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.
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.