1. Hi Ed, awesome work there. I wonder when the IPCC will include your work in one of their reports? Oh yeah, that would result in a few job losses. Oh well we can only hope!

  2. I have always wondered why the carbon cycle seems to be ignored. As a scientist myself this has always bewildered me. Their assumption seemed to me that all the CO2 that goes into the atmosphere in terms of human emissions stays there. It doesn’t, it reaches a steady state or homeostasis with the other reservoirs as you mentioned. Thanks, that was a good read.

  3. Ed,
    You are wrong again.
    The correct answer to your Question 1: There is no difficulty in the surface ocean having negligible capacity while passing carbon between the atmosphere and the deep ocean. Imagine two 10,000 gallon drums connected by a short narrow pipe. The pipe is a conduit whose tiny capacity is irrelevant.
    On Question 2 I pointed out your error before. The minus sign in the land carbon simply says that carbon in the land reservoir has decreased during the Industrial Age.
    Maybe you should try to understand the IPCC literature before trashing it.
    And, for the tenth time, how is carbon balanced in your, obviously wrong, model? Hint: it is not.

    1. Dear Dave,

      Sorry, Dave, you are wrong again.

      1. The flow out of the surface ocean is proportional to its level. When the level is zero, the outflow is zero. No carbon gets to the deep ocean without adding carbon to the surface ocean. Simple physics, Dave.

      2A. The IPCC claims to show the complete carbon cycle in Figure 6.1. You claim the IPCC hid some numbers from Figure 6.1. IPCC should never hide numbers that are essential to the human carbon cycle. The IPCC reports are not peer-reviewed literature. You have not been able to support your claim with data from the IPCC report. So, sorry, you are wrong.

      2B. If you understand physics, you will understand that the human carbon cycle must stand on its own as the natural carbon cycle must stand on its own. Therefore, there is no way the addition of human carbon to the atmosphere can subtract carbon from the land. Impossible. Therefore, the IPCC errored in its calculation of the human carbon cycle.

      Dave, if you cannot understand that my calculations of the carbon cycle for natural carbon and independently for human carbon conserve carbon, then you do not understand simple physics. Maybe you are over the hill or something.

      You can see the total carbon column in my Tables. And, if you are capable, you can follow my year-to-year calculations in my Excel file.

      You just make a claim – like you always do – without providing a physics and math argument to support your claim. That provides no basis for a discussion. In my day, the faculty would have flunked you out of graduate school.

      1. Ed
        Suppose for one analysis we define the Surface Ocean as the top meter of water. Suppose for another analysis we define the Surface Ocean as the top two meters of water. The carbon content in the second analysis will be about twice as large as the first. Does your “simple physics “ model say the flows to the deep ocean have now doubled? I guess I am senile but that doesn’t sound right to me.

        Another question: you conclude that the deep ocean has been the main sink of carbon humans have put in atmosphere. Harde concludes that the ocean is the main source of the increased carbon in the atmosphere. The IPCC agrees with you that carbon in the ocean has increased. Where did Harde go wrong?

        Just wondering

        1. Dear Dave,

          I use the IPCC definitions of land, atmosphere, surface ocean, and deep ocean. Then the Physics model shows how it can reproduce the IPCC’s values for natural carbon. No model can exactly represent nature but the Physics model does what IPCC has been unable to do. It shows the use of hypothesis (2) is all that is needed to simulate IPCC’s natural values.

          I conclude the deep ocean is a major sink for human carbon because IPCC says it is a major sink for natural carbon. Nature must treat human carbon exactly like it treats natural carbon. IPCC did not follow this rule and that is the principal reason the IPCC errored in its calculation for human carbon.

          Harde and I conclude the ocean and land add carbon to the carbon cycle when the surface temperature warms, like warming out of the Little Ice Age. This does not conflict with my calculations of the carbon cycle because cycling carbon and adding carbon are two independent processes. Their results add up.

    2. David, l don’t see any issue with one’s right to an opinion, however your divisive comments do nothing to help the cause you support. Tolerance of others opinions has been seriously lacking in this unnecessarily long winded CO2 debate, the consequence of which has caused many of us lay people to consider the UN’s IPCC and it’s supporters impetuous, and supportive of cultish anti science behaviours!

      1. Von Thurman,
        It is not my intent to be divisive. I know that hurling insults is no way to persuade. If I have occasionally shown frustration in posts, I apologize. ( I do get irritated when Ed describes his model as “physics” , having earned a PhD in physics from Cornell 47 years ago, and worked in research, high tech manufacturing, and education before retiring.)

        It is my intent to be instructive. Most of my scientific colleagues have given up commenting on error filled analyses such as Ed’s. But I fear leaving falsehoods unchallenged allows lay people such as yourself the luxury of wishful thinking and inaction on alarming, though probably not existential threats. Scientists challenge each other all the time and expect to be held to high standards of evidence and analysis. Though this blog is not a scientific journal, it does have some (I don’t know how much) influence on public opinion and I will continue to hold it to minimal standards.


