Do Ocean Temperatures, Not Human Emissions, Drive Atmospheric CO₂?

Written by PSI Editor on July 15, 2026. Posted in Current News

A provocative new study is stirring fresh debate in climate science by challenging a core tenet of anthropogenic global warming theory.

Independent researcher Dai Ato has published an analysis in the journal Science of Climate Change which concludes that sea surface temperature (SST) is the primary driver of rising atmospheric CO₂ concentrations, and that human emissions are statistically irrelevant .

The Study’s Core Findings

Ato’s paper employs multiple linear regression analysis to examine the factors influencing annual increases in atmospheric CO₂ from 1959 to 2022, testing two predictors: sea surface temperature and human emissions .

The results are striking. The model using SST alone reproduced global CO₂ levels with near-perfect accuracy, achieving a correlation of 0.995 with actual measurements and a prediction error of just 1.45 parts per million by 2022 . When ocean temperatures warmed, CO₂ levels rose approximately 2 to 3 parts per million for every one degree Celsius of warming .

Crucially, adding human emissions to the model did not improve its predictive ability . The regression coefficient for human emissions was not statistically significant (B = 0.0027, P = 0.863), leading Ato to conclude that “the main factor governing the annual increase in atmospheric CO₂ concentration is SST rather than human emissions” .

Historical Context

The idea that temperature changes precede CO₂ increases is not new. Studies of Antarctic ice cores spanning 400,000 years have consistently shown that during the transition from ice ages to interglacial periods, temperatures began rising first, followed by CO₂ levels approximately 600 to 1,000 years later . The mechanism is well understood: as ocean temperatures increase, they release dissolved CO₂ into the atmosphere .

However, mainstream climate scientists have historically interpreted this relationship differently. They argue that while temperature changes initiated glacial-interglacial transitions, the subsequent CO₂ release acted as a powerful positive feedback, amplifying the warming . The orbital changes alone—the Milankovitch cycles—were insufficient to drive the full temperature swing without this greenhouse feedback loop .

Scientific Skepticism and Criticisms

Of course,the usual gaggle of government funded ‘scientists’ has raised several concerns about Ato’s conclusions. Critics point to significant methodological issues, including the use of relatively short time series beginning after 1960, which may omit crucial long-term context . Climate scientists being the hypocrites they are, spout that correlation does not equal causation, and that the interdependence of variables like SST, cloud cover, and aerosols complicates any regression analysis. Isn’t that what critics of the ‘greenhouse gas’ effect also argue?

Of course, alarmists wedded to the ‘greenhouse gas’ hypothesis, will always say that even if temperature drives CO₂ release from the oceans, it won’t persuade them to abandon their main argument that carbon dioxide is the climate control knob.

As one analysis noted, “the fact that sea surface temperature precedes specific humidity is consistent with the physics of the water vapor feedback, not necessarily contrary to it” . In established climate physics, it is precisely the initial warming that allows the atmosphere to hold more water vapor, which subsequently amplifies the ‘greenhouse effect .’

Implications and Debate

If Ato is correct, cutting human emissions would not lower atmospheric CO₂, because the oceans ultimately set the pace. This would fundamentally challenge the basis for climate policy . Climate is complicated and requires multiple lines of evidence—including satellite observations, ocean heat content measurements, paleoclimate records, and energy balance studies—but the bottom line is that despite the alarm of massive rises in human emission of CO2 since the rise of the industrial age, global average temperature has risen by a miniscule 1.3 degrees Celsius since 1850.

For now, the government-funded gravy train scientific consensus remains that human CO₂ emissions are the primary driver of recent climate change. Ato’s work is thought-provoking and challenges a deeply-entrenched framework as we await to see what broader scrutiny and replication might bring at a time when trust in establishment climate ‘science’ is at an all time low.

References

1. Ato, D. (2025). Sea surface temperature as the primary driver of atmospheric CO₂ increase: A multiple linear regression analysis 1959–2022. Science of Climate Change, 5(1), 1–18. https://scienceofclimatechange.org/dai-ato-the-sea-surface-temperature-rules/

2. Petit, J. R., Jouzel, J., Raynaud, D., Barkov, N. I., Barnola, J. M., Basile, I., … & Stievenard, M. (1999). Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica. Nature, 399(6735), 429–436. https://doi.org/10.1038/20859

3. Lüthi, D., Le Floch, M., Bereiter, B., Blunier, T., Barnola, J. M., Siegenthaler, U., … & Stocker, T. F. (2008). High-resolution carbon dioxide concentration record 650,000–800,000 years before present. Nature, 453(7193), 379–382. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06949

4. Shakun, J. D., Clark, P. U., He, F., Marcott, S. A., Mix, A. C., Liu, Z., … & Schmittner, A. (2012). Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation. Nature, 484(7392), 49–54. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10915

5. Lorius, C., Jouzel, J., Raynaud, D., Hansen, J., & Le Treut, H. (1990). The ice-core record: Climate sensitivity and future greenhouse warming. Nature, 347(6289), 139–145. https://doi.org/10.1038/347139a0

6. Lacis, A. A., Schmidt, G. A., Rind, D., & Ruedy, R. A. (2010). Atmospheric CO₂: Principal control knob governing Earth’s temperature. Science, 330(6002), 356–359. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1190653

7. Knutti, R., & Hegerl, G. C. (2008). The equilibrium sensitivity of the Earth’s temperature to radiation changes. Nature Geoscience, 1(11), 735–743. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo337

8. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2021). Summary for Policymakers. In V. Masson-Delmotte et al. (Eds.), Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report. Cambridge University Press. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/

9. Friedlingstein, P., O’Sullivan, M., Jones, M. W., Andrew, R. M., Hauck, J., Olsen, A., … & Zaehle, S. (2023). Global carbon budget 2023. Earth System Science Data, 15(12), 5301–5369. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-5301-2023

10. von Schuckmann, K., Cheng, L., Palmer, M. D., Hansen, J., Tassone, C., Aich, V., … & Zemp, M. (2023). Heat stored in the Earth system 1960–2020: Where does the energy go? Earth System Science Data, 15(4), 1675–1709. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-1675-2023

11. Dessler, A. E. (2010). A determination of the cloud feedback from climate variations over the past decade. Science, 330(6010), 1523–1527. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1192546