Abstract accepted by AMS for January 2024
American Meteorological Society 37th Conference on Climate Variability and Change
Abstract #37CVC, accepted for presentation on January 23, 2024
Ed Berry, PhD, Theoretical Physics, CCM
The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) contradicts itself on the effect of human CO2 emissions on atmospheric CO2.
The IPCC makes the following assumptions about the effect of human CO2 emissions on atmospheric CO2:
- Natural CO2 stayed constant at 280 ppm after 1750.
- Human CO2 caused all the CO2 increase above 280 ppm.
- Human CO2 turnover time is 100’s or 1000’s of years.
These assumptions predict that human CO2 is 140 ppm or 33% of today’s CO2 level of 420 ppm.
The IPCC defines the equilibrium levels of natural carbon in land, air, surface ocean, and deep ocean carbon reservoirs. IPCC also includes the flows between adjacent reservoirs. IPCC estimates the errors in its numbers for these levels and flows to be about 20%.
The IPCC says the outflow of natural carbon in each reservoir is equal to its carbon level divided by its “turnover” time. Since IPCC’s natural carbon data is at equilibrium, we can calculate IPCC’s six turnover times for its four reservoirs.
The IPCC says the turnover time for the outflow of natural atmospheric CO2 is “about 4 years,” and IPCC’s level and flow data show the turnover time to be 3.5 years.
Here are some problems with IPCC’s three assumptions.
Human and natural CO2 molecules are identical. Therefore, human CO2 turnover time is the same as the natural CO2 turnover time of 3.5 years. This makes IPCC’s assumption (c) invalid.
With IPCC’s assumption (c) invalid, human CO2 cannot be the cause of 33% of today’s atmospheric CO2.
As a first approximation, at equilibrium, the percent of human CO2 in atmospheric CO2 will equal the percent of human CO2 in the total human plus natural CO2 inflow, which the IPCC says is about 5%, making human CO2 5% of today’s atmospheric CO2, not 33% as IPCC’s assumption (c) claims.
Berry (2021, 2023) derived a complete carbon cycle numerical model using IPCC’s natural carbon cycle data. The IPCC did not derive such a model. Berry’s model replicates IPCC’s natural carbon cycle even if all carbon is initially put in any one of the four reservoirs.
Berry’s model allows, for the first time, the direct calculation of the effect of human CO2 emissions on atmospheric CO2, according to IPCC’s own data. His calculation is thoroughly checked by other scientists, and it shows human CO2 is 8% of atmospheric CO2 as of 2020, using IPCC’s own data.
It is important to add that Berry’s model supersedes all the arguments about “exchange” or “replacement” of CO2 molecules. In fact, Berry (2021) first proved that human and natural carbon cycles can and should be computed independently and then added together to get the total human and natural carbon cycle.
Berry (2023) shows how his carbon cycle model supersedes the Joos carbon cycle model. No one has shown there is any math or physics error in Berry’s carbon cycle model, and it was first published in 2021.
In addition, the exponential return of D14C from its bomb level of 700 to its original balance level of zero shows the effect of human carbon is insignificant. If human carbon were indeed 33% of atmospheric carbon as the IPCC claims, then the D14C balance level would have been reduced to – 330.
D14C data support the argument that human CO2 is 0% of atmospheric CO2. Why not 8%? Because the 0% is derived from D14C data and the 8% is derived from IPCC’s carbon cycle data which is less accurate. But both data sets prove human CO2 has insignificant effect on the CO2 level.
Additionally, COVID-19 regulations reduced human CO2 emissions by about 20% for a year. Yet, this decrease in CO2 emissions had no effect on the steady increase in CO2. This supports the argument that natural CO2 dominates atmospheric CO2.
Summary.
True climate science follows valid data and valid physics. The argument presented here should be reviewed and discussed widely because of its implications that human CO2 is not significant to climate change as almost everyone assumes.
This research has significant implications on restricting of human CO2 emissions and implementing carbon capture schemes with the intent to lower the CO2 level.
Also, some government agency should fund Berry to extend his research and allow him to program his carbon cycle model in Python to make it more available to other scientists. That alone would be very valuable to the IPCC and to climate science.
Dr Ed,
CONGRATULATIONS!
Please report on the event after it has happened.
Richard
I know you are correct about climate change, nature is in total control, nothing man can do will change the big picture.
Thank you for your courage and sanity from an Australian admirer!
