Why human CO2 does not change climate

by Edwin Berry, PhD, CCM

October 2, 2017: I posted this preprint to get comments. Thank you for your comments, which have helped me improve this preprint. 

April, 6, 2018: Without changing this preprint, I separately revised and improved it for publication. Comments are now closed. The copyright for this preprint does not allow republication or reposting.

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.

How can human carbon dioxide, which is less than 5 percent of natural carbon dioxide, cause 30 percent of today’s atmospheric carbon dioxide? It can’t.

This paper derives a Model that shows how human and natural carbon dioxide emissions independently change the equilibrium level of atmospheric carbon dioxide. This Model should replace the IPCC’s invalid Bern model.

The Model shows the ratio of human to natural carbon dioxide in the atmosphere equals the ratio of their inflows, independent of residence time.

The model shows, contrary to IPCC claims, that human emissions do not continually add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, but rather cause a flow of carbon dioxide through the atmosphere. The flow adds a constant equilibrium level, not a continuing increasing level, of carbon dioxide.

Present human emissions add an equilibrium level of 18 ppm, which is the product of human carbon dioxide inflow of 4.5 ppm per year multiplied by the carbon dioxide residence time of 4 years. Present natural emissions add an equilibrium level of 392 ppm, to get today’s 410 ppm.

If human emissions continue as at present, these emissions will add no additional carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. If all human emissions were stopped, and nature stayed constant, it would remove only 18 ppm. The natural level of 392 ppm would remain.

1. Introduction

The critical questions about climate change are not about whether climate has changed. Climate always changes. The critical scientific questions about climate change are about cause-and-effect:

  1. How much do human emissions increase atmospheric carbon dioxide?
  2. How much does increased atmospheric carbon dioxide change climate?

This paper focuses on and answers the first question.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agrees that annual human carbon dioxide emissions are less than 5 percent of nature’s carbon dioxide emissions. Yet, the IPCC claims human emissions have caused all the increase in carbon dioxide since 1750, which is 30 percent of today’s total.

The IPCC claims abundant published literature shows, with “considerable certainty,” that nature has been a net carbon sink since 1750, so could not have caused the observed rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide. Section 3.1 shows why this IPCC argument fails.

Munshi (2017) used statistics to show “that detrended correlation analysis of annual emissions and annual changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide” is zero. Munshi proved there is no cause and effect and no “considerable certainty.”

Here are three analogies that will help you understand this paper.

Analogy #1

Let human carbon dioxide emissions be cream and natural carbon dioxide emissions be coffee. Pour 5 parts of cream and 95 parts of coffee into a cup with a hole in the bottom. Continue to pour 5 parts of cream and 95 parts of coffee into the cup fast enough to keep the cup filled.

Question: What is the percent of cream in the cup? Answer: Clearly, it’s 5 percent.

The tea cup analogy shows, so long as you pour 5 percent cream and 95 percent coffee into the cup, you will never get more than 5 percent cream in the cup.

But the IPCC claims the cup contains 30 percent cream and 70 percent coffee, and the percent of cream in the cup will continue to increase so long as the pouring of 5 percent cream continues.

Thus, the IPCC claims the hole in the bottom of the cup magically stops over 60 percent of the cream from flowing through the hole. The IPCC further claims continually pouring this mixture into the cup will create a permanent, increasing amount of cream in the cup, that will overflow the cup.

Analogy #2

A river flows into a lake and the lake water exits over a fixed dam. The lake level rises until outflow equals inflow. Add a new river that increases the inflow by 5 percent. The lake level will rise until, once again, outflow equals inflow.

Similarly, nature balances the inflow of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. If human emissions increase the inflow by 5 percent, the carbon dioxide level will rise until outflow equals inflow, which will occur when the carbon dioxide level has risen by 5 percent.

However, in this analogy, the IPCC claims if humans, not nature, created the new river, then the dam will magically stop over 60 percent of the new river’s inflow from flowing out over the dam. IPCC’s trapped inflow will raise the level of the lake without letting the trapped water flow out. The lake rise will build a vertical wall of water above the dam, held in place by nothing!

Analogy #3

 

You try to pump up a balloon (or inner tube) that has leak in it. The greater the air pressure inside the balloon, the faster the air leaks out. If you pump at a constant rate, you create a constant inflow of air into the balloon. The balloon, in response, will reach a pressure that causes the outflow of air to equal the inflow.

If you pump faster, the balloon will contain more air at a higher pressure. If you pump slower, the balloon will contain less air at a lower pressure. But there will always be a balance level where outflow equals inflow.  

Similarly, the greater the inflow of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, the greater the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The greater the level, the faster the outflow. When outflow equals inflow, the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will remain constant.

(end analogies)

This paper presents the physics that explains the above analogies and shows why IPCC’s climate claims are fundamentally and scientifically wrong.

Many authors have agreed that human emissions are insignificant to the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide, even though they used different methods to derive their conclusions. Revelle and Suess (1957), Star (1992), Segalstad (1992, 1996, 1998, 2009), Rorsch, Courtney, & Thoenas (2005), Courtney (2008), Siddons & D’Aleo (2007), MacRae (2008, 2015), Essenhigh (2009), Glassman (2010), Wilde (2012), Caryl (2013), Humlum et al. (2013), Salby (2012, 2015, 2016), Berry (2016), and Harde (2017) concluded that human emissions cause only a minor change in the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

This paper addresses the same general subject as Harde (2017) and provides additional support for Harde’s key conclusions:

Under present conditions, the natural emissions contribute 373 ppm and anthropogenic emissions 17 ppm to the total concentration of 390 ppm (2012). For the average (1/e) residence time we only find 4 years.

These results indicate that almost all … observed change of carbon dioxide during the Industrial Era followed, not from anthropogenic emission, but from changes of natural emissions.

This paper differs from Harde (2017) in its in-depth focus on the physics of carbon dioxide flows into and out of the atmosphere, and in its explanation of why the IPCC and its Bern model are fundamentally wrong.

To keep the discussion simple, this paper converts all GtC (Gigatons of Carbon) units into the equivalent carbon dioxide units of ppm (parts per million by volume in dry air), using:

1 ppm = 2.13 GtC

Swan (2017) wrote the IPCC is “generally regarded as the world’s leading authority on global warming.” Yet, the IPCC does not follow the scientific method, which says evidence can prove a theory wrong but cannot prove a theory right. The IPCC ignores that science proceeds by negating theories, not by discarding evidence that negates theories.

Preview to Sections 2 and 3

Fig. A previews Sections 2 and 3 of this paper. Fig. A shows three columns that represent the percentages of human and natural carbon dioxide in three views. Each column adds up to 100 percent. The orange colors represent human-produced carbon dioxide and the blue colors represent nature-produced carbon dioxide.

Fig. A. Inflow into the Atmosphere is 5 percent human and 95 percent natural. The Model shows the Atmosphere will be a fingerprint of Inflow. This contradicts the IPCC claim that human emissions cause 30 percent Atmosphere carbon dioxide.

The three columns in Fig. A show the following:

  • Inflow: All parties agree the annual Inflow of carbon dioxide into the Atmosphere is 5 percent human-caused and 95 percent natural-caused. 
  • Atmosphere: “Section 2. The Model” shows why the percentages of human and natural carbon dioxide in the Atmosphere will be a fingerprint of the Inflow, at equilibrium. 
  • IPCC: “Section 3. IPCC’s Invalid Model” shows why the IPCC claim, that human emissions cause 30 percent of the present carbon dioxide in the Atmosphere, is invalid.

In summary, Sections 2 and 3 show why the IPCC claim regarding the first question is wrong. 

2. The Model

2.1 Derivation

The (Berry) Model derived below describes how nature adjusts the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide until outflow equals inflow. Nature thereby balances both natural and human emissions of carbon dioxide.

The Model includes the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide and the rates of carbon dioxide inflow and outflow. The Model does not include levels for Land and Ocean because additional levels do not change the conclusions of the Model.

The Model follows the same basic structure as Berry (1967). A model is composed of levels and rates of flow between levels. Levels determine the rates and the rates set the new levels.

Fig. 1 illustrates the Model.

Fig. 1. The system used to derive the Model includes the level (concentration) of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the inflow and outflow of carbon dioxide.

The Model does not include the causes of the inflow because the causes do not affect the conclusions of the Model. Therefore, Henry’s Law is not included.

The Model contains only the first power of the level. Therefore, the Model satisfies Raoult’s Law and Dalton’s Law. Dalton’s Law of partial pressures states,

The total pressure exerted in a mixture of non-reacting gases is equal to the sum of the partial pressures of the individual gases.

Raoult’s law states about liquids,

The partial vapor pressure of each component of an ideal mixture of liquids is equal to the vapor pressure of the pure component multiplied by its mole fraction in the mixture.

Therefore, the Model applies independently and in total to human-produced carbon dioxide, nature-produced carbon dioxide, carbon-14 carbon dioxide, etc.

The Model follows the Equivalence Principle. The Equivalence Principle says if data cannot tell the difference between two things then the two things are identical. The Equivalence Principle is a foundation of Einstein’s theory of general relativity. It says the inability to distinguish between gravitational and inertial forces means they are the same thing.

The Equivalence Principle applies to climate physics because nature cannot tell the difference between human-produced and nature-produced carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Therefore, valid climate models must treat human-produced and nature-produced carbon dioxide the same.

