2018 was the year of climate truth

On November 27, 2016, Keith Pickering, an associate of Peter Gleick, argued on edberry.com that human CO2 caused all the increase in atmospheric CO2 since 1750. I could not believe the illogic in Keith’s argument although he believed his argument was solid. His argument was the same as the one the IPCC uses as its core argument. It fails because it ignores natural CO2.

Since then, I have written a series of posts that show the IPCC claims to support its key theory are wrong. My posts introduce a physics model that replaces the IPCC model. My latest version is my “Preprint: Contadictions to IPCC’s climate change theory.” The last version is much better than my first version. It has the benefit of hundreds of comments, suggestions, and challenges over two years.

The Preprint is the basis of my poster presentation at the American Meteorological Society annual meeting on January 8. When I return from the AMS meeting, I plan to submit my preprint to a professional journal. I have not yet decided which journal will be my first choice.

Previous authors who have supported the idea that human CO2 emissions are not the cause of most of the increase in atmospheric CO2 since 1750 are Revelle and Suess (1957), Starr (1992), Segalstad (1992, 1996, 1998), Rorsch et al. (2005), Courtney (2008), Siddons and D’Aleo (2007), Quirk (2009), Spencer (2009), MacRae (2010, 2015), Essenhigh (2009), Glassman (2010), Wilde (2012), Caryl (2013), Humlum et al. (2013), Salby (2012, 2014, 2016), Harde (2017a), and Berry (2018).

My presentation resembles those of Salby and Harde. They use the same fundamental equations that I use. I think my main contributions to the physics of the effect of human CO2 on atmospheric CO2 are (a) I have made the physics derivation very simple, (b) I introduce the concept of a balance level determined by inflow, (c) I use the 14C data to show the physics model is accurate and the IPCC model fails, (d) I show how all the IPCC arguments fail because they are junk science, and (e) I show how the human-caused changes in the level of 14C and 13C support the physics model and reject the IPCC model.

My preprint presents the “convincing alternative explanation” that IPCC and USGCRP claim does not exist. My preprint shows IPCC’s claim that “abundant published literature” shows, with “considerable certainty,” applies to the physics model and not to the IPCC model.

The last little issue I will insert into my preprint is an explanation of how IPCC’s use of “adjustment time” versus “residence time” is junk physics. The physics model shows clearly that the only reference time the physics needs is a measure of how fast the level approaches its balance level. Maybe I will call it “adjustment time” after the IPCC. Maybe I will call it “balance time.” Maybe I will call it e-Time. So far, I have called it “residence time” and that will lead to confusion because it is not the same as the IPCC “residence time.”

The IPCC idea that there is a different time that tells us how fast “molecules” exchange places is junk science. It is junk science because the so-called molecule exchange time is merely what happens when the level in the physics model gets close to its balance level.

The explanation of how CO2 flows into and out of our atmosphere is really simple. Our problem is the IPCC has muddied the waters and all alarmists support the muddy waters. The minds of the alarmists are so confused that they can no longer understand simple physics.

I am forced to address these ugly physics errors made by climate alarmists because if I don’t address them, the alarmists claim I don’t understand their arguments. The truth is I understand their arguments better than they do. And many climate alarmists who do junk physics are on our National Academy of Sciences or hold important positions in government or in science societies.

Remember what Feynman said. It does not matter who you are or what important positions you hold, if you theory makes incorrect predictions, your theory is wrong. Yes, their theory makes incorrect predictions.

I refer to the physics I use in the physics model as “the Art of Physics” because it is not complicated physics but it requires a full understanding of how to formulate a hypothesis and test it with data.

So, my message to you at the end of 2018 is human CO2 adds only about 18 ppm to the atmosphere while natural CO2 adds about 392 ppm, for a total of about 410 ppm that exists today.

There is no valid argument that the human contribution is any larger than 18 ppm. Therefore, all the political actions people are doing to “address climate change” and to “save the planet” will have zero effect on climate. These people may call me a “denier” but it is they who deny science.

Happy New Year.

21 thoughts on “2018 was the year of climate truth”

  1. If you take a look at Wikipedia’s oxygen cycle, you’ll see, in the section “Capacities and fluxes” the residence time is pretty straight forward, level divided by inflow.
    IPCC’s “adjustment time” might just be the stick they used to muddy the water.

  2. Barbara McKenzie

    As a tree-lover, it is a relief to know that endeavours to wipe out “poisonous” CO2 by eliminating use of fossil fuels won’t actually work (without commenting on the plans to actually suck CO2 out of the atmosphere).
    The article does not make it clear exactly what is causing the natural increase in CO2, which would be of interest.

    1. Dear Barbara, an increase in surface temperature causes CO2 to increase with a time delay. For more details please see my preprint referenced in this article, and note especially Appendix C and the referenced papers by Harde and Salby.

