by Edwin Berry, PhD, CCM
By private email, a good physicist commented on my preprint, “Why human CO2 does not change climate.” Even if you are not a scientist, I think you will understand my reply.
Thank you for your email.
First, to answer your questions. You asked,
- Do you consider the clearing of forests in Europe, North America, and the Amazon a natural and not a man-made phenomenon?
- Are you saying that the industrial revolution was just happened to coincide in time and magnitude to the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but there is some other, unidentified geochemical phenomenon that is responsible?
I use the same definitions as the IPCC. The IPCC defines the difference between natural and human emissions of carbon dioxide.
Yes, I consider the build-up of carbon dioxide to be coincidental with the industrial revolution. Proper science does not allow us to assume a seeming correlation proves a cause-effect relationship.
Unfortunately for the IPCC case, Munshi, whom I reference, has done a statistical analysis that proves the correlation between the annual increases in carbon dioxide and annual human emissions is zero. Therefore, the increase in human emissions during the industrial revolution cannot be the cause of the increase in carbon dioxide.
- I do not see that your preprint offers a convincing alternative explanation for the rapid build up to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere since 1750.
The fact is, I do not need to provide a convincing alternative to prove the IPCC hypothesis is wrong. We can prove a theory wrong without providing an alternative explanation.
Separate from introducing my model, I prove the IPCC hypothesis is wrong by showing its physics is wrong and its predictions are wrong. Case closed. The only way to save the IPCC hypothesis, is to show my proof is wrong. No one has done this.
You suggest my hypothesis is wrong because I do not include a level for the oceans and the Revelle effect.
I claim you miss the point. For the Revelle effect to save the IPCC hypothesis, you must prove the Revelle effect treats human-produced carbon dioxide differently than it treats natural-produced carbon dioxide, in the manner claimed by the IPCC.
Do you wish to claim the Revell effect treats carbon dioxide from the two different sources differently?
I don’t think you do.
The Revelle effect must treat carbon dioxide from the two sources equally because it can’t tell the difference between carbon dioxide from either source.
The IPCC errors when it says nature treats carbon dioxide from the two sources differently. I have proved this IPCC claim is unphysical and impossible.
Further, both the IPCC model and my model include the Revelle effect.
You object to my use of partial pressure. However, no matter what numbers you may wish to insert for the Revelle effect, the flow to the oceans will continue to be proportional to the partial pressure of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
The Revelle effect can modify the proportionality constant in net flow of carbon dioxide from atmosphere to oceans. However, that effect is included in the residence time.
Since my model and the IPCC agree the residence time is about 4 years, then I and the IPCC have treated the Revelle effect the same. So, the Revelle effect cannot be an issue with my hypothesis or model.
While I cannot prove my model is correct, because no one can prove any hypothesis is correct, no one yet has proved my model is wrong. But I have proved the IPCC hypothesis is wrong, and no one has shown my proof is wrong.
The IPCC claim, that nature treats human and natural carbon dioxide differently, is the basis of its climate models. Therefore, its models and its resulting climate claims are scientifically wrong.
Thank you for this interesting discussion.
by Dr. Ed Berry
Fifty-two years ago, in January 1966, I and 3 other explorers flew our Beechcraft C-45 through Old Faithful Geyser and other geyser plumes in Yellowstone National Park, USA.
We didn’t have go-pro’s or other digital camera’s in those days. But we did have a time-lapse 16-mm camera in the nose of the Beech.
The movie film lay languished for 52 years until my son, Kim, recently put digitized versions of our time-lapse movies into a 12 minute video.
These flights were paid for by the US Bureau of Reclamation on a contract with the University of Nevada Desert Research Institute (DRI).
After I graduated with my PhD in physics in 1965, DRI make me chief scientist of its airborne research facility. We mounted then state-of-the-art atmospheric sampling instruments on the Beechcraft. We flew into Sierra Nevada winter storms, summer storms, and wave clouds to collect data.
by Edwin Berry, PhD
The big misconception
The whole global-warming/climate-change fraud is built upon one big misconception, namely, that our carbon dioxide emissions continue to add to atmospheric carbon dioxide. The IPCC and other climate alarm groups merely “assume” their claim is true.