The Model needs only two equations – the Continuity Equation and the Ideal Gas Law. The continuity equation assures that carbon atoms are conserved:

dL/dt = InflowOutflow                                                                   (1)

Where

L = carbon dioxide level

dL/dt = the rate of change of L

t = time

The Ideal Gas Law relates partial pressure to concentration,

p = (n/V) R T                                                                                        (2)

where

p = partial pressure

n/V = moles per volume = concentration in ppm

R = Ideal Gas Constant

T = Temperature

The partial pressure of carbon dioxide sets the rate that carbon dioxide flows out of the atmosphere. In the molecular view, a higher concentration causes more molecules per unit time to impact surfaces like plant leaves and water. The higher the rate of molecular impacts on a surface, the higher the rate of transfers into the surface.

The Ideal Gas Law says partial pressure is proportional to concentration, or level. The Ideal Gas Law causes the outflow to be proportional to the level,

Outflow = L / Te                                                                                  (3)

where Te is a constant that has the dimension of time. Eq. (8) reveals that Te equals the 1/e residence time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Salby (2016) and Harde (2017) use a similar form of Eq. (3). The significance of Eq. (3) is it makes outflow proportional to level, which causes the level to always move toward its equilibrium level.

Substituting Eq. (3) into the Outflow in continuity equation (1), gives the Model equation

dL/dt = InflowL / Te                                                                      (4)

To find an equation for Inflow, set the level equal to its equilibrium level, Le. Then the level does not change with time. So,

dL/dt = 0

and Eq. (4) becomes

Inflow = Le / Te                                                                                   (5)

where

Le = the equilibrium level of L

Note in passing that solving Eq. (5) for Le gives

Le = Inflow * Te                                                                                   (6)

Eq. (6) shows that Inflow, when multiplied by residence time, determines the equilibrium level.

Substituting Eq. (5) into Eq. (4), gives Eq. (7) which shows how the rate of change of level depends on the difference between the level and its equilibrium level, divided by residence time,

dL/dt = – (LLe) / Te                                                                        (7)

Eq. (7) shows how the Ideal Gas Law causes equilibrium. Whether the level is above or below its equilibrium level, it will always move toward its equilibrium level. Eq. (7) shows how nature balances carbon dioxide inflow whether the inflow is nature-produced or human-produced.

Rearrange Eq. (7) to get

dL / (LLe) = – dt / Te                                                                      (8)

Then integrate Eq. (8) from Lo to L on the left side, and from 0 to t on the right side, to get (Dwight, 1955, Item 90.1),

Ln [(LLe) / (LoLe)] = – t / Te                                                   (9)

where

Ln = natural logarithm, or logarithm to base e

Lo = Level at time zero (t = 0)

Le = the equilibrium level for a given inflow and Te

Te = Residence time for level to move (1 – 1/e) of the distance from Lo to Le

e = 2.7183

(The original integration of Eq. (8) contains two absolute functions, but they cancel each other because both L and Lo are always either above or below Le.)

Raise e to the power of each side of Eq. (9), to get the level as a function of time:

L = Le + (LoLe) exp(- t / Te)                                                        (10)

Eq. (10) is the analytic solution of Eq. (7). It shows how the level approaches its equilibrium level exponentially.

2.2 How nature balances inflows

The Model equations show how the inflows of human-produced carbon dioxide and nature-produced carbon dioxide set independent equilibrium levels, and the sum of these equilibrium levels equals the total equilibrium level.

Fig. 2 shows how nature balances inflow by adjusting the level until outflow equals inflow. This applies not only to total inflow but to the inflows of each partial pressure component.

Fig. 2. Balance proceeds as follows: (1) Inflow sets the balance level. (2) Level sets the outflow. (3) Level moves toward balance level until outflow equals inflow.

The following three previous equations describe how nature balances inflow.

Inflow sets the equilibrium level:

Le = Inflow * Te                                                                                   (6)

Level sets the outflow:

Outflow = L / Te                                                                                  (3)

Level always moves toward its equilibrium level:

dL/dt = – (L – Le) / Te                                                                        (7)

If inflow is zero, then the equilibrium level is zero. So, outflow will continue until the level goes to zero according to this equation:

dL/dt = – L / Te                                                                                    (7a)

Notice, there is no such thing as a permanent level greater than zero when there is no inflow. Eq. (7a) proves the IPCC Bern model, discussed section 3.4, is wrong.

2.3 Carbon dioxide residence times

There are two kinds of residence times, half-life, Th, and 1/e residence time, Te. Both residence times are different measures of the same thing:

Residence time is a measure of how fast level L approaches its equilibrium level Le when inflow is constant.

In Eq. (9), when time t equals half-life Th, then the ratio,

(LLe) / (L0Le) = ½

t = Th

Then Eq. (9) becomes

Ln (1/2) = – Th / Te

Ln (2) = Th / Te

Te = Th / Ln (2)

Te = 1.4427 Th                                                                                      (11)

Eq. (11) shows the relationship between residence half-life Th and 1/e residence time Te.

IPCC (2007) estimates the carbon dioxide flow from land to atmosphere is 56 ppm per year, and from oceans is 42 ppm per year, for a total of 98 ppm per year, or about 100 ppm per year. NOAA (2017) Mauna Loa data shows the 2015 level of atmospheric carbon dioxide is about 400 ppm.

Rearrange Eq. (5) to get,

Te = Le / Inflow                                                                                   (12)

Te = 400 ppm / 100 ppm per year = 4 years                                 (13)

Eq. (13) for residence time agrees with IPCC (1990). This calculation of residence time applies to carbon dioxide levels from about 280 ppm to 1000 ppm.

2.4 The Model replicates carbon-14 data

Every valid theory must make valid predictions. Therefore, the Model must replicate the atmospheric carbon-14 data after 1963. The Bern model does not.

The atomic bomb tests in the 1960’s increased atmospheric carbon-14 by more than 80 percent. After the halt of the tests in 1963, the concentration of carbon-14 decreased exponentially toward its previous equilibrium level of 100 percent.

The Model is not a curve-fit to data. The Model is a derivation from two physical principles. The only number the Model needs to replicate the carbon-14 data is the residence time of carbon-14 carbon dioxide.

The half-life is the time for the level of carbon-14 carbon dioxide to fall to one-half its initial level above its equilibrium level. (Not to be confused with the radioactive half-life of carbon-14 of 5730 years.)

Fig. 3 shows a plot of the carbon-14 data (Broeker et al., 1985). The data show carbon-14 lost one-half of its level above its equilibrium level every 10 years. The decrease in the level of carbon-14 carbon dioxide follows an exponential curve to its equilibrium value.

Fig. 3. Carbon-14 data before and after the above-ground atomic bomb tests (Wikipedia, 2017). The natural concentration of carbon-14 carbon dioxide is defined as 100 percent. The pMC percent scale is “percent of modern carbon” where “modern carbon” means the level in 1950 (Berger, 2014). The white circles mark the half-life times.

Table 1 shows data taken from Fig. 3 every ten years.

Table 1. The carbon-14 level minus 100, loses half of its value every ten years.

Year Level Level – 100
1965 180 80
1975 140 40
1985 120 20
1995 110 10

The data show the residence half-life for carbon-14 carbon dioxide is 10.0 years:

Th = 10.0 years

Therefore, using Eq. (11),

Te = 1.4428 Th = 14.4 years                                                               (14)

To test the Model, let

Lo = 180

Le = 100

Te = 14.4

Use Eq. (5) to calculate the natural inflow of carbon-14 carbon dioxide:

Inflow = Le / Te = 100 / 14.4 = 6.9 percent per year                   (15)

Then use either Eq. (7) or Eq. (10) to calculate the level as a function of time in years. Fig. 4, calculated in Excel, shows the result is a perfect fit to the carbon-14 data in Fig. 3.

Fig. 4. The Model replicates the carbon-14 levels of Fig. 3 and Table 1. The horizontal axis is in half-life of 10 years. Level L moves half the distance to its equilibrium level Le every ten years.

The Model accurately predicts how the level of carbon-14 carbon dioxide approaches its equilibrium level. Therefore, the Model will also correctly predict how the levels of carbon-13 and carbon-12 carbon dioxide will approach their equilibrium levels for their residence times.

2.5 Human effect on carbon dioxide level

IPCC (2007) estimates the carbon dioxide flow from land to atmosphere is 56 ppm per year, and from oceans is 42 ppm per year, for a total of 98 ppm per year.

Data from Boden et al. (2017) show human carbon dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel burning, cement manufacturing, and gas flaring in 2014 was 4.6 ppm (9.855 GtC) per year.

Eq. (6) gives the equilibrium level for natural and human sources independently.

Using Eq. (6) for the 2014 human emissions gives,

Leh = (4.6 ppm/year) (4 years) = 18 ppm                                      (16)

Using Eq. (6) for natural emissions gives,

Len = (98 ppm/year) (4 years) = 392 ppm                                    (17)

Eq. (16) and Eq. (17) depend on residence time.

Eq. (16) says human emissions create an equilibrium level of 18 ppm. This means if natural emissions were zero, the level of carbon dioxide would be 18 ppm.

Eq. (17) says present natural emissions create an equilibrium level of 392 ppm. This means if human emissions were zero, the level of carbon dioxide would be 392 ppm.

The total equilibrium level for human and natural emissions, using the above data for 2014, is the total of Eq. (16) and Eq. (17), or 410 ppm. This is only 10 ppm greater than the NOAA (2017) Mauna Loa data for 2015.

If human and natural emissions were to stay constant after 2014, then the carbon dioxide level would reach its equilibrium level of 410 in about 2018. NOAA (2017) for Mauna Loa data shows 404 ppm for 2016. These calculations are close enough to demonstrate the accuracy of the Model and the inaccuracy of the Bern model.

The ratio of Eq. (16) to Eq. (17) is independent of residence time,

Leh / Len = 18 / 392 = 4.6 percent                                                  (18)

Eq. (18) shows that the equilibrium level ratio of human-produced to nature-produced carbon dioxide is the ratio of their inflows.

