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
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.