1. 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

  2. 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.

    1. 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.

  3. 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,

    1. 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?

  4. 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/


    1. 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.

  5. 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

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.