        1. Dear Dave,

          You are certainly welcome to present your opinions on climate physics here.

          In fact, your comments help prove there is no rational basis to claim human CO2 emissions are a threat to the planet.

  4. Very nice read. I also like Ben Davidson’s reasoning of how the fundamental calculations and modelling of Climate Science are flawed leading to all other subsequent errors in the models. Just another point here, if carbon stores heat but only for , what…0.001 of a second? How can it be said to influence atmospheric or oceanic warming?

    1. CO2 in the upper atmosphere doesn’t store heat itself. It reflects a fraction downward, so that temperatures have to rise in order that outgoing radiation balance incoming solar radiation.

        1. Kybelole: The fact that the atmosphere obeys the Gas law – which is all that the Connolly’s demonstration that the graph of n/V=P/RT is a straight line shows – should surprise no-one. It has no bearing on whether the “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere are indeed acting as greenhouse gases.
          As far as I am aware, the various videos attempting to explain this situation, with the “help” of Christopher Monckton, have now been withdrawn – though they may have re-appeared somewhere.

      1. Dear David, your comment shows you do not understand climate physics. CO2 in the atmosphere does not “reflect” heat downward.
        I realize you are responding to Weena’s comment but the discussion of the effect of atmospheric CO2 on heating the earth is a separate subject that is much too complicated to address in comments on this post. Let’s wait for a post that addresses that subject.

        Meanwhile, the link noted by DMA may be the best data we have related to atmospheric heating.

        1. ….but what the R & M Connolly have found analyzing balloon data is up there in the same league as you are operating Ed, if true. So in the meantime, while we are waiting for a post on this topic:

          As far as I understand it, the so called greenhouse effect has to work around an inconvenient truth, namely the IR active gasses behavior in an ideal gas (or as an ideal gas). Einstein showed us in 1919 that the IR gasses absorb IR radiation but re emit this energy with a delay equal to the Einstein coefficient. Theoretically during this delay, the IR active gases can bump into other molecules and cause heating/excitation.

          The climate models assume that the atmosphere is in several layers (20-30) in Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium (LTE) with no energy exchange apart from convection etc. Nobody has check whether this is true, its just an assumption. Well if you check balloon data you will find that the molar density as a function of the atmospheric pressure down through the atmosphere using PV=nRT => n/V=P/RT becomes a straight line pretty much all the way down through the atmosphere.

          The conclusion is that then the atmosphere can pretty much be regarded as an ideal gas and as such in thermodynamic equilibrium. Hence, the so called IR active gases will be just as transparent for IR radiation as non IR active gasses. The energy will disperse throughout the atmosphere within a short period of time and never trap any heat.

  5. Thanks Dr Ed. Everything is so much interesting and convincing. Did someone at IPCC react, specifically addressing the points that you are raising ? People like me (not experts, but with a minimum physics background to understand and follow your reasoning) would like to listen what the “other part” has to say. Criticism I’ve read so far…simply doesn’t stand up to your arguments (at least this seems to me). Max, an engineer from Italy.

    1. Max: I have a degree in Marine Engineering with physics as one of the important subjects. That is more than enough to understand and make sense of Ed’s position here and the fact that we are witnessing a debate between ideology and science. That doesn’t mean that Ed is necessarily right in all of his theses, but that’s science; we can never prove anything. Perhaps the ideologues within the climate apocalypse industries should reflect on that.
      Regards from Norway.

  6. Ed Berry is completely wrong.
    The facts are these:
    1. Atmospheric CO2 has increased from c.277ppmv in 1750 to c.410ppmv now (after having been more or less stable for several thousand years). That is an increase of 48%. See:
    2. An increase of atmospheric CO2 by 1ppmv requires 7.81 billion tonnes of CO2 (that is an entirely uncontroversial figure – you will find it in any encyclopedia), so the increase from 277 to 410, ie 133ppmv required 1038 billion tonnes of CO2.
    3. Records have been kept of the amount of fossil fuels burnt. They are collated by the Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Centre in the USA, and show that, between 1750 and 2014, humans emitted 1580 billion tonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere from that source alone.
    4. So the increase in atmospheric CO2 is 1038 billion tonnes, and the amount that humans have emitted (just from burning fossil fuels) is considerably more than that, at 1580 billion tonnes. From those two facts, two conclusions are inevitable:
    A) humans have emitted more than enough CO2 to account for all the rise in atmospheric CO2.
    B) natural systems (the oceans and terrestrial biosphere) have acted as SINKS for CO2 – they have absorbed MORE than they have emitted.

    1. Dear Slioch,
      If you read my Preprint here and my July Publication here, here, and here, you will see I use the same data that you reference in your points 1 to 4. The only difference is I use CO2 in ppm rather than billion tons in my July paper (to keep things simple) and I use GtC in my Preprint because there I am calculating the carbon cycle.

      So, we do not differ on on the data.

      However, we differ on the conclusions of the data. I won’t expand on this here because I have already addressed these topics in detail in my Publication and Preprint.