Eq. (5) gives the natural emissions rate to produce the equilibrium level of 280 ppm in 1750,

Inflow = Le / Te = 280 ppm / 4 years = 70 ppm per year          (19)

The equilibrium level increased since 1750.

Recall Eq. (6) shows that the equilibrium level is the product of Inflow and residence time,

Le = Inflow * Te                                                                                   (6)

What changed to increase the equilibrium level between 1750 and today? Either the inflow increased, or the residence time increased, or both.

Harde (2017) assumed residence time increased while inflow remained constant.

The Model concludes inflow increased while residence time remained constant. That is because Eq. (3), which defines residence time, is derived from the Ideal Gas Law which is constant.

Eq. (3) shows that residence time is the ratio of Level to Outflow,

Te = L / Outflow                                                                                 (3a)

Residence time is a function of the physical and chemical processes that control outflow. These processes are constant over the range of conditions of today’s atmosphere. In Analogy 3, of Section 1, the size of the leak in the balloon controls the Outflow and, thereby, the residence time of the air in the balloon.

Eq. (6) opens the door for future research, outside the scope of this paper, that may show how external physical and chemical processes, such as the Revelle effect, may affect inflow or outflow. However, processes outside the atmosphere system do not affect the conclusions of this paper about processes inside the atmosphere system.

In summary, the Model shows human emissions cause 4.4 percent of today’s 410 ppm, or only 18 ppm. Natural emissions cause the 392-ppm level. Even if ALL human emissions were stopped and nature stayed constant, atmospheric carbon dioxide would not fall below 392 ppm.

2.6 Temperature sets the equilibrium level

The Model is independent of, but fully compatible with, the hypothesis that the rate of change of carbon dioxide is proportional to temperature. In fact, the Model identifies the constants in this proportionality.

Rorsch, Courtney, & Thoenas (2005), Courtney (2008), MacRae (2008, 2015), Humlum et al. (2013), and Salby (2012, 2015, 2016) show how changes in surface temperature precede changes in carbon dioxide. More specifically, they show the rate of change in carbon dioxide, or dL/dt, is a linear function of surface temperature. This means, using Eq. (1),

dL/dt = InflowOutflow = k Ts                                                    (1a)

where

k = a constant

Ts = Surface Temperature

For dL/dt to follow surface temperature, Inflow must follow surface temperature while Outflow is independent of surface temperature. Therefore, according to Eq. (5), 

Inflow = Le / Te = k Ts                                                                    (20)

This means the equilibrium level is a function of surface temperature,

Le = k Ts Te                                                                                        (21)

and k must have the dimensions of [ppm / (degrees K) (years)]. Since the equilibrium level for absolute zero temperature is likely zero, there is no additional constant added to Eq. (20) or Eq.(21).

Also, Eq. (2) makes Outflow a function of temperature.

3. IPCC’s invalid model

3.1 IPCC’s core argument fails

The IPCC (2007) claims, without proof, in the third paragraph of its Executive Summary,

The present atmospheric carbon dioxide increase is caused by anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide.

That statement is the basis of all claims, predictions, scenarios, and conclusions of the IPCC.

The IPCC assumes the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide in 1750 was 280 ppm. Segalstad (1998) and Ball (2008) present evidence that the level in 1750 was much higher than 280 ppm. Nevertheless, this paper uses this IPCC assumption because it does not affect this paper’s conclusions.

The IPCC’s argument, described by IPCC (2007) and Pickering (2016), says,

  1. In 1750, the atmospheric carbon dioxide level was 280 ppm, according to ice-core data, from MacFarling Meure et al. (2006).
  2. In 2013, the atmospheric carbon dioxide level was 397 ppm, according to Moana Loa data, from NOAA (2017) and Olivier (2015).
  3. So, the atmospheric carbon dioxide level increased 117 ppm between 1750 to 2013.
  4. The sum of all human carbon dioxide emissions from 1750 to 2013 was 185 ppm, which is 68 ppm more than the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.
  5. Therefore, human emissions caused ALL the 117-ppm increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, while nature absorbed the remaining 68 ppm.
  6. Since nature was a net absorber of carbon dioxide since 1750, nature cannot have caused the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

This IPCC argument fails for the following reasons.

  • Step #5 is invalid because it omits nature’s carbon dioxide emissions which are 95 percent of the data and 20 times greater than human emissions.
  • Step #5 is invalid because there are an infinite number of scenarios that satisfy Steps #1 through #4.
  • Step #5 is invalid because it assumes nature’s inflow remained constant after 1750, and human outflows did not follow the Equivalence Principle.
  • Step #6 is invalid because it is based on the invalid Step #5.

The Model shows, even if Steps #1 through #4 were true, that nature would have absorbed 167 ppm of the 185 ppm of human emissions from 1750 to 2013, leaving only 18 ppm of the total human emissions still in the atmosphere, and that nature, not human emissions, caused the increase from 280 ppm to 392 ppm.

Fig. 5 shows how much data the IPCC ignores to make its case. The sum of natural emissions is 20 times larger than human emissions. Natural outflow always balances all inflow, whether caused by human emissions or natural emissions. If nature did not have that flexibility then nature could not balance its own emissions.

Fig. 5. The sum of nature’s inflow is 20 times larger than the sum of human emissions. Nature balances inflow with or without human emissions.

The question is not whether nature balances human inflow. It does. The question is how much do human emissions raise the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere to accomplish the balance. The IPCC ignores and contradicts basic physics.

3.2 IPCC manufactures climate change

IPCC (2007, Fig. 3.1a) shows for the “natural carbon cycle” that nature balances its inflows of 120 GtC (56 ppm) per year from Land, and its inflows of 90 GtC (42 ppm) per year from Ocean. So, IPCC agrees that nature balances the inflow of 98 ppm of natural carbon dioxide.

IPCC (2007, Fig. 3.1b) shows for the “human perturbation” total annual human inflows of 7.1 GtC (3.3 ppm) and outflows of 3.8 GtC (1.8 ppm), for a built-in imbalance of 1.5 ppm added to the atmosphere annually.

The IPCC claims nature is not flexible enough to include 1.5 ppm per year outflow to its natural outflow of 98 ppm per year. If nature were that rigid, nature could not balance its own inflows that change from year to year.

The IPCC does not understand how nature balances carbon dioxide inflow. Otherwise, the IPCC would not propose such an unphysical idea that nature does not balance human-caused inflow. The Model explains how nature balances all inflows.

This IPCC idea should have been rejected at its outset because it violates the Equivalence Principle.

The IPCC calls human-produced carbon dioxide a “perturbation” that nature cannot balance. That view reveals the biased mindset of the IPCC. The IPCC bases its climate models on the unscientific ethical premise that nature is good and human actions are bad.

The IPCC inserts its false idea, that nature does not balance human inflow, into its climate models. This false idea causes climate models to produce false results. Then the IPCC uses climate model results to claim human emissions cause climate change. IPCC’s climate conclusions are a result of its unscientific idea and its built-in circular reasoning.

IPCC’s false climate idea:

  1. Violates the Equivalence Principle.
  2. Violates physics because nature will always adjust the level to balance inflow.
  3. Adds a false “human-caused” inflow of 1.5 ppm per year into climate models.
  4. Causes climate models to make false claims about human-caused climate change.
  5. Is based on the ethical premise the nature is good and human actions are bad.

3.3 IPCC confuses residence time

IPCC (1990) properly concludes that the residence time of carbon dioxide molecules in the atmosphere is about 4 years. But the IPCC defines residence time incorrectly. The IPCC says residence time is “turnover time.” Here is a quote:

The turnover time of CO2 in the atmosphere, measured as the ratio of the content to the fluxes through it, is about 4 years. This means that on average it takes only a few years before a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is taken up by plants or dissolved in the ocean.

This short time scale must not be confused with the time it takes for the atmospheric CO2 level to adjust to a new equilibrium if sources or sinks change.

What IPCC calls “turnover time” is the 1/e residence time.

IPCC defines two kinds of residence times: one residence time equals the average lifetime of molecule, and the other residence time equals the time for the “level to adjust to a new equilibrium” level.

But both residence times are the same thing. All definitions of residence time are the same because all definitions measure residence time according to the change in the level of carbon dioxide. No one measures how long an individual carbon dioxide molecule stays in the air.

3.4 IPCC’s Bern model is invalid

The IPCC “Bern model” (Bern, 2002) is a seven-parameter curve fit to the output of IPCC’s climate models (Joos et al., 2013). As a curve-fit to climate models, the Bern model replicates the output of IPCC’s climate models. Therefore, the Bern model includes the same false claims as the IPCC inserted into the climate models.

The IPCC changed the Bern model. The original Bern model, described by Siegenthaler and Joos (1992), connected the atmosphere level to the upper ocean level, and the upper ocean level to the deep and interior ocean levels.

The IPCC removed the Bern model levels for the deep and interior ocean, and connected their rates directly to the atmosphere level. That is why the atmosphere in the IPCC Bern model has three residence times. This is a violation of modelling principles.

IPCC (1990) acknowledges the source of the Bern model’s three residence times. The IPCC quote continues:

This adjustment time… is of the order of 50 – 200 years, determined mainly by the slow exchange of carbon between surface waters and the deep ocean.

The two curves in Figure 1.2, which represent simulations of a pulse input of CO2 into the atmosphere using atmosphere-ocean models (a box model and a General Circulation Model (GCM)), clearly show that the initial response (governed mainly by the uptake of CO2 by ocean surface waters) is much more rapid than the later response (influenced by the slow exchange between surface waters and deeper layers of the oceans).