      1. Marcus rönningås

        And how / why do You consider Harde 2017 to be in any manner a scientific paper ?

        Even the authors of Harde 2017 concluded the following:
        “The acceptance of this paper has exposed potential weaknesses in the implementation of the peer review system, and quality control mechanisms have failed in this particular case.”

        1. Dear Marcus, As I explain in detail in my referenced preprint, Kohler et al is junk science. Kohler references Cawley which is also junk science. Nothing in Kohler proves Harde is incorrect. If the journal editors are concerned about publishing junk science, they should not have published Kohler’s attack on Harde.

          Now consider that there is nothing about a peer-reviewed publication that proves the publication is correct. Harde 2017 is a professional scientific paper and deserves to be published so other scientists can read it. Kohler deserves to be published so other scientists can read it. Harde’s reply to Kohler deserves to be published so other scientists can read it.

          Now, do you wish to enter a comment under my preprint where you can argue that Kohler is correct science and Harde is not? If so, be my guest. But let’s get back to discussing science rather than discussing what some journal editors think or do.

    1. Dear Marcus, The more relevant question is “What exactly did Kohler et al get correct?

      None of the science direct comments about Harde 2017 are correct. So far, Harde stands valid. If you disagree then please make a scientific argument to support your case under my preprint where this issue is discussed.

      1. Marcus rönningås

        Dear Ed,


        Since You obviously have a PhD I will let that comment pass as a short temporary lapse of judgement. You know very well what it takes to get a paper published in a highly rated scientific magazine, abd even though GPC’s impact is “only” 3982 it can still be regarded as rather high.

        So the question remains; what did Harde get right ?
        “Peer review is regarded as the gold standard of quality assurance for scholarly publishing. As long as established procedures are followed and good choices are made, especially with due care and attention taken to deal with failures or limitations that may arise along the way, it should not fail. Occasional failures can happen however; in this case the author selected an editor who was not an expert in the field and that editor invited the reviewers suggested by the author without checking their credentials – the editor was therefore not in a position to perform a sufficiently critical evaluation of the manuscript. The acceptance of the Harde paper and the consequent investigation therefore serve as a reminder that constant vigilance is required by those who use the peer review system to ensure that it delivers consistently high quality results.”

        Read the comments on why Harde 2017 was incorrect. That will probably bring some clearity on the matter.

      1. Marcus rönningås

        Dear DMA,

        When using references, it would be preferable if You refered to established science. The dialogue regarding Harde 2017 can be found trough Elsevier.

        All the best


  3. In my belief Global Warming is a natural occurrence and has absolutely nothing to do with man’s existence on Earth.
    The Earth rotates o an axis that is on a 21-degree angle, as the Earth moves around the Sun we get our season. When we are closest to the Sun we get our Summer, and at our furthest, Winter. But our Axis also spins, and it takes approximately 200 years to complete one cycle. This alters the Earths relationship to the Sun each year. It doesn’t take much of a change in our position to affect our weather. Along with this, solar storms from the Sun, our proximity to the Moon, all have an effect.
    Man has nothing to do with it. Governments put huge amounts of money in to prove that it’s all man’s activity fault, yet they put nothing in to get the truth. And stupid people get sucked in because they are too lazy to sort the truth, not enough intelligence or making a fortune from the lie.

    1. Marcus rönningås

      Dear Phil,

      Thoose changes in solar radiation has already been taken into consideration when analysing. There are several references in Chapter 8 in IPCC AR5 that can be used, but for a quick summary see i.e figure 8.10 and 8.11 at page 689. Do note the y-axis.

      All the best

  4. BoyfromTottenham

    Excellent article, Ed, but IMO you ‘went to a gunfight with a knife’ as they say. The IPCC is an unelected, unaccountable global political outfit, using sophisticated propaganda techniques, not science, to promote its aims. They cleverly separate the scientific reports from their purely political SPMs, but pretend that the SPMs are based on the best ‘science’. They keep upping the ante in the SPMs to garner more and more alarming news headlines from gullible (or fellow-traveller) news outlets. Over three decades or so this has clearly reached the point where it verges on parody, but they cannot afford to take a step back.
    I really appreciate the excellent work being done by real scientists like yourself in refuting CAGW, but as a long-time student of the Cold War I see the fingerprints of the cold war propaganda and ‘disinformation’ in the methods that the UNFCCC and the IPCC use, as well as funding a host of ‘front’ organisations to carry the message to the world’s gullible fools.
    I believe that your President Reagan had the Russians figured out, and used propaganda (e.g. the Star Wars project and ramping up defence spending generally) and subterfuge to bring about the collapse of the USSR from within. I think that we need to think along the same lines, but only Pres Trump (and a couple of other nations) have had the nous or the guts to start strangling this behemoth by repudiating the Paris Agreement and reducing the huge flow of cash that feeds it.
    Should we offer $million bonuses to UN /IPCC whistleblowers? Should we encourage the development of a contemporary version of the ‘American Protective League’ set up in 1917 to ‘identify suspected WWI German sympathisers and to counteract the activities of radicals, anarchists and anti-war activists’?
    I don’t have the answers, but IMO lateral thinking and large scale grass-roots action will be required to defeat this menace, not ‘the scientific method’.