Yes, the IPCC has arguments to support its hypothesis, but all its arguments fail the scientific method. Their arguments violate the Equivalence Principle of physics and make outrageous, incorrect predictions. Therefore, the alarmists have no existing argument to support their most basic claim. If we follow physics, their game is over.
On the flip side, I have proposed a model hypothesis that shows a completely different view of how human and natural emissions contribute to the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide. My model accurately predicts the carbon-14 data. The IPCC model does not. My model makes no known incorrect predictions.
My model is independent of, but fully compatible with, the hypothesis that the rate of change of carbon dioxide is proportional to temperature. In fact, my method identifies the constants in this proportionality.
In keeping with the scientific method, I cannot prove my model hypothesis is true. However, it is now the ONLY existing hypothesis on this subject that has not been proven to be wrong. [Read more…]
This post is written for the public. To read my preprint that explains the physics of this post, please see “Why human CO2 does not change climate.” – Ed
by Dr. Edwin Berry
Al Gore framed the climate debate. He said, human carbon dioxide emissions increase atmospheric carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gases traps heat like a blanket that keeps you warm at night. It was that simple, he told us.
People believe big Al’s story. Simplicity sells. But simple is not always correct. A whole lot of people who don’t care about correct, push for laws to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. They are the “climate alarmists.” They think they are saving the planet.
Since they think Al Gore’s basic claims are correct, the alarmists focus on possible consequences of global warming. They believe that finding consequence proves we must stop carbon dioxide emissions. But the climate debate is not about consequences because consequences do not prove their cause.
The critical questions about climate are about cause-and-effect:
- How much do human emissions increase atmospheric carbon dioxide?
- How much does increased atmospheric carbon dioxide change climate?
In a climate debate, the alarmists must prove the answers to BOTH questions are “significant.” If they miss on only one question, they still lose the debate. They have the burden of proof.
by Edwin Berry, PhD, CCM
I submitted this preprint to an Elsevier journal on September 29, 2017. Therefore, the present copyright does not allow republication or reposting. If Elsevier accepts my preprint, I will pay the Open Access fee and post the Elsevier publication identifier here. At that time, the copyright will change to allow use as described at the end of this post.
This preprint represents my climate research over the past year and is a significant improvement over my previous post “Why our CO2 emissions do not increase Atmosphere CO2.”
I believe this preprint proves the IPCC hypothesis is wrong. Several good physicists have studied this preprint and approved it. No one has shown it is wrong.
Therefore, for the good of science, this preprint should to be published so the larger scientific community can decide whether it is right or wrong. – Ed
Red text indicates edits I made since posting this preprint. Updates: December 25, 2017. January 4, 2018, Section 2.5, Eq. (6) after Eq. (19). January 17, 2018, Sections 2.5, 2.6.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims human emissions raised the carbon dioxide level from 280 ppm to 410 ppm, or 130 ppm. Physics proves this claim is impossible.
The IPCC agrees today’s annual human carbon dioxide emissions are 4.5 ppm per year and nature’s carbon dioxide emissions are 98 ppm per year. Yet, the IPCC claims human emissions have caused all the increase in carbon dioxide since 1750, which is 30 percent.
How can human carbon dioxide, which is only 5 percent of natural carbon dioxide, add 30 percent to the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide? It can’t.
This paper derives a Model that shows how human and natural carbon dioxide emissions independently change the equilibrium level of atmospheric carbon dioxide. This Model should replace the IPCC’s invalid Bern model.
The Model shows the ratio of human to natural carbon dioxide in the atmosphere equals the ratio of their inflows, independent of residence time.
The model shows, contrary to IPCC claims, that human emissions do not continually add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, but rather cause a flow of carbon dioxide through the atmosphere. The flow adds a constant equilibrium level, not a continuing increasing level, of carbon dioxide.
Present human emissions add an equilibrium level of 18 ppm, which is the product of human carbon dioxide inflow of 4.5 ppm per year multiplied by the carbon dioxide residence time of 4 years. Present natural emissions add an equilibrium level of 392 ppm, to get today’s 410 ppm.