For example, the first reduction by 50 percent occurs within some 50 years, whereas the reduction by another 50 percent (to 25 percent of the initial value) requires approximately another 250 years. The concentration will never return to its original value, but reach a new equilibrium level, about 15 percent of the total amount of CO2 emitted will remain in the atmosphere.

The IPCC applies its invalid Bern model only to human carbon dioxide emissions and not to natural emissions, which is a violation of the Equivalence Principle.

It would take a Maxwell’s Demon to prevent human-produced carbon dioxide from flowing out of the atmosphere like nature-produced carbon dioxide. The IPCC claim that nature treats human-produced and nature-produced carbon dioxide differently is impossible.

Appendix A shows how to remove the integral in the Bern model to reveal its core equation.

The Bern core equation predicts that a one-year “pulse” inflow, which sets the carbon dioxide level to 100 ppm, will cause the level to be 29 ppm after 100 years with a permanent level of 15 ppm forever.

Therefore, according to the Equivalence Principle, the Bern model must also hold for natural emissions. If natural emissions are inserted into the Bern model, it predicts that the last 1000 years of natural emissions of 100 ppm per year would have added 15 ppm per year that remains forever in the atmosphere, for a total irreversible increase of 15,000 ppm. This clearly invalid prediction proves the Bern model and all IPCC climate models are wrong.

Also, Eq. (7a) proves the IPCC Bern model is wrong. There is no permanent carbon dioxide level as the IPCC claims. The level of carbon dioxide will go to zero if there is no inflow.

The creators of the original Bern model, Siegenthaler and Joos (1992), understood that their model should reproduce the carbon-14 data and were disappointed that it did not do so. The IPCC Bern model cannot replicate the carbon-14 data.

Salby (2016) was correct to compare the Bern model output with carbon-14 data on the same plot. That comparison plot shows the Bern model is not even close to reality. The two longer residence times and one infinite residence time that the IPCC added to the Bern model prevent the Bern model from behaving like nature.

The scientific method says if a theory makes only one wrong prediction or if any of its supporting claims are wrong, then the theory is wrong. The IPCC Bern model makes invalid predictions and contains non-physical assumptions. It replicates IPCC’s climate models rather than real data. Therefore, the Bern model proves IPCC’s core claims and climate models are wrong.

3.5 IPCC’s alternative arguments fail

IPCC (2007) claims,

Carbon-13 has decreased from 1950 to 1980. Plants and fossil fuels have lower carbon-13 to carbon-12 ratio ratios than other sources of carbon dioxide. Therefore, human carbon dioxide emissions have caused all the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide above 280 ppm.

IPCC (2007) agrees that carbon-13 decreased 18 percent from 1950 to 1980, and plant and human carbon dioxide have only 2 percent less carbon-13 than other sources.

Since human carbon dioxide emissions are only 5 percent of nature’s carbon dioxide emissions, human carbon dioxide could have caused only 2 percent of 5 percent, or 0.1 percent, decrease in carbon-13. So, human carbon dioxide cannot have caused an 18 percent decrease.

Segalstad (1992) and Spencer (2009) show why biological sources rather than human emissions caused the decrease in carbon-13.

IPCC (2007) claims the decline in atmospheric oxygen proves human emissions caused all the increase in carbon dioxide since 1750. This argument fails because a decline in the oxygen level is unrelated to the outflow of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

IPCC (2007) claims that the more rapid increase in carbon dioxide in the northern hemisphere proves human emissions caused all the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide since 1750. Quirk (2009) shows how the same data imply that natural emissions, not human emissions, increase atmospheric carbon dioxide.

4. Conclusions

This paper accomplished three goals:

  1. It derived a simple Model that accurately computes how human and natural carbon dioxide emissions independently change the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
  2. It answered the question: “How much do human emissions increase atmospheric carbon dioxide?”
  3. It showed why IPCC’s claims and models are fundamentally wrong.

Contrary to IPCC claims, human emissions have not caused all the increase in carbon dioxide since 1750. Human emissions do not continually add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, but rather cause a flow of carbon dioxide through the atmosphere. The flow adds a constant equilibrium level, not a continuing increasing level, of carbon dioxide.

The 1/e residence time of carbon-12 carbon dioxide, using IPCC data, is 4 years.

Human and natural emissions create inflows of carbon dioxide that create independent equilibrium levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide. These independent equilibrium levels add to produce a total equilibrium level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Present human emissions add an equilibrium level of 18 ppm, which is the product of human carbon dioxide inflow of 4.5 ppm per year multiplied by the carbon dioxide residence time of 4 years. Present natural emissions add an equilibrium level of 392 ppm, to get today’s 410 ppm.

If human emissions continue as at present, these emissions will add no additional carbon dioxide to the atmosphere in the future. If all human emissions were stopped, and nature stayed constant, it would remove only 18 ppm. The natural level of 392 ppm would remain.

There is no “permanent” remainder of human or natural carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. If inflow is turned off, the corresponding equilibrium level will go to zero. The level will approach zero according to the 1/e residence time of 4 years.

The ratio of human to natural carbon dioxide in the atmosphere equals the ratio of their inflows, independent of residence time.

All valid models must obey the Equivalence Principle and must replicate the carbon-14 data.

IPCC’s Bern model violates the Equivalence Principle, does not reproduce the carbon-14 data, and predicts that 1000 years of “natural emissions” will permanently increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by 15,000 ppm.

Since IPCC’s Bern model is a curve-fit to the output of climate models, the inaccurate and invalid Bern Model proves IPCC’s climate claims are wrong.  The (Berry) Model should replace the IPCC’s invalid Bern model.

Appendix A: Bern model math

The Bern (2002) model is an integral equation rather than a rate equation. Therefore, the Bern model is not a system model. The Bern model integrates the inflow of carbon dioxide from minus infinity to any time in the future.

To deconstruct the Bern model, let inflow occur only in the year when “t-prime” equals zero (t’ = 0). Then the integral disappears and the Bern model becomes a level equation. Using the terms defined in this paper, the Bern level equation is,

L(t) = Lo [ A0 + A1 exp(- t/T1) + A2 exp(- t/T2) + A3 exp(- t/T3)]             (A.1)

where the Bern IPCC TAR standard values are,

A0 = 0.152

A1 = 0.253

A2 = 0.279

A3 = 0.319

T1 = 173 years

T2 = 18.5 years

T3 = 1.19 years

The A-values merely weight the four terms on the right-hand side of Eq. (A.1):

A0 + A1 + A2 + A3 = 1.000

The IPCC assigned values to the seven arbitrary parameters by curve-fitting the Bern model to output of IPCC’s climate models. Good science would have fit the Bern model to real data, like the carbon-14 data.

Here are two easy ways to show the Bern model contradicts real-world data.

Set t equal to 100 years. Then Eq. (A.1) becomes,

L = (A0 + A1) Lo = (0.152 + 0.253 * 0.56) Lo = 0.29 Lo              (A.2)

Set t equal to infinity. Then Eq. (A.1) becomes,

L = Ao Lo = 0.152 Lo                                                                         (A.3)

Eq. (A.2) and Eq. (A.3) say if a one-year inflow sets Lo to 100 ppm and there is no other inflow forever, then the level in 100 years will be 29 ppm and the level will never fall below 15 ppm.

To get the Bern rate equation, take the time derivative of Eq. (A.1),

dL/dt = – L (A1/T1 + A2/T2 + A3/T3)                                           (A.4)

Compare this to Eq. (7),

dL/dt = – (LLe) / Te                                                                      (7)

This comparison shows the Bern model does not include an equilibrium level or the physics that produces an equilibrium level. That is why it predicts some carbon dioxide will remain forever.

Siegenthaler and Joos (1992) designed the Bern model to connect the atmosphere with the upper ocean and the upper ocean with the deep ocean, etc., as can be seen in their Fig. 1. But the IPCC Bern model omits the separate ocean levels and simply connects their rate equations directly to the atmosphere. That is why the Bern model has three different residence times.

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by the personal funds of the author. The author thanks Daniel Nebert, Chuck Wiese, Laurence Gould, Tom Sheahen, Charles Camenzuli, Gordon Danielson, and Valerie Berry, who reviewed and proofread drafts of this paper.

References

(All internet links tested on 9/12/2017)

Ball, Tim, 2008: Pre-industrial CO2 levels were about the same as today. How and why we are told otherwise. http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=2258

Berger, Axel, 2014: The meaning of pMC. Research Gate. https://www.researchgate.net/post/In_radiocarbon_dating_what_does_pMC_indicates2

Bern, 2002: Parameters for tuning a simple carbon cycle model. http://unfccc.int/resource/brazil/carbon.html

Berry, E.X, 1967: Cloud Droplet growth by collection. J. Atmos. Sci. 24, 688-701. http://edberry.com/SiteDocs/Ed/CDG/CloudDropletGrowthbyCollection.pdf

Berry, E.X, 2016: Why our CO2 emissions do not increase atmospheric CO2. http://edberry.com/blog/ed-berry/why-our-co2-emissions-do-not-increase-atmosphere-co2/

Boden, T. and B. Andres, 2017: Global CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel burning, cement manufacture, and gas flaring: 1751-2014.  http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2014.ems

Broeker, W.S., Peng, T.-H, Ostlund, G, and Stuiver, M, 1985. The distribution of bomb radiocarbon in the ocean. J. Geophys. Res. 90, 6953-6970. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JC090iC04p06953/full

Caryl, E. 2013: The Carbon Cycle – Nature or Nurture? No Tricks Zone. http://notrickszone.com/2013/03/02/most-of-the-rise-in-co2-likely-comes-from-natural-sources/#sthash.vvkCqrPI.dpbs

Courtney, R.S, 2008: Limits to existing quantitative understanding of past, present and future changes to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. International Conference on Climate Change, New York. https://www.heartland.org/multimedia/videos/richard-courtney-iccc1