    1. Marcus rönningås

      I think it would be a great idea to offer $million bonuses on IPCC whistleblowers. IPCC is an organisational body and does not conduct any research on their own or meassures climate and weather. They only assess the work of other researchers and scientists all around the world. The mandate of IPCC is formulated as “assessing scientific, technological and socio-economic information in order to provide policymakers with a clear view of the current state of scientific knowledge relevant to climate change.”

  5. Marcus rönningås

    Dear Ed,

    Being a M.Sc I hold physical laws and science to the highest standard, and since You have a PhD in physics (it would be interesting to know which part) You are aware that getting that PhD is all about ensuring that Your research was conducted in a high standard, both in regards to the professor that was Your tutor, but also the ones reviewing Your work before publishin it.

    I am currently helping my wife with her PhD in the area of cancer treatment, and so far her first part of her research has been refuted once. The comments she received from the peer review was extremely helpful for her, and will help her imensly in the forthcoming work. I strongly disagree about Your claim that “there is nothing in the peer-review process that prooves that the publication is correct”. It is the contrary. The peer review process is what ensures that unscientific papers are not published. The public deserves to know that what they are reading (in scientific publications) are reviewd and scrutinezed to such extent that the reader can trust that the findings of the paper/research etc is correct.

    Now, science do change over time and being sceptic is an important part in the development of Science. But making up science is not, harsch words yes – but nonetheless true. Anyone doing so should be stopped from being published in scientific journals for quite obvious reasons. If someone chooses to publish anything outside of journals that is entirely up to him/her. But in order to be taken seriously about research and findings anyone needs to pass the needle eye.

    Harde did not pass that needle eye and was judged accordingly.

    1. Marcus
      Have you read and preferably studied Harde 2017, Kohler 2017 and Harde’s response to Kohler? In my estimation, not based on the reviewers comments but on my analysis of the papers, Harde presents valid points that, if not adequately refuted, bring important new information to the policy makers. Kohler does nothing to refute Harde’s science but declares his approach and scope are wrong. This is arguing from authority and mostly irrelevant to the process of falsifying. Harde’s censored reply makes this point clearly and presents evidence falsifying the works Kohler references. I cannot see how rejecting his work without addressing it has any benefit for science or any place in striving for truth. In fact I see the treatment of Harde as pure censorship to protect the reviewers and journals reputations. This is an approach that should and , I predict, will have the opposite effect they are seeking.

  6. Dr. Ed,

    Thank you for your valiant efforts on behalf of true science. The IPCC case is so manifestly untenable that the general public (stupid though they may be) will doubtless catch on sooner or later. Keep up the good fight!

  7. The problem with your physics proof is that you are modeling a one reservoir system. The simplest physically reasonable model involves two, the ocean and the atmosphere although you could expand this to include the biosphere, etc. CO2 in the atmosphere is exchanged with the upper ocean (and other reservoirs) but also CO2 in the upper ocean exchanges with the atmosphere. You, and Harde, and Essenhigh all ignore this

    When you deposit extra CO2 into the atmosphere it will change what you call the balance level as the CO2 is shared within a short time (~5 years) between the ocean, biosphere and the atmosphere, and the new balance level is higher than the old one. The balance level changes with external inputs of CO2 into the atmosphere

    For simplicity let us say that we start with equal amounts in the atmosphere and ocean N, with the flows between the two in balance so your level Lbo in the atmosphere = N If we suddenly add an amount of CO2 to the atmosphere, E, then the level in the atmosphere would be N+E > Lbo. After a time some of that (the way we have set up the problem means that half or E/2) amount will be found in the ocean, but E/2 remains so the new amount in the atmosphere is Lb = N +E/2 > Lbo.

    Looking at your paper

    this means that your physics model fails. In eq.

    A.5 dL/dT = -(L -Lb)/Te


    A.6 dL/(L-Lb) = -dt/Te

    You then say that you integrate this to get

    A.7 Ln[(L-Lb)/Lo-Lb)] = -t/Te

    but since Lb is a function of time the step between A.6 and A.7 is in error.

