by Ed Berry, PhD, Atmospheric Physics
Do remember the story, in Song of the South, about Br’er Rabbit and Tar Baby?
Br’er Fox sets Tar Baby by the road. Along comes Br’er Rabbit who picks a fight with Tar Baby. Every time Br’er Rabbit punches Tar Baby, he becomes more entangled in Tar Baby.
Let’s go to a modern-day example of Brer Rabbit and the Tar Baby.
I wrote a scientific paper (Berry, 2017) “Why human CO2 does not change climate.” I submitted it to a scientific journal and posted it as a preprint on edberry.com on October 2, 2017. I posted it so good scientists can read it and critique it, and maybe show that I am wrong.
My preprint overturns the climate change hypothesis promoted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Al Gore, President Obama, the Paris Treaty, many university professors, and climate alarmists everywhere.
Further, a good high-school physics student can read and understand my preprint. It is not difficult physics or math.
Many good scientists have read my preprint and they concur that my preprint is correct. No one, to this date, has found any scientific error in my preprint.
Enter David Appell, PhD.
Along comes David Appell, an Internet troll, self-described freelance science writer, and poster boy for true believers in the alarmist climate change religion. Appell’s climate belief is a religion because it is not supported by science and the scientific method. Appell replaces the scientific method with dogma.
David Appell has a PhD in nuclear physics. He has never written a scientific article related to climate physics, meteorology, systems analysis, numerical modelling, the philosophy of science, or the scientific method, and he has no education or experience in these subjects.
In his desperate attempts to prove my preprint is wrong, Appell has made 86 comments, according to my WordPress count. He has failed in all his tries. He has not even gotten close because he understands neither the physics in my preprint nor the scientific method.
Now, in his futile attempt to defend his false climate religion, Appell has betrayed professional scientific ethics. Rather than keeping his comments about my preprint on my website, Appell has attacked my preprint on his own website.
Appell’s post on February 27, 2018, is entitled, “Idiocy from Ed Berry, PhD.” Then Appell notified his Twitter followers of his post so he could get some support for his attack on me. He got all of one comment that supports his view.
Here is a clip of the beginning of Appell’s post:
After the above introduction, Appell quotes the first two paragraphs of my preprint’s Abstract:
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims human emissions raised the carbon dioxide level from 280 ppm to 410 ppm, or 130 ppm. Physics proves this claim is impossible.
The IPCC agrees today’s annual human carbon dioxide emissions are 4.5 ppm per year and nature’s carbon dioxide emissions are 98 ppm per year. Yet, the IPCC claims human emissions have caused all the increase in carbon dioxide since 1750, which is 30 percent of today’s total.
According to one of Appell’s comments, he did not read my preprint beyond these first two paragraphs, although he made 86 comments about it.
The rest of Appell’s post shows he is not able to compute that the 130 ppm, in my Abstract’s first paragraph, which the IPCC claims was caused by human emissions, is 30 percent of the present 410 ppm.
Appell claims 130 ppm is 46 percent, rather than 30 percent, because he wants to divide by 280 ppm rather than by 410 ppm. Appell does not know how to define the proper base of percentages to do work in science.
What is Appell’s problem?
Appell’s problem is my preprint threatens his climate religion, and he cannot find any error in my preprint.
Therefore, rather than admit his climate religion is wrong, as all good scientists would do, Appell attacks me personally on his own website and resorts to simple arithmetic that has nothing to do with the validity of my preprint.
Appell has punched Tar Baby.
Here is the scientific issue behind Appell’s attack so you can understand it.
Appell and his IPCC climate religion claim human emissions have caused all the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide since 1750. That is their fundamental hypothesis and the basis of all claims that human emissions cause climate change.
My preprint proves nature, not human emissions, have caused most of the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide since 1750.
In accordance with the scientific method, my preprint proves the IPCC hypothesis is wrong. And since nature, not human emissions, has caused most of the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, there is no scientific basis to claim human emissions cause climate change.
Therefore, there is no scientific basis for the Paris Climate Treaty, for carbon dioxide emissions control, for carbon taxes, for tax credits to promote green energy, for all the California laws that claim human emissions cause climate change, etc.