Dwight, Herbert Bristol, 1955: Tables of Integrals and Other Mathematical Data. MacMillian Company, 1955. https://www.amazon.com/Tables-Integrals-Other-Mathematical-Data/dp/0023311703

Essenhigh, R.E., 2009: Potential dependence of global warming on the residence time (RT) in the atmosphere of anthropogenically sourced carbon dioxide. Energy & Fuels 23, 2773-2784. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef800581r

Glassman, J.A., 2010: On why CO2 is known not to have accumulated in the atmosphere and what is happening with CO2 in the modern era. Rocket Scientist Journal. http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2007/06/on_why_co2_is_known_not_to_hav.html#more

Harde, Hermann, 2017: Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO2 residence time in the atmosphere. Global and Planetary Change 152 (2017) 19-26. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818116304787

Humlum, O., Stordahl, K., Solheim, J.-E., 2013: The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperatures. Global and Planetary Change, Vol 100, January 2013, pp 51-69. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658

IPCC, 1990. Climate Change: The IPCC scientific assessment. Final Report of Working Group 1. Cambridge University Press. 1990. (page 8 = page 56/114). https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf

IPCC, 2007: Report 3. The Carbon Cycle and Atmosphere Carbon Dioxide. https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/pdf/TAR-03.PDF

Joos, F., R. Roth, J. S. Fuglestvedt, G. P. Peters, I. G. Enting, W. von Bloh, V. Brovkin, E. J. Burke, M. Eby, N. R. Edwards, T. Friedrich, T. L. Frolicher, P. R. Halloran, P. B. Holden, C. Jones, T. Kleinen, F. T. Mackenzie, K. Matsumoto, M. Meinshausen, G.-K. Plattner, A. Reisinger, J. Segschneider, G. Shaffer, M. Steinacher, K. Strassmann, K. Tanaka, A. Timmermann, and A. J. Weaver, 2013: Carbon dioxide and climate impulse response functions for the computation of greenhouse gas metrics: a multi-model analysis. Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 2793-2825. https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/2793/2013/acp-13-2793-2013.pdf

MacFarling Meure, C., D. Etheridge, C. Trudinger, P. Steele, R. Langenfelds, T. van Ommen, A. mith, and J. Elkins.  2006: The Law Dome CO2, CH4 and N2O Ice Core Records Extended to 2000 years BP. Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 33, No. 14, L14810 10.1029/2006GL026152. ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/law/law2006.txt

MacRae, A, 2008: Carbon dioxide is not the primary cause of global warming: the future cannot cause the past. Icecap. http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2vsTMacRae.pdf

Macrae, A, 2015: Presentation of evidence suggesting temperature drives atmospheric CO2 more than CO2 drives temperature. WattsUpWithThat. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/13/presentation-of-evidence-suggesting-temperature-drives-atmospheric-co2-more-than-co2-drives-temperature/

Munshi, Jamal, 2017: Responsiveness of atmospheric CO2 to fossil fuel emissions: Updated. SSRN. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2997420

NOAA, 2017: ESRL CO2 data beginning in 1959. ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_annmean_mlo.txt

Olivier, Jos et al., 2015: Trends in global CO2 emissions: 2015 Report. Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/news_docs/jrc-2015-trends-in-global-co2-emissions-2015-report-98184.pdf

Pickering, Keith, 2016: (Comments under Salby video). http://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/agw-hypothesis/murry-salby-atmospheric-carbon-18-july-2016/

Quirk, Tom, 2009: Sources and sinks of carbon dioxide. Energy & Environment. Volume: 20 Issue: 1, page(s): 105-121. January 1, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1260/095830509787689123

Revelle, R. & Suess, H. 1957: Carbon dioxide exchange between atmosphere and ocean and the question of an increase of atmospheric CO2 during past decades. Tellus 9: 18-27. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1957.tb01849.x/abstract

Rorsch, A; Courtney, RS; Thoenes, D; 2005: The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle. Energy & Environment, Volume 16, No 2. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1260/0958305053749589

Salby, Murry, 2012: Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate. Cambridge University Press. 666 pp. https://www.amazon.com/Physics-Atmosphere-Climate-Murry-Salby/dp/0521767180/ref=mt_hardcover?_encoding=UTF8&me=

Salby, Murry, 2015: CO2 follows the Integral of Temperature, video. http://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/agw-hypothesis/murry-salby-co2-follows-integral-of-temperature/

Salby, Murry, 2016: Atmosphere Carbon Dioxide, video presentation, July 18, 2016. University College London. http://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/agw-hypothesis/murry-salby-atmospheric-carbon-18-july-2016/  Also: https://youtu.be/3q-M_uYkpT0

Segalstad, T. V. 1992: The amount of non-fossil-fuel CO2 in the atmosphere. AGU Chapman Conference on Climate, Volcanism, and Global Change. March 23-27, 1992. Hilo, Hawaii. Abstracts: 25; and poster: 10 pp. Available at: http://www.co2web.info/hawaii.pdf

Segalstad, T. V. 1996: The distribution of CO2 between atmosphere, hydrosphere, and lithosphere; minimal influence from anthropogenic CO2 on the global “Greenhouse Effect”. In Emsley, J. (Ed.): The Global Warming Debate. The Report of the European Science and Environment Forum. Bourne Press Ltd., Bournemouth, Dorset, U.K. [ISBN 0952773406]: 41-50. Available at: http://www.co2web.info/ESEFVO1.pdf

Segalstad, T. V. 1998: Carbon cycle modelling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO2: on the construction of the “Greenhouse Effect Global Warming” dogma. In: Bate, R. (Ed.): Global warming: the continuing debate. ESEF, Cambridge, U.K. [ISBN 0952773422]: 184-219. Available at: http://www.co2web.info/ESEF3VO2.pdf

Siegenthaler, U. and F. Joos, 1992: Use of a simple model for studying oceanic tracer distributions and the global carbon cycle. Tellus (1992), 44B, 186-207. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1034/j.1600-0889.1992.t01-2-00003.x/epdf

Siddons, A; D’Aleo, J; 2007: Carbon Dioxide: The Houdini of Gases. http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/Carbon_Dioxide_The_Houdini_of_Gases.pdf

Spencer, R; 2009: Increasing Atmospheric CO2: Manmade…or Natural? http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/increasing-atmospheric-co2-manmade%E2%80%A6or-natural/

Starr, C., 1992: Atmospheric CO2 residence time and the carbon cycle. Science Direct. 18, 12, 1297-1310. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0360544293900178

Swan, Russ, 2017: Support for the AGW Theory – or Not … Issues on Climate Change. http://issuesonclimatechange.com/support-for-the-agw-theory-or-not/

Wilde, S; 2012: Evidence that Oceans not Man control CO2 emissions. Climate Realists. http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=9508

Wikipedia, 2017: Radio Carbon Bomb Spike. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Radiocarbon_bomb_spike.svg

81 thoughts on “Why human CO2 does not change climate”

  1. Hello Dr. Ed

    Thank you for this work that confirms and widens the works of other good scientists.

    I thought you might want to know about a paper attempting to refute Harde. It is found at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2017.09.015.

    I will be watching your web site for your responses to their work. It is pay walled so out of site to me.

    Keep up the good work!

    1. Dear DMA,

      Thank your for your comment and link. I reviewed the comment by Kohler et al. on Harde's paper.

      Why do they always need 8 or more authors to challenge a paper they don't like? Do they think truth in science is determined by vote? Or are they so insecure in their positions that they need help from their peers?

      I will write a reply to Kohler et al. In short, they do not provide any physical argument for their position. They merely paraphrase the IPCC party line and claim it is the truth. That is not how science works.

      They criticize Harde for not using an ocean level. But they are wrong. Both Harde and my preprint focus on the single level atmosphere which is sufficient to make our points. The key point is how nature processes human emissions compared to natural emission.

      Kohler et al. simply do not get the point of this argument. They don't understand how the single level and its rates function. Because they don't get this single level correct, they continue to be wrong when they add an ocean layer.

      My reprint, shown here, pretty much anticipated challenges like Kohler et al. My reprint here shows why Kohler et al. are wrong, and Harde is right.

      1. Either "modern" scientists are getting dumber, or I am getting smarter… The latter is unlikely. The "balance" algorithm you present is axiomatic and should be intuitively obvious to every analyst, but apparently is not for a disturbing number of recent "scientific" practitioners. As you may recall I have used this balance approach to deduce that man-made global warming is trivial to insignificant, that the average temperature increase around he earth amounts to 0.011 C (0.02F). Also, the ratio of sunlight energy to AGW heat energy is 7,000-to-one. The sunspot variance of sunlight is five times greater than this. So, to ascertain the effect of energy increase on temperature, weather and climate, look first to the sunspot correlations thereto.

    2. DMA: Did you read that paper??

      From the Abstract:

      "Harde (2017) proposes an alternative accounting scheme for the modern carbon cycle and concludes that only 4.3% of today's atmospheric CO2 is a result of anthropogenic emissions. As we will show, this alternative scheme is too simple, is based on invalid assumptions, and does not address many of the key processes involved in the global carbon cycle that are important on the timescale of interest. Harde (2017) therefore reaches an incorrect conclusion about the role of anthropogenic CO2 emissions."

      1. David A

        I have in fact read the Kohler paper and conclude that Dr. Ed's comments of October 6 is spot on. Kohler uses circular arguments of " Harde can't be right because he didn't do it like we did" rather than address the premise of the Harde paper that using the carbon cycle to analyze atmospheric CO2 on an annual timescale is inappropriate and unneeded. Their diagnosis of Harde is devoid of actual analysis and consists entirely of assertion without supporting data.

