Follow the Physics: A Systematic Re-Evaluation of the Carbon Cycle

While the prevailing political and scientific consensus frequently demands that we "follow the science", the evaluation of the global carbon cycle presented in this article demonstrates the absolute necessity to instead "follow the physics".This conclusion is the result of a careful analysis regarding a fundamental, long-standing dispute in climate science: What caused the increase in atmospheric CO 2 concentration?Most experts argue that observations provide a clear answer -namely, anthropogenic emissions, half of which accumulate in the atmosphere.However, this is merely an interpretation of an observation and is thus necessarily predicated on an underlying model.This prevailing model assumes that atmospheric CO 2 behaves conceptually like water in a specific type of well: a well featuring a fountain fed by a pump from a basin (representing CO 2 circulation through the atmosphere), and where the water level in the basin is regulated via an external inflow and an overflow (representing the regulation of atmospheric concentration).The defining characteristics of this model are constant circulation and independent level control.By assuming that the overflow consistently drains exactly half of the external inflow, this model mathematically replicates the observed increase in concentration.Throughout this article, this conceptual framework is referred to as the "Fountain model".However, fundamental physical laws contradict its application.The atmosphere is definitely an open system with a concentration-dependent outflow; its circulation can become unbalanced, and circulation and level control are fundamentally interdependent.Consequently, a different model is required.This article proposes the "Lake model," conceptualized as a well with a hole in its basin that drains into a lake.The fountain is fed from this lake and scales directly with the lake's water level.Rather than merely fitting observations retrospectively, the Lake model strictly applies physics to identify the boundary conditions necessary for the observed concentration rise to occur: the gross inflow must have increased at least to the same extent as the concentration, a requirement for which anthropogenic emissions are far too small.These divergent dynamics are explained in detail.Example calculations using Python-based simulations unequivocally confirm this qualitative assessment and reveal a surprisingly strong influence regarding how the atmosphere is structurally embedded within the broader global carbon cycle.Furthermore, common counterarguments against the Lake model are systematically analyzed and rejected.If future studies corroborate this new model, it will have far-reaching consequences for the entire scientific and political debate on anthropogenic climate change.