      Suffice it to say that your conclusions are wrong because you don’t yet understand the physics of CO2 and the carbon cycle.

      1. It seems to me that it is you who are treating natural and human derived CO2 differently, or at least separately. Indeed you state in your Preprint, “The Physics model shows why it is possible (and best) to calculate the natural and human carbon cycles independently.”

        The crucial question to ask is this:
        “Given that the atmospheric CO2 concentration in 1750 was around 280ppmv, and had been close to that level for several thousand years, what would be the present CO2 concentration if humans had not emitted any CO2 to the atmosphere from any source?”
        To which the inevitable answer is: still around 280ppmv. From which the inevitable conclusion is that the increase to the present level of c. 410ppmv is entirely due to human emissions, which conclusion is confirmed by the fact that humans have emitted more than enough CO2 to accomplish that change.
        The fact that the actual molecules of CO2 that make up the increase in atmospheric CO2 are not all derived from human emissions, (whilst it may make for a interesting calculation) is not remotely relevant to the problem of increased atmospheric CO2 that we now face.

        1. Dear Slioch,
          I don’t know what to say except you should take a physics class from me. Look at the logic mistakes you are making in your comment:

          To jump from data to a prediction, you need a hypothesis that can be contradicted. So your hypothesis would be “natural CO2 emissions have stayed constant since 1750 which would allow natural emissions to maintain only a level of 280 ppm.”

          But you offer no way to test your hypothesis. You simply assume your hypothesis is true. Sorry, you can’t do that if you are to play physics. So your “inevitable” conclusions are wrong. In my student days, one would flunk physics for making such an error in logic.

          Then you note that “the actual molecules … is not remotely relevant.”
          Your physics problem here is that my carbon cycle calculation is the first and only such calculation that properly includes all the recycling of human carbon and, therefore, the total influence of human carbon emissions.

          You incorrectly think my calculations treat human and natural carbon differently. But it is IPCC that treats them differently. Just because I show that the human and natural carbon cycles can be calculated independently does not mean I treat them differently.

          In fact, my calculations show that we get the same result whether (a) we calculate the human and carbon cycles independently and then add them up, or (b) when we calculate the cycles together. (You can repeat these calculations yourself if you know how to do numerical calculations as I did in my Excel file.)

          The critical point is that I use the same rules for human carbon as I do for natural carbon, while IPCC uses different rules for human and natural carbon. You should be able to understand this if you read this post and my Preprint with a clear mind.

        2. Ed Berry: Your results as stated remain absurd, so I don’t think I need any lessons in logic or physics from you, thanks.
          You accept that human activity from burning fossil fuels (alone) emitted around 1580 billions tonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere between 1750 and 2014.
          You claim that only around 31ppmv (ie c. 242 billion tonnes) of that remains in the atmosphere today, which, if correct, means that 1338 billion tonnes of those 1580 bts have been absorbed into marine and terrestrial sinks.
          You also claim that 100ppmv CO2, (ie 781 billion tonnes) of the present atmosphere has been contributed to the atmosphere by natural processes.
          That inevitably means that the NET flow, due to human activity, has been 1338 – 781 = 557 billion tonnes FROM the atmosphere TO marine and terrestrial sinks.
          Pointing out that one of the fluxes contributing to that net flux was 781 billion tonnes from natural sources TO the atmosphere, even if correct, is incomplete information: it is the NET flow that is important in assessing the human contribution, and in order to do that you must also take into account the 1338 bts flux FROM the atmosphere to the marine and terrestrial sinks.
          The human emissions of 1580 billion tonnes of CO2 between 1750 and 2014 are solely responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2 of 1,023 billion tonnes. That is the only information that is important in assessing the human contribution to the resulting global warming and why the one-way fluxes about which you are concerned are ignored by the IPCC in its statements.

        3. Dear Slioch,

          You make the issue more complicated than necessary. Perhaps that is why you miss the point.

          You don’t need “billions tonnes” to discuss this issue. All you need, and all that is relevant, are the percentages of natural and human carbon that end up in each carbon reservoir plus the percent of human carbon that is added to the carbon cycle.

          The data show the total amount of human carbon added to the carbon cycle as of the end of 2019 is about one percent. Natural carbon is about 99 percent. This is based on IPCC numbers.

          So, do you agree with Figure 1? If so, say so. If not, say why not.
          Proceed to Figure 2 and answer the same question. Etc.

          When you do that, I will respond. Let’s call this your online test in fundamental physics.

