interplay of water, carbon, and heat cycles, noting that temperature differences between tropical and high-latitude oceans create zones of CO₂ degassing (warm tropics) and absorption (cooler regions). Fluxes between surface and deep oceans are massive (~275 Gt-C/yr), per Levy et al. (2013), and have been acknowledged in IPCC AR6.

The authors calculate a CO₂ atmospheric residence time of ~5 years (half-life ~3.5 years), meaning ~20% of atmospheric CO₂ is absorbed annually by oceans and vegetation.

Using this, they estimate natural degassing as ~94.5% of total CO₂ inflow in 2024, with fossil fuels contributing only ~5.5%

Calls for re-evaluating the carbon cycle: Oceans, soils, and vegetation self-regulate, dwarfing fossil fuel effects.

“Revisiting the Carbon Cycle,” authored by Camille Veyres (an engineer), Jean-Claude Maurin (a professor of physics), and Patrice Poyet (a Docteur d’État ès Sciences). It was submitted on August 26, 2025, accepted on November 13, 2025, and published in the open-access journal Science of Climate Change (Volume 5.3, pages 135-185, DOI: 10.53234/scc202510/10). The journal is an independent, not-for-profit publication focused on climate-related research, edited by Hermann Harde, and it appears to favor contrarian perspectives on climate science—some sources describe it as a fringe or “fake” journal for promoting views outside the mainstream consensus. How scientific…

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/398095374_Revisiting_the_Carbon_Cycle