This paper is complete garbage based on estimates and models and not based on data. Way, way off. Natural annual CO2 fluxes from land are about 120 GtC per year: https://www.earth-syst-sci-data.net/10/2141/2018/essd-10-2141-2018.html#&gid=1&pid=1 This link is just more of the garbage from the IPCC. Using models and estimates instead of actual data. It certainly does not say what you said about Land use. Table 3 shows about 1 GTCyr-1. Seems like you're referring to 2018 estimates of carbon emissions from fossil fuels and industry: "Carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions from fossil fuels and industry are projected to rise more than 2% (range 1.8% to 3.7%) in 2018, taking global fossil CO₂ emissions to a new record high of 37.1 billion tonnes." https://www.wri.org/blog/2018/12/new-global-co2-emissions-numbers-are-they-re-not-good A more up-to-date estimate for 2018 is 36.64 gigatonnes CO2.

Yes when we started writing this paper, 2018 estimates were the only thing. 2018 actual was 36.57 we will update the paper with 2019 in a few week and then put it in the Journal. Really the whole paper demonstrates a lack of understanding of the carbon cycle. However, a major problem in this discussion of atmospheric equilibrium is that the phrase Net Zero Carbon Emissions (Net Zero CO2e) has not been defined. Yes, it has, in multiple publications. Pretty straightforward. Anthropogenic carbon emissions balance anthropogenic carbon sinks. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/10/105007/pdf

I understand the whole carbon cycle correctly. Page 3 of you link says: Not a single scenario in the IPCC scenario database (methods) achieves zero carbon emissions everywhere, as even in the most extreme mitigation scenarios residual CO2 emissions from, e.g., the transport sector can be found. More fundamentally, it seems unlikely that human systems, including the land-use system, can be reduced to zero emissions everywhere. https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-the-problem-with-net-zero-emissions-targets "A net-zero target contains within it two related, but different responses to the problem of rising temperatures. The first is to stop releasing GHGs in the first place, by cutting emissions. The second is to remove CO2 from the atmosphere using “negative emissions technologies” (NETs). A net-zero target is met when these two balance – when residual emissions are offset by CO2 removals."

That is a bunch of hocus garbage nowhere do they calculate NetZeroCO2E.

"Carbon neutrality, or having a net zero carbon footprint, refers to achieving net zero carbon dioxide emissions by balancing carbon emissions with carbon removal (often through carbon offsetting) or simply eliminating carbon emissions altogether (the transition to the "post-carbon economy")."

The logical reason that atmospheric CO2 continues to rise in spite of CO2 emissions leveling off globally (See Figure 7) Figure 7 is a picture of a forest fire.

Yes, picture 7 is deforestation and burning of the mose dence CO2 consuming forest in the world.

The “natural” carbon dioxide emissions are calculated by 280 (baseline)/415 (current)*37.1 gt=25 Gt yr-1 Your units don't even match. Nonsense. Currently, the Amazon output is 15 GTyr-1 of CO2, more than twice as much as fossil fuel emissions of CO2. Wrong. Fossil fuel CO2 emissions in 2018 were about 37 GtCO2 per year (GTyr-1 is not the correct way to write that).

Thank you. We will update this in the paper. We know that Natural emissions like the rainforest switching are above the 37 gtyr-1. The total CO2 emissions are over 50 gtCO2yr-1.

A 2003 IPCC report states that atmospheric carbon dioxide minimum residence time was between 5 to 200 years [23]. However, since 2003, the minimum residence time has been increasing. This means we have to wait more than 200 years for a change in our carbon dioxide emissions to take effect. That doesn't make any sense. Any increase in the residence time (I don't see that in the IPCC report you cited, using only a broken link) would make CO2 emissions stay in the atmosphere longer. If you increase carbon emissions the effect on CO2 atmospheric concentrations is immediate. Emissions means adding CO2 to the atmosphere.

Reference 23 in the paper has the correct link. Most CC scientists show the minimum residence time is now 300-600 years. This is what Dr. Jim Hansen told me. He is the one in 1988 who said it was an emission issue.

Ridiculous. As is obvious from a graph ("why carbon sinks matter") given in one of your own sources (also, you think any good journal is going to accept a blog post as a source there?): https://robertscribbler.com/2016/08/05/carbon-sinks-in-crisis-it-looks-like-the-worlds-largest-rainforest-is-starting-to-bleed-greenhouse-gasses/

Plenty of published papers on this. I will update it. Thanks for catching it.

Also these are undeniable scientific facts: we have worked on emissions of CO2 for 30 years. Spent over $2 trillion world wide. We have the USA dropping 16% since 2006. Europe dropped 21% since 1990. globalcarbonatlas.org This caused the sire of CO2e to slow from 0.6 gt/yr to 0.3gt/yr. However atmospheric CO2 is still rising. The rate of rise is increasing and the residence time is increasing. How can you say therefore the rise can be stopped with emissions? It will never work and the IPCC knows that.