      2. Hilarious.
        I provide two subtractions:
        1580 – 242 = 1338 , and
        1338 -781 = 557
        and Ed Berry complains that I’ve made ” the issue more complicated than necessary.”
        But if he, or anyone else, really finds that too complicated then simply remember that human activity added 1580 billion tonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere between 1750 and 2014 from fossil fuels combustion (alone). That means that the resultant increase in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere of about 1038 billion tonnes is entirely accounted for by human activity.
        Trying to work out what proportion of the CO2 molecules within that 1038 bts increase actually came from those 1580 bts from burning fossil fuels, as Ed tries to do, is simply irrelevant. That calculation provides no information concerning the cause of the measured rise in atmospheric CO2 since 1750.
        Two other points:
        i) Ed also objects to my using billion tonnes as the unit of measuring CO2. It doesn’t really matter what unit is used, but it is far more appropriate to use a unit of mass, as I did, when considering CO2 in atmospheric, oceanic and terrestrial stores, rather than concentration (ppmv), as Ed did, as that unit only has meaning in the atmosphere.
        ii) Ed also objects to assuming that atmospheric CO2 concentrations would have continued around 280ppmv after 1750 in the absence of human activity. Atmospheric CO2 had remain at close to 280ppmv for thousands of years prior to 1750 because the atmosphere was close to equilibrium with the oceanic and terrestrial sinks, and that was because there had been no large change, such as a change in global temperature or a massive increase in vulcanism, to alter that equilibrium. That situation would have continued after 1750 in the absence of human activity, so the expectation of little change in atmospheric CO2 is entirely justified.
        Indeed, atmospheric CO2 concentrations are now increasing at rates several time greater than at any known period in the whole of Earth’s history, and about 100 times greater than during the climatic convulsions of the recent glacial to interglacial transitions.
        Ed’s assertion, that these wholly unprecedented changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations have little to do with human activity, is deluded nonsense.

        1. Hello Slioch

          We don’t have the ability to go back in time and measure CO2 using the same method used today. It is unwise to compare ice core proxy estimates of CO2 with modern measurements. Murry Salby talks about this. (reference below.)

          The idea that “pre-industrial” CO2 and temperatures were stable is just silly.

          Human emissions are correlated with atmospheric CO2 but not with the change in atmospheric CO2.

          If humans emissions were causing the rise in atmospheric CO2 we would expect both to be correlated.

          Temperature, on the other hand, is correlated with both.

          Don’t take my word for it. Compare the annual mean growth rates for CO2 Data from

          with UAH temperature at


          The correlation is amazing. When temperatures rise, the rate of CO2 increase also rises. When temperatures fall, the rate of CO2 increase goes down.

          Please note. These data show is not possible that the change in CO2 causes the change in temperature.

          For more detail see

          Allan MacRae https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/15/co2-global-warming-climate-and-energy-2/

          and watch Murry Salby’s lecture at Hamburg.


        2. Slioch,
          You absolutely ignore natural emission in your argument. Natural emissions have been roughly 40000 billion tons since 1750. So, what’s going to have more effect since the balance level is proportional to emission, natural emission or human emission? (Not a difficult question.)

    2. Slioch – Termites produce 10 X the amount of CO2 than human activity does. You argument would be just as logical if you were arguing that termites are solely responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2. They certainly have produced more than enough CO2 to account for all the rise in atmospheric CO2. You make the same fundamental flaw that the IPCC does. You treat anthropogenic CO2 and natural CO2 differently.
      Nature does not/cannot differentiate between the two. Natural CO2 emissions are much greater than anthropogenic emissions. So nature would have to selectively remove natural CO2 in favour of anthropogenic CO2 for aCO2 to account for all the increase in the atmosphere. Now human activity has increased the total amount of Carbon in the carbon cycle but that increase will have the same distribution in each of the reservoirs as natural CO2. Your assumption that natural CO2 inflows have remained constant are patently false. The IPCC tells us the world has warmed, the oceans have warmed. Henry’s Law therefore dictates that the oceans will release more CO2 into the atmosphere. The net flux of CO2 from the oceans will result in an increase in atmospheric CO2. That increase is independent of anthropogenic CO2.

  7. Ed Berry asks, “IPCC shows 66 percent of human carbon is still in the atmosphere. Where did IPCC get 66 percent?”

    Simply from the figures provided by the Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Centre in the USA, which show that, between 1750 and 2014, humans emitted 1580 billion tonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere, whilst the increase in atmospheric CO2 is 1038 billion tonnes.

    1038 is c.66% of 1580.

    1. Dear Slioch,

      IPCC concludes 66 percent of human CO2 is still in the atmosphere because it makes the irrational and unphysical assumption that human CO2 has caused all the increase in atmospheric CO2 above 280 ppm. And the 131 ppm increase above 280 ppm is 66 percent of the total human CO2 emissions.

      So, duh, IPCC’s conclusion is a direct result of its unproven assumption. That is called circular reasoning.

      Both my publication and my preprint prove this IPCC assumption is wrong. If you understand basic physics, you will understand that my Preprint proves that all human carbon emitted after 1750 has increased atmospheric CO2 by no more than 31 ppm.

      It is only 31 ppm because human carbon flows from the atmosphere to land and ocean exactly as natural carbon flows from the atmosphere to land and ocean.

      IPCC made the unforgivable error of assuming nature treats human carbon differently than it treats natural carbon. All climate alarmism is based upon this IPCC error.

      But maybe you don’t understand simple physics.