        I will stick to Dr. Ed's conclusions as they appear to follow sound reasoning and fit the data.

  2. Here is a copy of the email I sent to my subscribers on October 6, 2017:

    My new preprint, “Why human CO2 does not change climate,” is currently in peer review by a major climate publication.

    The IPCC agrees present human carbon dioxide emissions are less than 5 percent of nature’s. Yet, the IPCC claims human emissions have caused 100 percent of the increase in carbon dioxide. Simple physics proves this IPCC claim is wrong.

    I derive a Model, using simple physics, that the IPCC should use to replace its Bern model, which has no physics. My Model shows why human carbon dioxide emissions add only 5 percent to the present level of atmospheric carbon dioxide and nature adds the other 95 percent.

    My Model also shows why the IPCC's Bern model and climate models are wrong.

    My Model shows, contrary to IPCC claims, that human emissions do not continually add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, but rather cause a flow of carbon dioxide through the atmosphere. This flow supports a constant equilibrium level of carbon dioxide, not a continuing increasing level as alarmists believe. That concept changes the picture entirely.

    The IPCC and climate alarmists believe the atmosphere is like a garbage dump, where almost everything we put in stays. The reality is the atmosphere is like a lake where water inflow sets the equilibrium level and the actual level sets the outflow. When the level equals the equilibrium level, outflow equals inflow.

    Here is an analogy.

    A river flows into a lake and the lake exits over a fixed dam. The lake level is constant because outflow equals inflow. A new river increases inflow by 5 percent. The new inflow increases the lake level just enough to increase outflow to by 5 percent, so outflow again equals inflow.

    Similarly, human carbon dioxide emissions increase the level of carbon dioxide just enough to increase carbon dioxide outflow by 5 percent. Then outflow equals inflow. Continued inflow does not change the level.

    Present human emissions add an equilibrium level of 18 ppm, which is the product of human carbon dioxide inflow of 4.5 ppm per year multiplied by the carbon dioxide residence time of 4 years.

    Present natural emissions add an equilibrium level of 392 ppm, which is the product of natural carbon dioxide inflow of 92 ppm per year multiplied by the residence time of 4 years.

    The sum of human and natural levels is today’s 410 ppm.

    Continuation of present human emissions will not increase the level of carbon dioxide. Therefore, continuing human emissions are not a cause for alarm.

    If all human emissions stopped, and nature stayed constant, it would remove only 18 ppm. The natural level of 392 ppm would remain. Therefore, all efforts to reduce human carbon dioxide emissions are inconsequential and a wasted effort.

    A statistical study by Munshi proves the correlation of human emissions with the rise in carbon dioxide is ZERO. This means nature, not human emissions, has caused the rise in carbon dioxide.

    Human emissions cause, at most, 5 percent of the climate change claimed by the IPCC, while nature causes 95 percent.

    There are different opinions among those who try to show the IPCC is wrong. Some demonstrate that IPCC climate models make wrong predictions. That is direct and consistent with the scientific method.

    Others argue that increased carbon dioxide levels are beneficial. While true, that approach is too squishy to prevail in court. Also, it is a gift to the alarmists because it grants that human carbon dioxide causes all the carbon dioxide increase and that carbon dioxide causes warming. That is like a lawyer admitting his client shot the victim but arguing it is beneficial that the victim is dead.

    I think the argument I present in my preprint is the best way to reverse provisions of the Clean Air Act. It is simple enough to convince a jury and judge. It cuts off the alarmist' argument at its knees. It wins by Occam's Razor.

    It is easy to read. It uses basic physics and math that can, and should, be taught in high school.

  3. Richard S Courtney

    Ed;

    Thankyou for the preprint. I think you may be interested (and perhaps amused) by an anecdote, so I write to provide it.

    Your preprint says;

    "IPCC (2007) claims the decline in atmospheric oxygen proves human emissions caused all the increase in carbon dioxide since 1750. This argument fails because a decline in the oxygen level is unrelated to the outflow of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere."

    Science' by assertion is a longstanding practice of IPCC 'scientists'.

    Some years ago the late Bert Bolin burst into a Conference in Stockholm (he had not purchased an entrance ticket) and waved a paper which showed a correlation between atmospheric O2 and atmospheric CO2. He proclaimed the correlation proved the cause of the atmospheric CO2 rise was the anthropogenic emission of CO2.

    I was in the audience because I had provided a presentation that showed lack of knowledge prevents quantitative prediction of future atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

    I broke the silence which followed Bolin's interruption by standing and saying,

    "Sir, I wish you were right because I am the person here who wants to be proved to be wrong. If that paper did mean what you claim it means then I would rejoice because it would show the conclusion of my work is wrong, and I want somebody to find something that shows the conclusion of my work is wrong. But, sadly, the correlation which that paper reports does NOT mean what you claim it means."

    Berlin then said nothing but stood for a moment before turning and leaving the building.

    Richard

    1. Mr. Courtney,

      Sir, what you say may be true but the IPCC has still not proven the causation between CO2 and increased temperature, just the opposite seems to be true, there is only a correlation that when the temperature goes up, the CO2 goes up as we. Perhaps it's only because of the off-gassing from the oceans as the heat up, but it certainly not CO2, far from it.

      1. Richard S Courtney

        Richard A Fletcher:

        Your comment does not pertain to anything I said and threatens to deflect attention from Ed Berry's paper which is the subject of this thread. However, to avoid claims that I have ignored your comment I provide a clarification.

        I said,

        "I had provided a presentation that showed lack of knowledge prevents quantitative prediction of future atmospheric CO2 concentrations."

        That is true.

        Simply, the future atmospheric CO2 concentration cannot be known because the contribution of nature to the rise in atmospheric CO2 is not known. The most likely explanation of the bulk of the rise is altered equilibrium of the carbon cycle which has resulted from the temperature rise from the Little Ice Age. That temperature rise has been happening intermittently for about 300 years. The future evolution of that temperature rise cannot be known because its cause is not known and, therefore, it cannot be known what – if any – any rise in atmospheric CO2 rise it will induce in future.

        For more information about this please see the two references which include my name that Ed Berry cites above,

        Richard

  4. Dr. Ed,

    You produced a crystal clear assay.

    After finding an electrical analogy. it all fell into place for me.

    Any opponent will have a hard time explaining why Ockham razor does not apply here.

    Though I fear they won't stop trying to let the axiom prove itself.

  5. How can you not cite the main recent study on sources and sinks of CO2. That is Quere et al. 2016. Global carbon budge 2016. You can find it as a download through Google Scholar. I read a recent paper in PNAS that showed that residence time for CO2 in the atmosphere for CO2 of hundreds of years.

    1. Dear BillD,

      I don't cite sources and sinks because the conclusions of this paper are independent of sources and sinks. This paper shows how our atmosphere processes carbon dioxide no matter what the sources and sinks do.

      The PNAS study that shows residence time of hundreds of years is wrong. It is based on invalid assumptions, as this paper describes. The PNAS study is based on the invalid Bern model. Simply, insert natural emissions into the Bern model and you will find it predicts an absurd result. Therefore, it is wrong.

  6. I wasn't aware that the "alarmists" actually claimed that only the anthropogenic CO2 caused climate problems. It was my understanding that the increase in CO2 (from any source) was the problem and that it magically controlled our global temperature. I believed their thinking to be along the lines of mankind adding extra carbon dioxide over and beyond that naturally occurring thus resulting in (the alarmists' claim of) increased speed and depth of climate change.

    1. Dear Dale,

      The IPCC, as well as the alarmists who have commented on this site, believe nature held the level of CO2 at 280 ppm in 1750, and human emissions caused all the increase in CO2 above 280 ppm. The IPCC has programmed this idea into its climate models.

  7. Today, I added Section 2.6 that relates equilibrium level to surface temperature. If my hypothesis is correct, this explains why the rate of change of CO2 is a function of surface temperature.

    1. Richard S Courtney

      Ed;

      Your recent amendment to your above preprint says,

      "MacRae (2008, 2015), Humlum et al. (2013), and Salby (2012, 2015, 2016) show how changes in surface temperature precede changes in carbon dioxide."

      I draw your attention to my post replying to A Fletcher in the thread. I there say,

      "The most likely explanation of the bulk of the rise [in atmospheric CO2 concentratiobn] is altered equilibrium of the carbon cycle which has resulted from the temperature rise from the Little Ice Age. That temperature rise has been happening intermittently for about 300 years."

      and

      "For more information about this please see the two references which include my name that Ed Berry cites above,"

      Those two papers each explain that the CO2 follows the temperature because it takes time for the system to adjust to any change equilibrium state of the carbon cycle.

      Importantly, those two papers are from 2005 and 2008; i,e, they predate the papers of MacRae, Humlum and Salby by more than a decade.

      Richard

      1. Dear Richard,

        Thank you very much for bringing my omission to my attention. I added references to your 2005 and 2008 papers to my section 2.6.

    2. Dr. Ed,

      You might consider making section 2.6 into an appendix.

      After all, the Model does not include the causes of the inflow because the causes do not affect the conclusions of the Model.

      I believe most criticism this paper will face, will focus on this section.

  8. Elevated above pre-industrial level that reflect natural processes CO2 IS A MARKER FOR ANTHROPOGENIC COMBUSTION, THE COMBUSTION REACTION RELEASES BOND ENERGY FROM THE HYDROCARBONS THAT MANIFESTS AS WARMING IN THE CLIMATE OF THE PLANET.

    1. Dear Lisa, Thank you for your comment. However, your comment merely makes a claim about nature that is not true. It's not your fault because the IPCC, presidents before President Trump, and probably your science teachers lied to you.