    Done properly as a two reservoir system, one finds that the difference in CO2 (N1 – N2) between the two reservoirs decreases as Eexp(-2t/Te), that is the residence time is Te/2 and the total CO2 (N1+ N2) = 2N + E is a constant after the addition of the amount E of CO2 as it should be. Your model fails the last condition.The adjustment time in this model is infinite because there is no flow out of the combined atmosphere/ocean system, which in reality is a time characteristic of mixing with the lower ocean, the 173 years in the Bern model pg 12 of your conference paper.

    You can see a visualization of this adjustment of the balance level as a function of time at https://preview.tinyurl.com/y87edlw2

    1. Dear Joshua,

      Thank you for taking the time to read and comment on my AMS paper. By the way, my preprint is the same as my AMS paper except I have made minor updates to my preprint. My preprint is easier to read than my 2-column AMS paper.

      You raise two points: (1) You say I need to use at least 2 levels, and (2) you say my Lb is a function of time. I will respond to both of your points.

      First, as I explained in my section 3.1, the atmosphere level is sufficient for the use I make of it. My goal is to test if outflow is equal to level divided by a reference time. I have accomplished that goal. The physics model assumes outflow equals level divided by a constant e-time. The physics model exactly replicates the 14C data. Therefore, the 14C data prove the assumption in the physics model is correct.

      That is information no one has previously added to the atmosphere level. Yet this information is important before we connect outside levels to the atmosphere level.

      Human-produced CO2 that flows into the atmosphere will flow out to ocean and land. The physics question is: How much does this human CO2 change the ocean and land levels and therefore the outflow of ocean and land back into the atmosphere?

      If this feedback were significant then it would increase the e-time for the atmosphere by increasing the inflow or slowing the outflow. But the 14C data prove e-time has been constant since 1970. Therefore, the feedback of human CO2 through outside processes is insignificant.

      Second, you suggest that my Lb is a function of time and therefore my analytic solution is incorrect. However, we can assume Lb is either constant or a function of time. Since my goal is to examine outflow as a function of level, I can properly assume Lb is constant.

      If Lb were a function of time, then I would use my Eq. (A.5) with numerical integration. For my analytic solution, I assume inflow is constant and therefore Lb is constant.

      When I use the physics model to replicate the 14C data, I assume Lb is zero, which is close to the natural Lb. The physics model exactly replicates the 14C data whether we use Eq. (A.5) or Eq. (A.8), which proves Eq. (A.8) is the proper analytic solution when Lb is constant.

      Your example for a two-reservoir system makes qualitative assumptions that would increase e-time for the atmosphere. The 14C data prove your argument is wrong. The proper way to model a two-reservoir system is to first get the physics correct in each reservoir, then connect them. When connected, we would properly run the combined system using numerical integration. Your example does not get the physics right, or the prediction right, or the combined integration right, and does not make a testable prediction.

      Your argument makes another error in its use of adjustment time. My section 4.1 explains why IPCC’s adjustment time and residence time are incorrect. That is why I define a new e-time to properly explain how the outflow responds to level and therefore to inflow.

      The IPCC does not properly defind adjustment time and residence time as simple functions of level as they should be. To say the adjustment time is infinite is unphysical. All an infinite adjustment time really means is that the level equals the balance level, and outflow equals inflow. A constant e-time properly explains all this without the need for an unphysical adjustment time.

      You use the idea that it takes a pulse of CO2 to begin a simulation. That is incorrect because outflow is a function of level no matter what the history of the level.

      You refer to the Bern model. The Bern model cannot replicate the 14C data. The Bern model has 4 time constants in series. That is the same as having 4 holes in the bottom of a bucket and claiming the smaller hole somehow restricts the flow out of a larger hole. The Bern model does not model reality.

      As my section 4.4 explains, one of the Bern time constants should connect to the deep ocean and another to the interior ocean according to the original Bern model. The Bern model violates the principles of systems and violates physics. The Bern model and its prediction that 15 percent of human CO2 will stick in the atmosphere forever is junk science.

    2. Actually, Mr. Halpern, the error is in your treatment.

      Harde corrects this error in his reply to your comment on Harde (2017) – a reply that was unscrupulously censored.


      Human CO2 in the atmosphere is determined by the conservation law,
      inclusive of its emission and absorption. Absorption of CO2 is proportional
      to its concentration in the atmosphere, dependence that is confirmed empirically by the observed decay of carbon14 following the elimination of its nuclear source. Along with known human emission, this dependence makes the conservation law complete and, therefore, human CO2 in the atmosphere entirely determined. As Salby notes in his recent lecture: “Changes in the ocean, marine sediments, and countless other reservoirs are then irrelevant.”


      Salby’s additional remark is noteworthy: “For those in pursuit of truth,
      that’s fortunate because those global properties are virtually unobserved.”

      Censorship has a history of backfiring.

Leave a Comment

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.