      1. Ed, the most offensive thing to me about your nonsense, and your refusal to correct mistakes that have been pointed out to you, and your misunderstanding of IPCC, and your ignorance of Kohler’s rebuttal to Harde (Harde being the source of your silly theory) is that you call it “simple physics.” You can fool some of your readers, but not many.

        1. For a guy who claims he is a physicist, the best David Andrews can do to criticize my papers is to say I have “offended” him.

          I told David above that his opinion on physics is welcome here but his comment is not physics.

          David thinks carbon dioxide “reflects” heat. Montana taxpayers actually paid him to teach their kids.

          He claims, without providing ANY evidence or scientific argument, that Kohler is correct and Harde is wrong. David is incapable of showing any errors in Harde’s rebuttal that proved Kohler is wrong. David ignores that I showed Kohler’s key reference, Cawley, made serious math and physics errors.

          David Andrews is just another brainwashed liberal who believes the IPCC climate religion so thoroughly that his mind rejects all arguments that show the IPCC has made scientific errors. He can only respond that he is “offended.”

    2. “between 1750 and 2014, humans emitted 1580 billion tonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere, whilst the increase in atmospheric CO2 is 1038 billion tonnes.”
      We must consider the accuracy of these figures as well as our knowledge of preindustrial atmospheric CO2 content and currant natural emissions of CO2. It turns out that the error bars on the content and natural flow are an order of magnitude larger than the human emissions so your analysis shows that the small part of the emissions that is human is lost in the noise of nature and we cannot reasonably make the conclusion you made.

      1. DMA Atmospheric Co2 concentrations had been close to 280ppmv for thousands of years prior to around 1750:
        That means that the natural annual fluxes of CO2 into and out of the atmosphere were balanced: the CO2 in the atmosphere was close to equilibrium with the terrestrial and marine CO2.
        Thus the amount of the annual fluxes, and the precision with which we can measure them, is irrelevant: we simply know that they balanced on an annual basis.
        Moreover, the figures of 1580 bts for the human emissions from fossil fuel combustion and 1038 bts for the increase in atmospheric CO2, are well established and would have to be in error by enormous amounts to falsify the conclusion that the increase in atmospheric CO2 since 1750 (from c.280ppmv to 410ppmv) is entirely due to human activity.

        1. ‘CO2 concentrations had been close to 280 ppmv for thousands of years prior to around 1750’

          These and similar sweeping claims made above are little more than superficial
          un-scientific advocacy. Just because those numbers are stored in a government repository does not make them truthful.

          Before 1960, there are no reliable measurements of atmospheric CO2.
          Beck made measurements earlier, but they were at the ground,
          where sources and sinks of CO2 introduce large changes that
          do not represent average CO2 in the atmosphere. The sweeping
          claims made here concerning earlier CO2 rest uncritically
          on *reconstructions* of atmospheric CO2 – from surrogate data,
          as if they were actually measurements of what was in the atmosphere.

          Dr. Ed’s analysis reproduces actual measurements of atmospheric CO2,
          along with actual measurements of atmospheric carbon 14. Reconstructions
          from surrogate data are then immaterial, if not rubbish. As the physics analysis shows, the human contribution to increased CO2 is very small indeed.

        2. Slioch
          The resolution of ice core CO2 is poor. CO2 changes with pressure and form cathrates that remove it from the air pockets. It is possible no more CO2 than about 280 PPM can exist in the ice ore conditions so no evidence of higher concentrations remain, See Energy and Environment Volume 18 No. 2 2007 for Becks work on chemical analysis of CO2 content showing much wider short term swings that are not shown in the ice cores. One of the studies he includes was in Barrow Alaska and showed over 400 PPMV in the late 1940s. See Harde 2017 then read Kohler 2017 then study https://hhgpc0.wixsite.com/harde-2017-censored
          I have done these things and many more studies and cannot agree with your final statement except to say there is vast evidence and proper physical analysis that disproves it. It is not possible that all of the recent increase is human if changes in the rate of emissions do not effect the change in rate of atmospheric growth. See https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/12/19/co2responsiveness/

  8. DMA: I think you are grasping at straws.
    Beck published physically impossible results. I would give credence to any of his work.
    You end by stating, “It is not possible that all of the recent increase is human if changes in the rate of emissions do not effect the change in rate of atmospheric growth” and then reference” and then reference a “tambon …”. But as far as I can see, that source states:
    1) First notes a strong correlation between the long-term trends in both CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2, but then notes:
    2) “there is insufficient evidence to claim that atmospheric CO2 concentration is responsive to fossil fuel emissions at an annual time scale” with the final five words emphasised in red.

    So support from tambom … for your claim that I quote above about “the rate of atmospheric growth” relates ONLY to annual variations, and is exactly what anyone knowledgeable about such data would expect. Annual variations (eg El Nino/La Nina episodes, volcanic eruptions etc.) are the noise imposed upon the long-term signal.
    Low short-term correlation, does not imply low long-term correlation.
    As an illustration, there is a long-term correlation between year and annual average global temperature since 1970:
    but, equally obviously, there is a great deal of annual variation: ie the annual increase does not correlate well time on an annual scale. In fact, for about half of the years since 1970 the following year has been cooler than the one preceding it. Whilst all the time the rend continues relentlessly.

