The true science of climate change
By Ed Berry
True experts are important. If German physicist Werner von Braun had not come to America after WWII, America would not have built the rockets that sent our astronauts to the Moon. Sometimes, a goal is reached because of only one person.
Below are selections of scientific publications and statements that summarize what we know about climate change. This selection does not include hundreds of good authors and their scientific papers that support the same conclusions as in this summary.
The authors below prove IPCC’s climate claims are false. According to the scientific method, these papers override all papers that claim human CO2 changes the climate.
To expand your knowledge about this climate truth issue, you would do well to read Brian Sussman’s book, Climate Cult, which reveals how the dark side controls what you think you know about climate science. And my book, Climate Miracle, which includes what one reviewer wrote is the best explanation of the scientific method.
Harold Lewis, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, wrote in his resignation letter to the American Physical Society, on October 8, 2010,
IPCC’s climate theory “is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.”
Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller (2024)
The sun’s Total Solar Irradiance and albedo (Earth’s reflection of sunlight) fully explain all observed global warming since 1999. Albedo changes are by far the dominant driver of the Earth’s global temperature. There is no evidence that human carbon dioxide emissions or changes in the carbon dioxide level affect the Earth’s global temperature.
Chuck Wiese, Meteorologist (2023):
Change in the Earth’s reflectivity (albedo) explains all temperature increase since 1984. The increased CO2 level has no effect on temperature.
Howard “Cork” Hayden (2023):
IPCC’s calculation for the temperature increase caused by doubling CO2 is 4.5 times greater than properly calculated by the Stephan-Boltzman radiation law. The IPCC does not even use the Stephan-Boltzman radiation law.
Humlum et al. (2012) and Koutsoyiannis et al. (2023):
CO2 changes follow temperature changes with a delay of about 12 months. Therefore, temperature change causes CO2 changes, not vice versa. (Since temperature does not control human carbon emissions, this means natural carbon dominates the CO2 level. – EXB)
Ferenc Miskolczi, Foreign Associate Member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (2023):
Global mean cloud cover, which controls the Earth’s albedo, fully explains the observed mean surface temperature.
John Clauser, 2022 Physics Nobel Prize Winner (2024):
As much as it may upset many people, my message is the planet is NOT in peril. … atmospheric CO2 and methane have negligible effect on the climate. The policies the government has been implementing are unnecessary and should be eliminated.
The IPCC has misidentified the dominant process that controls the climate. Its models are based on incomplete and incorrect physics.
The dominant climate process is cloud coverage over the oceans. When cloud cover decreases, sunlight evaporates more water that causes more clouds that in turn cool the Earth, and vice-versa.
I can very confidently assert, there is NO climate emergency.
Edwin X Berry (2018, 2019, 2021, 2023):
Get over it. You are not causing global warming. Human-caused climate change is a mass delusion.
The climate myth assumes human CO2 sticks in the atmosphere like garbage in a garbage dump. The truth is CO2 flows through the atmosphere as water flows into a lake and out over a dam.
The faster the inflow, the higher the level. The higher the level, the faster the outflow. The level will rise or fall until outflow equals inflow. That level is the balance level set by the inflow.
Once you understand this simple physics, you will understand why human CO2 has little effect on the CO2 level.
The IPCC assumes, not proves, that human CO2 emissions have caused ALL the increase in atmospheric CO2 above 280 ppm.
IPCC’s own data and the Climate Equivalence Principle prove this IPCC assumption is false. Human CO2 emissions have an insignificant effect on the natural CO2 level. Stopping all human CO2 emissions will not significantly decrease the CO2 level.
Carbon-14 data show human carbon emissions have no significant effect on the CO2 level. Nature, not human emissions, controls the CO2 level.
Richard Courtney (2021, 2024):
Berry’s work is a breakthrough in understanding which I and all others failed to make. It indicates that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 contribute a negligible proportion of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration (2021).
Berry’s analysis is the only breakthrough in climate science in the last four decades (2023, 2024).
Richard Courtney died on September 30, 2024, the day before his 78th birthday.
The world needs more electrical energy.
Donald Trump proposes to double America’s generation of electric energy to support the needs of America’s companies that need this energy to power our future. This is not only an economic need. It is also a national defense need. If America falls behind in producing abundant, low-cost electrical energy, America will also fall behind in national defense.
This expansion of energy production will be powered primarily by natural gas until new developments in nuclear energy come online.
Climate fiction opposes our energy needs
Climate alarmists in Congress will oppose America’s plan to increase its energy production because it will be powered primarily by natural gas.
It’s time to get rid of climate alarmists. Dunk their heads into a bucket of reality. Indoctrinate them into the world of true science.
America cannot survive with climate delusion in a competitive world. Republicans are just as much to blame for America’s climate delusion as the Democrats. Republicans, as a group, believe in climate fiction as much as the Democrats do.