The basic purpose of science is to prove hypotheses wrong. That is how we make progress in our knowledge. That is what my preprint does. Good scientists always reject theories that are proven wrong.
Fig. 1 shows three columns that represent the percentages of human and natural carbon dioxide in three key steps. Each column adds up to 100 percent. The orange colors represent human-produced carbon dioxide and the blue colors represent nature-produced carbon dioxide.
Column Inflow: Shows the percentages of human and natural carbon dioxide that flow into the Atmosphere. All parties agree Inflow is 5 percent human and 95 percent natural.
Column Atmosphere: Berry (2017) shows the percentages of human and natural carbon dioxide in the Atmosphere will be a fingerprint of the Inflow. Atmosphere percentages will remain constant so long as human and natural emissions remain constant.
Column IPCC: The IPCC claims present carbon dioxide percentages in the Atmosphere are 30 percent human and 70 percent natural. The IPCC claim conflicts with Atmosphere. Therefore, the IPCC claim is wrong.
The IPCC claims human emissions have caused all the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide since 1750. The IPCC further claims the natural concentration in 1750 was 280 ppm.
Therefore, the IPCC claims today’s atmospheric carbon dioxide is 130 ppm human and 280 ppm natural, for a total of 410 ppm.
These IPCC numbers, translated into percentages of the total, equate to 30 percent human and 70 percent natural, as shown in Column IPCC.
Why the IPCC is wrong
Berry (2017) proves Column Atmosphere is correct. Therefore, the IPCC claim shown in Column IPCC is wrong. This proves the fundamental IPCC climate claim is wrong.
Appell does not claim any of my numbers are wrong. He does not show that my Column Atmosphere is incorrect. Appell’s rant is only about Column IPCC, which is IPCC data, not my data.
Appell’s beef is with the IPCC, not with me. I use IPCC data properly as IPCC uses data.
Appell does not like my use of “30 percent” to represent IPCC’s claim that the human contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide is 30 percent.
Appell claims I should have used the ratio of human to natural parts in Column IPCC, rather than the percentages of the whole. The ratio of human to natural contributions in Column IPCC is 130 divided by 280, which is 46 percent. But that has nothing to do with the comparison to Columns Inflow and Atmosphere.
Appell claims because I did not use 46 percent to represent the IPCC claim in Column IPCC, my whole preprint is wrong, and therefore his climate religion is correct.
This should be in a movie scene by Abbot and Costello.
Appell does not know when to use percentages of a whole versus ratios of its parts.
Appell does not understand that his claim of 46 percent does not help his case or the IPCC case.
Why I use the percentage of the whole rather than ratios.
- Percentage of the whole is the best way to compare Inflow and Atmosphere proportions with IPCC claims.
- Human and natural emissions behave independently of each other, and not as ratios.
Here are two examples that show Appell’s method adds nothing to the discussion.
Suppose Column 3 in Fig. 1 represents data that 30 percent of humans who get a certain disease die, and 70 percent live. Everyone can understand that the disease will result in 30 percent risk of dying.
Appell, however, would claim the risk of dying is not 30 percent, but the ratio of 30 divided by 70, or 46 percent.
Suppose Column 3 in Fig. 1 represents the results of an election where the winning candidate received 70 percent of the vote and the losing candidate received 30 percent. Everyone can understand the percent of votes received by each candidate.
Appell, however, would claim the loser did not get 30 percent of the vote but got the ratio of 30 percent divided by 70 percent, or 46 percent of the vote.
Using Appell’s method, if the loser got only 40 percent of the votes then his real loss is 40 divided by 60, or 67 percent, which means the loser won.
My preprint (Berry, 2017) proves IPCC’s fundamental hypothesis that claims humans cause climate change is wrong.
The issue of this discussion is whether my preprint is right or wrong. So far, no one has shown my preprint is wrong.
Appell, D., 2018: Idiocy from Ed Berry, PhD. http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2018/02/idiocy-from-ed-berry-phd.html
Berry, E X, 2017: Why human CO2 does not change climate. https://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/agw-hypothesis/human-co2-not-change-climate/