I must say you must be brave or out of your mind to Buck the “settled” field of climate science. It is an honor and privilege to know there are still scientists like you in the world that actually do check facts instead of the go along to get along science practiced most places today
You are making history; this is the first time anyone has challenged the IPCC in court.
You made a lot of claims, but didn’t provide any references. Don’t scientific papers require evidence?
Hi Eli,
Did you notice the refererces to IPCC and Berry (2021, 2023)?
If you want to see these references in detail, please go to https://edberry.com/berry-vs-andrews/
Neither the AMS nor anyone else puts detailed references in an abstract.
So, what claims do you think I made that have no references?
Your comments are always helpful, but also complicated! Here is another sum:
Human CO2 for 2022 were 36.8GT. Total atmospheric CO2 is 3,208GT, so each 1ppm of the 421ppm currently in the atmosphere, weighs 7.62GT. Atmospheric CO2 is rising at 2.13ppm per year, so of the total human emissions only 2.13 x 7.62 GT, or 44% is being retained in the atmosphere, the remainder must end up in land or ocean. The oceans contain 92% of earth’s CO2. The oceans 538cu miles of seawater weighs 1.45 billion GT. So CO2 is 2.69ppm of ocean. If human emissions went entirely into the ocean for 10 years the ocean’s CO2 would rise by less than 1%(of the 39,000GT). and be 2.71ppm of the ocean. The earth’s self-correcting mechanisms seem to allow for a long period of CO2 emissions, until we find alternative energy sources. Meanwhile when the ocean heats up it releases CO2, when it cools it absorbs it. Apparently the ocean heat is producing the CO2 in the atmosphere not the other way round.
Hi Anthony,
I have tested the approach you suggest with many audiences. The result is no one can follow the GT numbers you suggest in an argument.
And you expect the audience or readers to translate on the fly how to convert ppm to GT?
Read Berry (2021, 2023) to see the best way to present an argument like this. The general public can follow percents and percents are the best way to make these arguments, and really, the specific numbers are not important.
Plus, I use charts in my presentation that follows my abstract.
Dr. Berry,
Thank you for the work you are doing on the science of climate change. You are really making me think about what I believe and why I believe it. However, I need further clarification because I’m confused. In this thread you state:
“As a first approximation, at equilibrium, the percent of human CO2 in atmospheric CO2 will equal the percent of human CO2 in the total human plus natural CO2 inflow, which the IPCC says is about 5%, making human CO2 5% of today’s atmospheric CO2, not 33% as IPCC’s assumption (c) claims.”
Firstly, let me explain how I’m understanding this statement:
IPCC: 5% CO2 inflow ≠ 33% outflow (where does the additional 28% come from?)
Dr. Berry: 5% CO2 inflow = 5% outflow (w/ the total amount of atmospheric CO2 determining the percentage of outflow.)
If the law of equivalency demands inflow equal outflow, in this case of 5% CO2, why does the IPCC say it’s 33%?
In your book, Climate Miracle, you state that the IPCC claims that human CO2 stays in the atmosphere thousands of times longer than natural CO2. (p. 30). If the Law of Equivalency is to be maintained the IPCC must explain how natural and man-made CO2 differ?
You state the IPCC utilizes a magic demon to capture man-made CO2 molecules to make them stay in the atmosphere longer (p. 31). I’m afraid I don’t understand the magic demon concept. If CO2 is to behave differently, it must actually therefore be different. Or, the environment in which the CO2 is behaving must, somehow, be different. Correct? Does the IPCC not offer an explanation for why they claim man-made CO2 stays in the atmosphere longer than natural CO2?
Is the IPCC is creating math to justify its claim that 5% inflow = 33% outflow? Hence, the magic demon, which somehow captures man-made CO2 keeping it in the atmosphere longer than natural CO2. What is the IPCCs justification for this violation of the law of equivalency? Or, do they really just ignore the problem?
Assuming I’m understanding all of this correctly, why would the IPCC make claims that they cannot prove or know to be false? Is the IPCC trying to make their ‘science’ fit a pre-determined outcome?
This seems disingenuous at best and completely inconsistent with how science is done. Am I off base here or am I understanding this all correctly?
Thank you,
Michael
Dear Michael,
First, my abstract is limited in words, so I had to omit the explanations I will make in my presentation.
Second, I do make much longer explanations in Berry (2021, 2023).
Third, the critical point needed to understand my abstract is the definition of balance level.