    1. Slioch
      So why don’t you publish your refutation of Beck. Others have but they didn’t convince me his response defended his position very well. Mostly they said the professional that produced the studies were too dumb to know how to collect good samples. I find that argument lacking. There are numerous stomata analyses that disprove your contention of low and constant CO2.
      Next, I think you have read the wrong link on responsiveness of CO2 concentration to emissions as the one I gave showed no response up to 5 year periods. About your relentless trend- the trend for the last 1000 years is about -.14 C per millennium. There is no evidence that the currant climate is outside natural variability. I think my straws are good enough to support my skepticism and concurrence with Dr. Ed’s analysis. It is apparent you don’t think so but not apparent what you base your disagreement on.

  9. Slioch
    Thanks for bringing some reality to this blog. One thing I have learned about conversing with Ed and some others on this site: they will NEVER admit they are mistaken. (Who else has that habit?) Ed has never acknowledged that his “Question 1” is bogus, though I have pointed it out to him multiple times. Carbon can pass from the atmosphere to the deep ocean via the surface ocean, without any appreciable buildup in the surface ocean inventory. I think he confuses concentration with inventory. Ed has also never acknowledged that his “Question 2” simply reflects his personal misunderstanding of the IPCC report. Of course human activity can reduce the land inventory of carbon. The minus sign means “reduction in the land inventory” not “negative carbon.” If Ed thinks he has something to say, he should fix these blunders, lest they discourage anyone from reading further. It discourages me.

    Finally there is politics. Ed called me a liberal, apparently a four letter word in his vocabulary. He seems to think there is “liberal science”, much as some (not all) Nazi’s considered relativity and quantum mechanics “Jewish science.” I don’t know how we got in the pickle that scientific beliefs are strongly correlated with political beliefs. George H W Bush understood there was a problem. Perhaps we should blame Al Gore for making climate change a central political issue in his 2000 presidential campaign, and then the other side reflexively saying “what he is for, I am against.” But there is nothing remotely conservative about ignoring uncertain threats. Too many lay people on this site are backing Ed because he tells them what they want to hear. I can’t help imagining Jack Nicholson shouting at them “you can’t handle the truth.” (see A Few Good Men.)

    Ed will try to get in the last word, and this time he will probably be successful. But surprise me Ed, and address my comments for once. Do you really still believe that your Questions 1 and 2 are valid concerns?

    1. Dear Dave,

      Your comments show that you are the one who never admits you are mistaken. Let’s stick to the physics to see who is mistaken.

      Regarding my question 1:

      I show a model that exactly describes and reproduces IPCC’s natural carbon cycle within the accuracy of IPCC’s claimed data. You do not have such a model.

      I apply the same model to IPCC’s human carbon cycle and find IPCC’s human carbon cycle DOES NOT represent the same model that replicates IPCC’s natural carbon cycle.
      The model that explains IPCC’s natural carbon cycle has only one simple hypothesis: Outflow = Level / e-time.

      That hypothesis requires the surface ocean to increase its level before it can send human carbon to the deep ocean.

      Your only response is to claim, “Carbon can pass from the atmosphere to the deep ocean via the surface ocean, without any appreciable buildup in the surface ocean inventory.” That is a bogus, hand-waving, invalid argument. So, it is time for you to acknowledge you are wrong.

      You claim, “I think he confuses concentration with inventory.” Duh! The Physics model defines Level as the amount of carbon in the reservoir. IPCC’s Fig. 6.1 shows the level of carbon in the reservoirs. You are confused when you use concentration and inventory without definitions.

      Regarding my question 2:

      You incorrectly claim, “The minus sign means “reduction in the land inventory” not “negative carbon.”

      As I have already described, the model calculation begins with all reservoirs empty of human carbon. It then adds human carbon to the atmosphere, according to IPCC-approved data. It then calculates how that addition of human carbon flows to the other reservoirs using the same model that replicated IPCC’s natural carbon cycle.

      You claim the addition of human carbon to the carbon cycle sucks human carbon out of the land reservoir when the level of human carbon in the land reservoir is zero. Dave, you should give up trying to do physics if you cannot understand your error.

      Your claim is without foundation. You do not understand that the human carbon cycle simply adds to the natural carbon cycle. You don’t understand that the two carbon cycles can be calculated independently. You don’t understand that the human carbon cycle calculated independently cannot subtract human carbon from a reservoir that has no human carbon.

      If you don’t understand this, then please give up physics. The reality is IPCC made gross unforgivable errors in its calculation of the human carbon cycle, and you don’t get it and won’t admit it.

      Regarding your politics:

      You claim I “should fix these blunders.” What blunders? I have shown that IPCC made blunders.

      You say, “It discourages me.” That is right up there with your statement that my physics results “offend you.”