Republicans deny climate truth and refuse to even discuss climate truth with climate experts. They are wimps who do not have the courage to learn and stand up for the truth that would make us free.
Republicans are responsible for Montana’s disastrous loss of the Held v Montana climate lawsuit in 2023. The Republican party boss forced AG Knudsen to purposely lose HvM. We could have easily defeated HvM and saved the world from the costs of climate fiction. More on this later.
The bottom line is we must eliminate climate fiction if we are to be free to quickly expand America’s electrical energy production.
Climate fiction is destroying our economy
The scientific debate is over. There is no scientific basis for the government to regulate or try to control carbon emissions.
It is time for our elected officials, Republican as well as Democrat, to accept that human carbon emissions do not change the climate.
Climate fiction costs America more than America pays for its national defense. Many of these costs are hidden in climate laws, regulations, tax incentives, carbon footprint regulations, and foot-dragging that stalls good economic decisions.
If Congress stopped its climate alarmism, we could eliminate America’s annual deficit. We could revive America’s economy, reduce or eliminate income taxes, and add true wealth to America. We could strengthen the US dollar, which is critical to America’s survival.
America must remove all green energy incentives and let businesspeople, investors, engineers, and scientists make decisions without the illusion of climate change.
Congress must remove climate illusions from the economic playing field. Congress must not make business decisions because, as a group, they are not experts in making or micro-managing business decisions.
Let the businesspeople, not Congress, decide where green energy is more economical than natural gas, coal, or nuclear.
As a group, Congress does not represent America’s smartest people.
Carbon Capture is irrational.
A back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that capturing all annual human CO2 emissions would cost America more than its annual budget. Yet, Republicans support carbon capture.
Even if we could capture all human CO2 emissions, we would accomplish nothing because natural CO2 emissions control the CO2 level. Stopping all human CO2 emissions will not lower the CO2 level to 350 ppm, which alarmists claim is necessary to save the world.
At a fraction of carbon capture cost, we could educate Congress and Americans about the truth of climate change. The truth is the only way to solve the climate delusion.
Our food supply depends on atmospheric CO2. We need more CO2, not less CO2. Stuffing CO2 underground is like stuffing our food underground.
Population is not responsible for the CO2 increase.
Bill Gates is supposed to be smart. He is smart in business and technology. But he does not understand atmospheric physics. He is as dangerous as the proverbial evil trillionaire in the James Bond movies.
Bill Gates’ combination of unlimited money with insanity is dangerous to life on Earth.
Bill Gates believes he must reduce the human population so his kids can enjoy a world where the CO2 level stays at 350 ppm.
Bill Gates believes he must create vaccines to lower the human population.
Bill Gates believes he must insert something into the Earth’s upper atmosphere that reflects the sun’s energy. He is insane.
Sunlight is the energy source that supports life on Earth. Sunlight is also the essential low entropy source we need to support human life. The Earth manages the amount of sunlight we need. Don’t let Bill Gates play God with mother nature.
Climate fiction is destroying our freedom
Our greatest enemy is not each other. The battle between Rs and Ds is a distraction.
Our greatest enemy is the World Economic Forum (WEF), deep state, Bill Gates, and other rich dudes who are working hard to control America and make us slaves who will “own nothing, go nowhere, eat insects, and be happy” by 2030.
WEF wants to own the world. They are rich. They are organized.
They believe making us slaves is the only way to save the planet.
Bill Gates is buying up US farmland so he can reduce our future food supply.
If we were smart, we would fight our common enemy, not each other.
Do you know the best way to stop WEF?
The best way to stop WEF and save our freedom is to spread the word about climate truth.
Organize meetings. Invite climate experts to speak or even debate climate alarmists.
Write articles for publication. Tell your friends.
WEF’s plan requires the acceptance of climate fiction.
WEF needs dummies in government who will pass laws and regulations based on climate fiction.
WEF needs the climate laws to provide a legal way to control the people.
WEF needs a dumbed down population that believes in climate fiction to accept a degraded lifestyle, socialism, and a world government to “save the planet.”
WEF needs to stuff people’s brains with climate fiction to make them accept slavery and WEF control.
An expose of stuffed brains was on display in the Held v Montana climate lawsuit. Unfortunate brainwashed kids testified they are victims of dangerous climate change caused by human CO2 emissions. Their indoctrination was successful.
WEF needs Republican traitors and party bosses to help WEF win climate lawsuits. WEF won Held v Montana in 2023 because Republican traitors helped them win.
WEF needs Republican Party bosses and attorney generals to censor climate experts who would prove in court that the claimed scientific basis of these lawsuits is imaginary.
WEF needs dumbed down voters to reelect WEF Republicans to assure WEF controls America during the next six years. They may have accomplished this in Montana.