      My preprint describes how nature really works. Study it. Its key conclusion is that human emissions do not "dump" carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Emissions, human and natural, only create an Inflow that sets the equilibrium level of atmospheric carbon dioxide. When human or natural Inflows are constant, they do NOT further increase the Level. They only maintain the current Level.

      This fact is true for human and natural emissions independently and in total. Since natural emissions are 20 times human emissions, natural emission set 95 percent of the total equilibrium level and human emissions set only 5 percent of the total equilibrium level.

      Therefore, human emissions are insignificant to climate change.

  9. It strikes me that atmospheric CO2 levels should actually rise through solar minima. Because solar minima increase in negative Arctic and North Atlantic Oscillation conditions, which is directly associated with increased El Nino conditions, and drives a warm Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation phase. With the warm ocean modes also both effecting regional aridity and land CO2 uptake rates negatively.

    'Atlantic Ocean CO2 uptake reduced by weakening of the meridional overturning circulation'
    https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1680

  10. "Contrary to IPCC claims, human emissions have not caused all the increase in carbon dioxide since 1750. Human emissions do not continually add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, but rather cause a flow of carbon dioxide through the atmosphere. The flow adds a constant equilibrium level, not a continuing increasing level, of carbon dioxide." Ed Berry

    IPCC mandate of human caused warming.

    Just what would you expect from an organization whose mandate is this?

    1. Scope and Approach of the Assessment 1.1. Mandate of the Assessment

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by World Meteorological Organization and United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) in 1988 to assess scientific, technical, and socioeconomic information that is relevant in understanding HUMAN-INDUCED [my emphases] climate change, its potential impacts, and options for mitigation and adaptation.

    https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php

  11. To have a conversation about how it is possible that the trace gas, CO₂, could possibly be the driver of something as complex as the earth's climate is a waste of time because it is impossible for this to happen. It is the sun that determines what the earth's climate is and that has always been the case in the 4.5 billion year history of the planet.

    This debate about CO₂, anthropogenic global warming, that now since the hiatus in warming since 1998, the alarmist have begun to call it, "climate change" is absurd. The debate is not founded in science but is instead a political issue where the powers that be, such as the United Nations & the governments of many nations, understand that the misconception over CO₂ is an avenue for greater control over the masses as well as potential revenues from taxes robbed from the unwashed masses to eliminate this imaginary devil in the sky, CO₂.

    This excerpt from the UN's Christiana Figueres should leave no doubt in anyone's mind that what I have said is true.

    These remarks made by Christiana Figueres, the Executive Secretary of UNFCCC should bother anyone with a brain and a desire to lead their own life free from the dictates of such an organization as the UN and their climate change agenda. The question is and the answer is obvious, is this a "fight against climate change" or a fight against basic human freedoms that all in civilized parts of the world have, up until now and this kind of request for dictatorial powers, to decide their own destinies?

    "This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution. That will not happen overnight and it will not happen at a single conference on climate change, be it COP 15, 21, 40 – you choose the number. It just does not occur like that. It is a process, because of the depth of the transformation."

    &nbsp ;http://www.unric.org/en/latest-un-buzz/29623-figueres-first-time-the-world-economy-is-transformed-intentionally

    “The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.” – emeritus professor Daniel Botkin

    “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”—Paul Watson, a founder of Greenpeace

  12. Pingback: Planeet gered, welvaart weg, vrijheid kwijt -

  13. Ed wrote:

    "How can human carbon dioxide, which is only 5 percent of natural carbon dioxide, add 30 percent to the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide? It can’t."

    Because nature absorbs more CO2 that it admits. That's why the ocean is acidifying. Duh.

  14. Ed wrote:

    "Present human emissions add an equilibrium level of 18 ppm, which is the product of human carbon dioxide inflow of 4.5 ppm per year multiplied by the carbon dioxide residence time of 4 years."

    Here is EXACTLY your mistake, Ed.

    You assume that, after 4.5 years, an anthropogenic CO2 molecule leaves the atmosphere for good.

    This is false, wrong, and uninformed.

    You MUST look at the carbon cycle as a whole.

    You should study the work of people like David Archer, U Chicago.

    Although a particular anthro CO2 molecule does relatively quickly (~ 7 yrs) leave the atmosphere, ANOTHER ONE takes its place PRECISELY because that original aCO2 molecule existed.

    This isn't rocket science — it's been known for 10 years. You are derelict for not knowing this science.

    Many have made the same mistake as you. You should certainly be aware of those attempted publications and their mistakes.

    As usual — as always? — your science is crap. You're just another uninformed denier.

    Very disappointing.

    1. "Although a particular anthro CO2 molecule does relatively quickly (~ 7 yrs) leave the atmosphere, ANOTHER ONE takes its place PRECISELY because that original aCO2 molecule existed. "

      Can you please explain the mechanism that is able to make another CO2 molecule appear when an aCO2 molecule is absorbed by a leaf and used in photosynthesis. How does the mechanism keep track of the aCO2? Does it ever become real CO2 like the ones made when I breath?

      It seems to me that you havn't thought this out quite as well as you profess. To make all the recent increase of CO2 anthropogenic requires some far fetched assumptions. Among these is that there is always a balance of natural sources and sinks. Another is that there is some "buffer" that never works on natural CO2 but chooses just enough of the anthropogenic CO2 each year to leave in the atmosphere so that the growth rate in the atmosphere stays constant and is unaffected by the rate of anthropogenic emissions.

      I think it much easier to accept Dr. Ed's explanation.

  15. Ed, all of your analogies are flawed.

    Because you are assuming CO2 is like a liquid or simple gas. But this is not true.

    In particular, a CO2 molecule leaving the atmosphere does not mean that CO2 is gone forever.

    Because, carbon cycle.

    This is basic science that you really should know and should have known before you tried your calculations and wrote a paper.

    Becauses a CO2 molecule leaves the atmosphere does not mean the atmosphere loses CO2.

    That CO2 molecule is, instead, replaced by another, typically form the ocean. That's how the carbon cycle works.

    I suggest you read papers and books such as

    Archer, D. J. Geophys. Res. Oceans 110, CO9S05 (2005).

    “The millennial atmospheric lifetime of anthropogenic CO2,”

    David Archer and Victor Brovkin,

    Climatic Change (2008) 90:283–297

    DOI 10.1007/s10584-008-9413-1

    "The Long Thaw: How Humans Are Changing the Next 100,000 Years of Earth's Climate," David Archer (University of Chicago), 2008.
    http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10727.html

    Your paper will be rejected, except perhaps by a predatory journal like the fraudulent one that published Nikolov & Zeller.

  16. David, I think you need to read Dr. Ed's work more thoroughly. For starters, this paper asserts that C02 sinks don't (and can't) discriminate between C02 originating from natural or human CO2 sources. This should be obvious.

    And yes, sinks DO destroy CO2 molecules permanently. When a plant consumes a C02 molecule, the plant stores the carbon and releases oxygen back into the atmosphere. That same CO2 molecule will never exist again. It is gone…forever. This is all part of the carbon cycle you are so fond of. Remember just one form of basic photosynthesis: 6(C02)+6(H20) + (light energy) -> C6H12O6+6(02).

    And yes, CO2 sinks do indeed respond proportional to the level of atmospheric CO2, regardless of source. Look at a greenhouse with artificially elevated CO2 levels. CO2 is consumed at a higher rate than with C02 at atmospheric levels, adding to plant mass more quickly (accelerated growth). This also should be obvious.

    The burden is on you to prove wrong something Dr. Ed has put forward in this paper, but not just by asking questions. Dr. Ed's primary position is that climate science is not good science, since the fundamental principles of the scientific method have been pushed aside and replaced by committee decision-making, with future conclusions drawn from previously flawed conclusions, bringing us to the house of cards that climate science has become. He invites you (and anyone for that matter) to critique his paper on scientific grounds.

    If you care about the future of climate science, join us in getting the "science" back in there, front and center. Disruptive tactics such as distraction, changing the subject (to something other than the topic of the paper), and "appeals to authority" do not qualify as a scientific critique. The proposed model is simple. All it takes is one real scenario to prove this model wrong. Until you can provide such a scenario, please refrain from using disruptive tactics…these only take away from good science.

  17. H. Douglas Lightfoot

    The model that Ed Berry uses, and has analogies for, is for an open system. That is, the CO2 flows in from somewhere, picks up additional CO2 from somewhere and flows away to somewhere. The flow rates adjust to the concentration. This is an open system.

    Actually, the flows of CO2 in the atmosphere are in a closed system. The CO2 flows always end up being recycled by being removed and re-emitted to the atmosphere. Some external CO2 is added from anthropogenic sources. CO2 can be removed from the system or added to the system from vegetation, soils or the oceans. Natural variation can increase the CO2 by increasing the temperature. For example, when the temperature rose at the end of the ice ages, the concentration of CO2 rose as it came out of the oceans.

    The correct model to replace that of Ed Berry is the NASA carbon cycle available at: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Carbon
    It shows one quarter of the CO2 in the atmosphere is recycled annually: ((120 + 90)/800) = 26%.

    It shows 5 GtC annually is taken out of circulation. Thus, the current retention time of CO2 is (800/(3 +2)) = 160 years.

    It shows 9 GtC of carbon is added from human sources. This is actually recycled carbon because was taken out of the atmosphere by photosynthesis and converted to coal, oil and natural gas.

    This shows the problems with Ed Berry’s model.

    1. Dear Douglas,

      Thank you for your comment, but I am sorry to say, respectfully, that your analysis is wrong. You do not understand my model. Maybe you don’t understand models in general.

      My model defines its system as the atmosphere. My model is “open” but that does not invalidate the model because the model accounts for the flows into and out of the system.