      On that basis, I correctly call you a liberal because it is the liberal mind that resorts to being “offended” when the liberal mind cannot understand reality.

      Regarding reality:

      I am not stopping you from making comments. Therefore, it is up to you whether you get the last word. Maybe that will be determined by which of us lives the longest.

      In contradiction to your complaints, I have addressed your comments. But you have so far failed to produce a valid physics argument to support your hand-waving irrational claims. You have no hypothesis, no model, and no calculations to support your claims. That is not science, Dave.

  10. @SLIOCH, thank you very much for your mtn-explanation. I was quite confused by the idea that human carbon is stored in land/sea buffers and at the same time land/sea buffers release natural carbon. It is clear, at least to me, that only the net flow is relevant. The net flow into the land/sea contradicts the claim of DR ED, that the additional 100 ppm are caused by land/sea emissions.

    Furthermore if the explanation of DR ED that the warming of the earth after the Little Ice Age caused the 100 ppm land/sea emissions is valid, one would expect that there was a dip in the CO2 levels during that period. According to https://www.co2levels.org/ there was not such a dip.

    Finally, if CO2 levels in the past 700k years until 1750 are are well below 300 ppm and they rise to 411 ppm between 1750 and 2013, than the Little Ice Age explanation is not sufficient.

    1. Dear AD, thank you for your comment.

      Please explain your claim that “The net flow into the land/sea contradicts the claim of DR ED, that the additional 100 ppm are caused by land/sea emissions.”

      Regarding your interpretation of historical CO2 levels, DMA has already given you the answer.

      1. @DR ED, thank you for your reaction. The 131 ppm rise of the CO2 level is attributed to humans for 31 ppm and 131 – 31 = 100 ppm to emissions from land/sea. So there must have been a net flow from the land/sea to the atmosphere. The mtn-explantion of SLIOCH tells me that there has been a net carbon flow from the atmosphere to the land/see. They cannot both be true.
        I understand that DMA doubts if the data from https://www.co2levels.org/ are valid. That raises the question what the CO2 levels really are. And the question remains about the impact of the Little Ice Age on the land/sea emissions.

        1. Dear AD,
          There are flows that happen simultaneously. If we calculate the separate flows independently, we can add their results to get the overall flows and levels.

          Human carbon flows from the atmosphere where it began to the land and oceans.

          Natural carbon when there is no temperature effect, flows among the four reservoirs at balance, meaning its net flows are zero.

          Natural carbon when the temperature rises adds new carbon in the land and ocean, which causes more carbon to flow to the atmosphere until balance is again achieved.

  11. The more I read this very interesting debate, the more I see it as “feelings” vs “rational thinking”. Reportedly, the majority of climatologists “feel” that humans are the cause of 100% of the observed CO2 increase, simply because “it makes sense” by looking at some data. But then some real science comes into play, and proves that this feeling is wrong to a great extent (let’s say to a 95% extent). The problem is, most people will not like to hear what science say, because “feelings” are more appealing (they smell “green”…and of course everybody likes this color…) and they are very much “politically correct”. Regardless of what science (not junk science) has to say, I see it very hard to change the “consensus” when the large majority of the media are supporting the “feelings”. Here in Italy it’s almost impossible to support rational thinking, if at the same time you are not supporting the green religion that say that humans are the cause of almost all the (alleged) disasters. As a minimum you would be a “denialist”, or more likely a “fascist”.
    Thanks Dr Ed for this forum, and to the several contributors from both sides of the “fence”.

    1. “Here in Italy it’s almost impossible to support rational thinking, if at the same time you are not supporting the green religion that say that humans are the cause of almost all the (alleged) disasters.”

      Sounds like what held humans in the dark ages, when they were governed by consolidated power and the tyranny it wielded.

  12. @DR ED, thank you for you comment of DECEMBER 3, 2019 AT 9:35 AM. Since I cannot Reply on your last comment, I repeat it here. There are flows that happen simultaneously. If we calculate the separate flows independently, we can add their results to get the overall flows and levels.Human carbon flows from the atmosphere where it began to the land and oceans. Natural carbon when there is no temperature effect, flows among the four reservoirs at balance, meaning its net flows are zero. Natural carbon when the temperature rises adds new carbon in the land and ocean, which causes more carbon to flow to the atmosphere until balance is again achieved.

    Correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that your calculations show that human carbon has little effect on the carbon level in the atmosphere and that means to me that it is only temporarily. The increasing global temperatures causes the release of natural carbon from the land/sea buffers.

    So the question is, how much evidence there is to support this hypothesis. It would be convincing if there was a separate calculation of the impact of the Little Ice Age on the land/sea emissions.
    Now I get the impression that this impact is the result of 131 – 31 = 100 ppm.

    1. Dear AD,
      Your summary is correct. I would only add the following:

      Since 1750, human emissions have added one percent more carbon to the carbon cycle while nature has added 3 percent. This human one percent presently adds 31 ppm to the atmosphere because human emissions are ongoing and the human carbon has not had time to come to equilibrium in its carbon cycle. When it comes to equilibrium, it will have left 8 ppm in the atmosphere.