We begin with the continuity equation that keeps the total carbon in the system constant:
……. Rate of change of Level = Inflow – Outflow ……………………….. (1)
Then we include the only assumption I use to derive IPCC’s carbon cycle equations:
……..Outflow = Level / Te …………………………….. .. … …. .. (2)
Where Te is IPCC’s “turnover time” that I call e-time. The key is that outflow is proportional to level.
Insert (2) into (1) to get:
……. Rate of change of Level = Inflow – Level / Te …………………….. (3)
Let the Rate of change of Level = 0
Since the Level is constant, we call it the balance level:
……. Balance Level = Inflow * Te …………………………………….. (4)
So, what do we have?
We have a reservoir where outflow = Inflow, and the inflow sets the balance level.
The IPCC says human CO2 inflow is about 5% of the total CO2 inflow, or natural CO2 inflow is about 95%.
Because of (2), we can model and calculate flows of human CO2 and natural CO2 independently, then add up the results to get the total CO2 flows.
To make it simple here, we model the balance levels of human and natural flows independently. That means human and natural CO2 flows are at equilibrium.
Then, we get,
……..Balance Level (N) = Inflow (N) / Te ……………………… (5)
……..Balance Level (H) = Inflow (H) / Te ……………………… (6)
If human inflow is 5% of the total, then we get,
……. Balance Level (H) / Balance Level (N) = 5 / 95 ……………. (7)
……..
So, using IPCC’s own data and IPCC’s equation (2), we find that human CO2 is only 5% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere at equilibrium.
However, IPCC assumes (without any data) that the level of natural CO2 remained constant at 280 ppm after 1750 while human CO2 caused all the CO2 increase. This assumption (or theory) makes human CO2 33% of the CO2 in the atmosphere.
But we have just proved that this IPCC assumption is impossible using IPCC’s own data.
So, how does the IPCC calculate that human CO2 is 33%?
Answer: The IPCC assumes the Te in (5) and (6) are different. Specifically, IPCC assumes the human Te is much greater than natural Te.
Indeed, that is one way to force human CO2 to be 33%.
However, the “climate equivalence principle” say human and natural CO2 molecules are identical, therefore, their Te must be identical.
That is where I introduce the magic demon.
The IPCC’s (invalid) assumption that human Te is greater than natural Te requires the IPCC to assume there is a magic demon in the atmosphere that can distinguish human CO2 and put it in a box for a long time, while it lets natural CO2 flow merrily out of the atmosphere with a Te = 3.5 years, according to IPCC’s own data.
Does this explanation help you understand my argument?
Dear Dr Berry
thanks for your great work. I learned so much from your website.
I have a question. In your opinion, which is the right value of the human contribution :
1) 8% from your model + “inaccurate” IPCC’s data
2) 5% from IPCC’s data (don’t know how accurate) as the theoretical equilibrium based on the emission rate
3) 0% as suggested by D14C data, and as seems to be suggested by Pinatubo Study (based on a different approach, Henry’s Law) https://pinatubostudy.com/
Thanks
Max
Dear Max,
Thank you for the reference to the Pinatubo Study.
To decide which value for the human effect is best, let’s consider the data sources and the calculations.
1) uses IPCC’s data for its natural carbon cycle and annual data for human CO2 emissions, to get 8%. This is a dynamic annual calculation that gives the most accurate result based on IPCC’s carbon cycle data.
2) uses IPCC’s data for the average percent of annual human CO2 emissions of the total human and natural emissions, which is 5%. This is a first order calculation that assumes the human carbon cycle is at equilibrium with human emissions. But this is not true because human CO2 outflow never catches up with the human 2CO2 inflow.
3) D14C data are accurate and not dependent on IPCC’s carbon cycle data. The key is to use the D14C balance level, which is zero. (Some authors use the D14C data that is above its balance level and misinterpret the decrease of D14C toward its balance level as a human effect.)
4) The Pinatubo Study also uses direct data and it supports my D14C interpretation.
Note the comment by Dave Burton on https://shalemag.com/nature-controls-co2-not-man-op-ed/
is wrong because it uses circular reasoning. He assumes, without realising it, that IPCC’s Theory (1) is true — that the natural CO2 level stayed at 280 ppm — to calculate that Theory (1) is true. That is junk science.
Also, he does not separate the human and natural carbon cycles in his argument. Also junk science.
Dear Dr Berry,
thanks for your explanation, quite clear in my view. Since your conclusions falsify the basis of IPCC’s claims, did they challenge your theory and your papers? Any reactions by the alarmist “champions” such as Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt…? Thank you
Max