I understand and agree with your arguments, especially the fact that the GOP has miserably failed to persuasively take on the climate alarmists. I especially like the list of “climate deniers” that you included. Many reputable physicists see through the propaganda.
I have published a 30-page article in Capitalism Magazine that takes a different approach to the task of countering the propaganda about global warming and climate change: Fossil Energy vs. Green Energy Why replacing fossil energy with green energy cannot stop global warming and why it will wreck the US economy.
Read it online at https://www.capitalismmagazine.com/2024/08/fossil-energy-vs-green-energy/.
The GHE is overstated by 100 to 1. That’s right: GHGs only re-radiate 1% of the thermal energy they absorb because they are the energy source of warming the 99% non-GHGs at each altitude. This is called Local Thermal Equilibrium and it’s textbook thermodynamics. Well if the 1% GHGs have to bring the 99% non-GHGs at each altitude to equal thermal energy (which can only happen via collisions, or conduction) that leaves only 1% to radiate. Q.E.D.
The GHE is overstated by 100 to 1. That’s right: GHGs only re-radiate 1% of the thermal energy they absorb because they are the energy source of warming the 99% non-GHGs at each altitude. This is called Local Thermal Equilibrium and it’s textbook thermodynamics. Well if the 1% GHGs have to bring the 99% non-GHGs at each altitude to equal thermal energy (which can only happen via collisions, or conduction) that leaves only 1% to radiate. Q.E.D.
I appreciate what you are doing and agree with you 100%. If Donald Trump is elected, he will fight against the Climate Change scam. I will buy and read your book.
Great post. dr Ed! I fully agree with you. The problem is that the so-called climate crisis has become a religion and religion cannot be debated with logical arguments. We are stuck with this until nature decides it is enough and we slip into the next ice age. Only then – but too late – people will realise they’ve been duped all along. Unfortunately, by that time we will no longer have the necessary defenses needed to keep us alive. I am glad I won’t be around by then.
“Energy does not and cannot spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient. “Backradiation” is an unscientific fiction, therefore the entirety of CAGW is nothing more than a complex mathematical scam.” – LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
https://www.patriotaction.us/showthread.php?tid=2711
Absolute proof that CAGW describes a physical process which is physically impossible.
The climatologists cling (knowingly or unknowingly… if knowingly, they are charlatans; if unknowingly, they are scientifically incompetent) to the fallacious concept that radiative energy can spontaneously flow willy-nilly without regard to the energy density gradient. This is a result of the long-debunked Prevost Principle, core tenet of Prevost’s Theory Of Exchanges from 1791, which was based upon Caloric Theory, and which postulated that an object’s absolute temperature was the only determinant of radiant exitance, therefore all objects with temperature greater than 0 K emit, therefore that energy spontaneously flows willy-nilly without regard to the energy density gradient, even spontaneously flowing at thermodynamic equilibrium when energy density gradient is zero (ie: dual-directional energy flow), and even spontaneously flowing up an energy density gradient (ie: from cooler to warmer).
That would be true if the universe consisted of nothing but idealized blackbody objects. Alas for the climatologists, idealized blackbody objects don’t actually exist… they’re idealizations. The closest we can come is laboratory blackbodies which exhibit high absorptivity and emissivity in certain wavebands, but even they are not idealized blackbodies. They have thermal capacity. Idealized blackbodies can have no thermal capacity (an idealized blackbody object must absorb all radiation incident upon it, and must emit all radiation it absorbs). That’s why cavity theory for idealized blackbodies comes with the precondition that all energy is in the radiation field in the cavity space, and none in the walls.
Thus the climatologists treat all objects as though they’re idealized blackbody objects via the idealized blackbody object form of the S-B equation (q = σ T^4) in their Energy Balance Climate Models (EBCMs). That assumes emission to 0 K, and emissivity = 1.
There are two forms of the S-B equation:
https://i.imgur.com/QErszYW.gif
[1] Idealized Blackbody Object form (assumes emission to 0 K and ε = 1 by definition):
q_bb = ε σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4)
= 1 σ (T_h^4 – 0 K)
= σ T^4
[2] Graybody Object form (assumes emission to > 0 K and ε < 1):
q_gb = ε σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4)
Climatologists misuse the S-B equation in their EBCMs, using the idealized blackbody form of the equation upon real-world graybody objects. This essentially isolates each object into its own system so objects cannot interact via the ambient EM field, it assumes emission to 0 K, and it thus artificially inflates radiant exitance of all calculated-upon objects. Thus the climatologists must carry these incorrect values through their calculations and cancel them on the back end to get their equation to balance, subtracting a wholly-fictive 'cooler to warmer' energy flow from the real (but too high because it was calculated for emission to 0 K) 'warmer to cooler' energy flow.