      At the same time, the proper calculation (using IPCC data) for the human component, leaves 100 ppm added by nature. That may be as close as we can calculate the natural effect using available data.

      This is not a hypothesis. This is a result of doing proper calculations that use IPCC data. IPCC did not get this correct answer because IPCC scientists did their calculations incorrectly. Their biggest error was to assume nature treats human and natural carbon differently. That is an error in basic physics.

      The human one percent is permanent. It adds to the available carbon that the natural carbon cycle will use as it adjusts to changes in temperature.

  13. @philip, December 1, 2019 at 7:57 am
    You said:
    ‘CO2 concentrations had been close to 280 ppmv for thousands of years prior to around 1750. These and similar sweeping claims made above are little more than superficial
    un-scientific advocacy. Just because those numbers are stored in a government repository does not make them truthful.’

    There are problems even with CO2 data collected using modern instruments due to the location and the season affecting results. Clearly there are even greater problems when using geology or ice cores to estimate CO2 concentrations.

    I have clear evidence that the some “government repositories” have been tampered with to such an extent that they are not fit for the purpose of informing public policy. However (IMHO) that is the exception rather than the rule. For example I have confidence in the GISP/GRIP ice core data for central Greenland and the Vostok/EPICA data for Antarctica.

  14. I read the comments globally. I remark that opponents of dr. Ed Berry do not use definitions and an analysis of it combined with to keep it clear. Neither do I read why one is making a logical fallacy nor why the model of Ed Berry does the job in a better way or not. That seems to me a basic assumption. Restrictibg myself to climate science I am glad that I am not a scientist. It is as if a lot of scientists are mixing up science with politics

  15. Is it possible that humans are responsible for a full 131 ppm in the atmosphere but that a commensurate amount from human generation is now residing in the land, surface and deep ocean? (i.e. 509.5 ppm, 199.7 ppm & 8194.3 ppm respectively?

    1. Dear Jim,

      IPCC data show the human effect can be no larger than about 31 ppm. The calculation of 31 ppm accounts for the flow of human carbon into to land and ocean.

  16. I thought we had an interesting exchange started between David Andrews and Ed Berry a while ago concerning “fixed” vs “mobile” carbon (see the copy/paste below).

    Do we have a follow-up on it?

    Thank you in advance!


    From Dave Andrews:

    “Dr Ed
    The flaw in your analysis that concludes human burning of fossil fuels is but a small part of CO2 increases comes at the very beginning when you separate the contributions of “human” and “natural “ sources. Think instead of “fixed” and “mobile “ carbon. A seam of coal in the ground has fixed carbon. It has been there for millennia causing no trouble. When coal is burned the carbon in the CO2 becomes mobile. As you note it doesn’t stay in the atmosphere more than several years, but when it is gobbled up by some plant it is only temporarily taken out of action. When a leaf dies and decays, CO2 gets back in the atmosphere. At this point you call it “natural” but the carbon in this natural cycle now includes carbon that was once fixed in that coal seam. It is now part of the mobile inventory of carbon and it got there because humans burned coal. Surely you must have wondered why your “natural” carbon just happened to track, roughly, output from fossil fuel consumption. Now you understand. And as the mobile inventory grows, being fed by human activities, we indeed have a human caused problem .
    Dr Dave”

    Answer from Ed:

    “Dear Dr. Dave Andrews,

    Thank you for your comment. You have described, what is in my opinion, the essential difference between the IPCC position and my paper. It turns out I am preparing a longer document to address the point that you have made. I will inform you when I have finished.

    It will be more efficient to discuss your point after I make a new post that will focus on this subject.”

  17. Hello Ad, just one simple question,
    if humanity emits an amount CO2 into the atmosphere its carbon content will at first increase by that amount. After “some time” this amount will have been distributed into the reservoirs of your first plot according the equilibrium proportions shown there.
    My question is : what is that time ?
    Thanks for your answer.

      1. Thanks a lot. Exhaustive document which I will study later. Maybe later I will have additional questions. First questions which come to my mind spontaneously are :
        Since the mid 1950 CO2 is measured in Hawai, It shows a a steady increase over decades apparently caused by steady warming since then ? My doubts :
        a) Many people (e.g. Tony Heller) doubt the official GISS (and other) temperatures records since then which also show a warming but only when “homogenized”. I see some contradiction here, warming yes or no ?
        b) Pre 1955 CO2 chemical measurements show a large scatter but seem to indicate also a correlation with warming, especially around ~1940. But these warming periods did not last as long as the time period (2020 – 1955). This last period seems to be a very long cycle of warming ? Any idea why if not caused by human emissions ?

  18. Tough struggling here in Italy against that bloody Covid-19. But wouldnt this be an opportunity to test Dr.Ed’s theory ? The reduction in human CO2 emissions should tell something over the next months, in terms of resulting atmospheric concentration, and this could be compared to model’s prediction. CO2 apart, good luck to all of us.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.