If human emissions continue as at present, these emissions will add no additional carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. If all human emissions were stopped, and nature stayed constant, it would remove only 18 ppm. The natural level of 392 ppm would remain. [Read more…]
by Edwin Berry, PhD, CCM (Certified Consulting Meteorologist)
Below is the Abstract for my forthcoming professional paper.
Yesterday, I submitted this Abstract to the American Meteorological Society for presentation at its “31st Conference on Climate Variability and Change.”
I hope to have my complete paper ready for publication in a few more weeks. My thanks to all who have helped me in this endeavor by reviewing my drafts.
After debating climate alarmists for many years, I have concluded the only way to win a climate debate (note I did not say “convert the believer”) is to clearly negate the alarmist hypothesis. Otherwise, a climate debate can go on for years and accomplish nothing.
I think the focus of this Abstract on its point #1, may be the simplest and best way to negate the alarmist hypothesis. While this Abstract is necessarily in scientific language, this argument can easily be put into layman’s language.
The critical questions about climate change are not about whether climate has changed or the impacts of climate change. The critical questions about climate change are about cause-and-effect:
- How much does human-emitted carbon dioxide increase atmospheric carbon dioxide?
- How much does increased atmospheric carbon dioxide change climate?
This paper focuses on the first question. [Read more…]
Partick Moore began this public discussion with a email group on April 22. We have moved our email discussion to this post. We show the previous emails in chronological order through April 30. Now anyone interested can post comments to continue the discussion. – Ed
April 22, 2017
Patrick Moore wrote:
I am sorry to see this fraudulent argument continuing. Humans are responsible for most of the CO2 increase since large-scale use of fossil fuel began. Until then CO2 had been slowly declining for 140 million years, from 2,000-2,500 ppm down to 180 ppm at the height if the last glaciation 18,000 yrs ago. Since then it had rebounded to 280 ppm due to outgassing from the oceans as they warmed into the Holocene interglacial. In a bit more than 100 years human emissions have bumped it back up to 400+ ppm, restoring a balance the the global carbon cycle.
The error (falsehood) in Salsby et al’s position is that the CO from burning fossil fuels is an addition to the carbon in the carbon cycle. The annual cycling of carbon from plants growing in the spring to dying in the fall is already in the cycle. This is like confusing a balance sheet (the carbon already in the cycle) with a cash flow statement (profit and loss from the balance). The additional carbon added each year from fossil fuels represent a profit and therefore an increase in the balance. Calculated in this way the vast majority of new carbon going into the atmosphere as CO2 is from fossil fuel combustion and cement production, with other minor components. Very little new CO2 is added from natural sources. The US Geological Survey estimates that volcanic activity adds less than 1% of human emissions.
There are two things wrong with this mistake. First it is patently false, second it kind of admits that if humans were responsible it would be a bad thing. Human CO2 emissions are entirely beneficial and in fact have saved life on Earth from any untimely demise due to declining CO2 which would eventually have dropped to levels that were below the threshold for plant survival.
April 24, 2017
Edwin Berry wrote:
It is one thing to have an opinion about a subject in science. All good scientists have opinions and are willing to participate in discussions that may show their opinions are wrong.
It is quite another thing to call scientific arguments you disagree with, “fraudulent.” Especially when you have not presented a credible scientific argument to show you are correct and those whom you call “fraudulent” are wrong. [Read more…]
by Edwin Berry, PhD, Atmospheric Physics, also published in NewsWithViews
Over 4000 people, including hundreds of scientists, read my article “Why our CO2 emissions do not increase Atmosphere CO2“. As I write this, there are 126 comments.
One well-respected scientist wrote to me:
Your article is (in my opinion) the BEST commentary yet that I’ve seen on this topic. I cannot see any way to shorten it. Your analogies are fantastic.
This article brings the (atmospheric physicist) scientific level of understanding down to the level of a 6th-grade education.
Just science, facts. No politics, no hysteria, and no hype. I love it.
I appreciate that comment because that is my writing goal. However, I have a scientific goal as well. That is to prove the arguments to support alarmist Claim #1, namely, that “Human CO2 emissions caused all or most of the observed rise in atmospheric CO2,” are wrong. [Read more…]