That wholly-fictive 'cooler to warmer' energy flow is otherwise known as 'backradiation'. It is nothing more than a mathematical artifact due to the misuse of the S-B equation. It does not and cannot exist. Its existence would imply rampant violations of the fundamental physical laws (energy spontaneously flowing up an energy density gradient in violation of 2LoT).
The S-B equation for graybody objects isn't meant to be used by subtracting a wholly-fictive 'cooler to warmer' energy flow from the real (but too high because it was calculated for emission to 0 K) 'warmer to cooler' energy flow, it's meant to be used by subtracting cooler object energy density from warmer object energy density to arrive at the energy density gradient, which determines radiant exitance of the warmer object. This is true even for the traditional form of the S-B equation, because temperature is a measure of radiation energy density, per Stefan's Law.
Temperature (T) is equal to the fourth root of radiation energy density (e) divided by Stefan's Constant (a) (ie: the radiation constant), per Stefan's Law.
e = T^4 a
a = 4σ/c
e = T^4 4σ/c
T^4 = e/(4σ/c)
T = 4^√(e/(4σ/c))
T = 4^√(e/a)
where:
a = 4σ/c = 7.5657332500339284719430800357226e-16 J m-3 K-4
where:
σ = (2 π^5 k_B^4) / (15 h^3 c^2) = 5.6703744191844294539709967318892308758401229702913e-8 W m-2 K-4
where:
σ = Stefan-Boltzmann Constant
k_B = Boltzmann Constant (1.380649e−23 J K−1)
h = Planck Constant (6.62607015e−34 J Hz−1)
c = light speed (299792458 m sec-1)
σ / a = 74948114.502437694376419756266673 W J-1 m (W m-2 / J m-3)
————————-
The traditional Stefan-Boltzmann equation for graybody objects:
q = ε_h σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4)
[1] ∴ q = ε_h σ ((e_h / (4σ / c)) – (e_c / (4σ / c)))
Canceling units, we get J sec-1 m-2, which is W m-2 (1 J sec-1 = 1 W).
W m-2 = W m-2 K-4 * (Δ(J m-3 / (W m-2 K-4 / m sec-1)))
[2] ∴ q = (ε_h c (e_h – e_c)) / 4
Canceling units, we get J sec-1 m-2, which is W m-2 (1 J sec-1 = 1 W).
W m-2 = (m sec-1 (ΔJ m-3)) / 4
[3] ∴ q = (ε_h * (σ / a) * Δe)
Canceling units, we get W m-2.
W m-2 = ((W m-2 K-4 / J m-3 K-4) * ΔJ m-3)
One can see from the immediately-above equation that the Stefan-Boltzmann (S-B) equation for graybody objects is all about subtracting the energy density of the cooler object from the energy density of the warmer object.
The Stefan-Boltzmann equation in energy density form ([3] above):
σ / a * Δe * ε_h = W m-2
σ / a = 5.6703744191844294539709967318892308758401229702913e-8 W m-2 K-4 / 7.5657332500339284719430800357226e-16 J m-3 K-4 = 74948114.502437694376419756266673 W m-2 / J m-3.
Well, what do you know… that's the conversion factor for radiant exitance (W m-2) and energy density (J m-3)!
It's almost as if the radiant exitance of graybody objects is determined by the energy density gradient, right?
Energy can't even spontaneously flow when there is zero energy density gradient:
σ [W m-2 K-4] / a [J m-3 K-4] * Δe [J m-3] * ε_h = [W m-2]
σ [W m-2 K-4] / a [J m-3 K-4] * 0 [J m-3] * ε_h = 0 [W m-2]
Or in the traditional form of the S-B equation:
q = ε_h σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4)
q = ε_h σ (0) = 0 W m-2
… it is certainly not going to spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient.
Thus, "backradiation" is fictional. Thus everything predicated upon "backradiation" is fictional. And all of CAGW is predicated upon "backradiation"… the 33 K temperature gradient that they've swiped from the adiabatic lapse rate, the 288 surface temperature that they've swiped from the adiabatic lapse rate, and all of the offshoots of CAGW (global warming potential, carbon footprint, carbon credit trading, carbon capture and sequestration, net zero, degrowth, replacing reliable baseload electrical generation with intermittent renewables, forcing EVs upon the populace, etc.).
It's time to tear it all down and throw it all on the midden heap of debunked scientific principles. It's time to prosecute those shilling for this outright scam, for promulgating alarmism and economic destruction in order to fraudulently obtain multiple billions of dollars of taxpayer funding.
Mr. Berry,
I want to thank you for posting all these names and statements. I’m a young senior and have never fully bought into the climate hoax although I look for truth constantly. There is scant information to find on the internet other than the liars pushing the false agenda. I bumped into your site quite by accident and you’ve allowed me to completely confirm my suspicions and I’m grateful. Looking forward to hearing more from you and spreading the truth.