      My model shows how the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere responds to the inflow of carbon dioxide … no matter what the sources of inflow and sinks of outflow. My model shows how outflow is proportional to the level, which is a factor ignored by the IPCC model and by your comment.

      My model shows how a steady inflow does not cause a continuing increase in the level of carbon dioxide, as the IPCC claims, but rather sets a balance level that will be maintained by the inflow.

      Your claim that the history of the carbon molecules outside the system affects the behavior of carbon dioxide inside the system is invalid. That is like saying the history of the money in your bank account affects the behavior of the money in your bank account.

      Therefore, your comment that the 5 GtC "taken out of circulation" makes the retention time 160 years, is invalid. Similarly, your comment that human emissions are "recycled carbon" has no bearing on the physics inside my model. Your claim is like saying a system model of your refrigerator is invalid because it does not include the source of the electricity that it uses.

      In modelling, it is entirely appropriate to define a system that ignores features outside the system, so long as the model accounts for inflows and outflows, which my model does. However, the IPCC model, and the NASA carbon cycle model you link to, do not properly account for how carbon dioxide behaves inside the atmosphere system.

      The model you propose (from your link) results in the IPCC model, which violates the Equivalence Principle. I have shown how the IPCC model in invalid.

      By the way, you could have made your comment simpler by converting your GtC units into ppm, like I did.

  18. Dear David,

    You wrote:

    • A CO2 molecule leaving the atmosphere does not mean that CO2 is gone forever.

    • Because a CO2 molecule leaves the atmosphere does not mean the atmosphere loses CO2.

    • That CO2 molecule is, instead, replaced by another, typically from the ocean.

    All your 3 claims are untrue. If one molecule leaves the atmosphere, then the atmosphere has one less molecule. You must treat molecules that enter and exit the atmosphere separately.

    My model treats inflow and outflow separately, as one should do to model the atmosphere system.

    If you want to add to my model, you might develop a model of your own to try to show how, say, human emissions change nature’s inflow into the atmosphere. If you could successfully accomplish this task, you could then show how human emissions might increase the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide more than my model shows.

    But you have not done this, nor has anyone else. All your hand waving about the carbon cycle does not accomplish this task.

    And if you did create an external model, it would not invalidate my model. It would only add to my model. In fact, you need my model as a basis to prove that human emissions increase the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

    If you do not understand what I have just written, then you simply do not understand how a model works. My model follows the principles of modelling and the principles of thermodynamics. Check out Jay Forrester’s “Principles of Systems.” Take a course in Markov Chains. Go back to basic thermodynamics to learn about systems.

  19. H. Douglas Lightfoot

    Dear Ed:

    Thank you. I appreciate the time that it took for you to reply.

    Just for the record, the NASA Carbon Cycle is based on observations. All of the parts are needed in the model to make it work and balance. This model does show retention time is 160 years and the recycle time is approximately 4 years.

    Your model is based on the NASA carbon cycle model—you removed the recycle part and called it retention for your model.

    You discount some of the parts of the NASA model that make it work. For example, some of the CO2 must be taken out of circulation by being absorbed by vegetation, soils and the oceans. Unless you have some reason that indicates CO2 is not taken out of circulation, you must have a side stream on the outlet of your model that accounts for the CO2 taken out of circulation.

    The contribution of CO2 from human sources is irrelevant because it does not deal with the reasons why some climate modellers claim CO2 is the cause of global warming which are, and I quote:

    Step 1: We burn fossil fuels, releasing 2 trillion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere since the year 1800. (545 billion tonnes of carbon)

    Step 2: about half of this CO2 has remained in the atmosphere, increasing average CO2 levels from 280 to 400 ppm.

    Step 3: this CO2 increase (combined with other anthropogenic greenhouse gases and aerosols) represents a radiative forcing of about 2.3 W/m2 relative to 1750. This is at least 5, and more likely 10x larger than the radiative forcing from solar changes over this same period.

    Step 4: Positive radiative forcing causes Earth’s average temperature to increase.

    Step 5: As temperatures increase, the air can hold more water vapour. Water vapour therefore also increases. This amplifies the warming.

    Your model does not deal with any of these.

    Thank you for your time. I hope some of this is useful to you.

    Best wishes,

    Doug

    1. Doug

      Good to visit with you again.

      From my point of view, There is no need to involve the carbon cycle in the analysis Dr. Ed is doing here. The radiative forcing mentioned in your step 3 is dependent only on the atmospheric CO2 content which can be described as flow in minus flow out plus the base load. I don't see why it matters if some is going through different processes . There are about 35 different estimates of residence time using 4 different methods of determination with results from 0.5 to 12 years with the average about 4 years. I don't think the idea of a retention time of 160 years makes sense unless there is some mechanism that differentiates between "natural" and fossil fuel CO2 like Revelle proposed. Dr. Ed has shown that is not acceptable under the equivalency principle.

      Have you and Orval received any feedback on your back radiation paper yet?

      Dave Albert

    2. Dear Doug:

      Thank you for your comment.

      The NASA Carbon Cycle may be based on observations, but it includes hypotheses that are non-physical. I don’t challenge good data, but I do challenge hypotheses. While my preprint uses the IPCC data and hypotheses, these are the same as NASA data and hypotheses that you support.

      You claim I “removed” the carbon cycle part from my model. I claim I constructed a valid system model that represents the physics of how the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a function of inflow and outflow. That is something that the IPCC and NASA have not done.

      The fact that my atmosphere system does not include all parts of the carbon cycle does not invalidate my model. By contrast, the fact that the NASA Carbon Cycle does not include the proper physics shown in my model, invalidates the NASA Carbon Cycle model and claims.

      While there may be 160-year cycle found outside my atmosphere system model, there is no 160-year cycle contained in the atmosphere system.

      I recognize you are a mechanical engineer. I first learned how to construct systems models in engineering thermodynamics at Caltech, as a sophomore. It took me 4 years to graduate as an engineer. It took me 8 more years to become a theoretical physicist.

      Your claim that a systems model must include the behavior of external factors is simply an incorrect statement. (Even the IPCC and NASA models do not include the physics inside the sun and stars.) My model follows the recognized way to construct systems models that are used today in all fields.

      Nothing you have written invalidates my model. In fact, you, NASA, and the IPCC need my model as a place to begin to properly model the carbon cycle. Just develop an external carbon cycle systems model that links to the inflow and outflow of my model.

      Maybe such an external model would show that the carbon cycle adjusts the inflow or outflow for my model. Maybe not. But until someone can show that my physics is wrong, my model stands as the best and only way to describe what happens in the atmosphere based upon any inflows you may prescribe.

      I do not need to add “a side stream on the outlet” of my model to account for any carbon that is “taken out of circulation,” as you claim. My model does not care about carbon that is “taken out of circulation.” It only cares about how much inflow comes from human emissions and from nature. It concludes correctly that the equilibrium ratio of human to natural carbon dioxide in the atmosphere equals the ratio of their inputs.

      My model concludes the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide since 1750 has been primarily due to nature, and only a small part due to human emissions. Nothing you have written shows this conclusion to be wrong.

      Your Steps 1 and 2 mirror the six steps in my Section 3.1. So, I have already shown your Step 2 to be invalid.

      Your Steps 3 through 5 are outside the scope of my preprint. Of course, my model does not include the effect of carbon dioxide on global temperature. At the outset, I made it clear that my preprint only focuses on the effect of human emissions on the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

      That you imply a model of atmospheric carbon dioxide, such as mine, must include radiation and warming to be valid, shows you do not understand how system models work.

      In summary, none of your claims in your comment invalidate my model.

      My preprint also shows why the IPCC and NASA models are invalid. It does that by showing the IPCC model makes invalid predictions and violates the Equivalence Principle. Nothing in your comment saves the IPCC and NASA models from self-destruction.

      Sincerely,

      Ed

    3. Dear Doug,

      Maybe I can clarify the use of systems models by using an example of a typical automobile. Designers use systems models of the individual components to achieve their overall objective. Each system has inputs and outputs. These inputs and outputs connect to other systems.

      For example, the engine is a system. It has inputs of fuel and cool water from the radiator. It has outputs of exhaust, hot water to the radiator, and work sent to the transmission. The engine designers use their system model to produce the desired work output for any fuel input.

      The transmission designers design their system to best convert the work input from the engine to the desired torque and speed to drive the automobile under different conditions. The transmission designers do not have to consider the details of the engine design or the differential design.

      Each such system can be combined to form a larger system. At the top, we have a system for the total automobile, which has inputs of fuel and cool air, and outputs of exhaust and hot air. We do not require the systems for the automobile, individually or in total, to include the origin of the fuel the automobile uses, to be a valid system model of the automobile. Maybe the use of fuel will have an impact on future availability of fuel. That is not a required part of the automobile system.

      The above should seem obvious. It demonstrates why your claim, that my system model of atmospheric carbon dioxide must include the external carbon cycle in to be valid, has no basis. My system model shows how the atmospheric carbon dioxide system behaves inside the system, independently from what happens to carbon in the external carbon cycle.

      So, if you wish to critique my model, you must do it relative to what happens inside the system defined by the model. It is valid and normal for a system model to have inputs and outputs.

  20. H. Douglas Lightfoot

    Dear Ed:

    Thank you for continuing with your explanations.

    Now that I better understand what you are saying, I can see where we agree. For example, the annual input of CO2 to the atmosphere from natural causes is (120 + 99) = 219 GtC, and the amount of carbon currently in the atmosphere is 800 GtC. This makes your retention time of approximately 4 years.

    I also have no problem in using your value of 1 ppmv of CO2 = 2.13 GtC. On this basis, 800 GtC = (800/2.13) = 376 ppmv. This is slightly off the current level of 400 ppmv.

    By various means, humans have emitted approximately 545 GtC of carbon to the atmosphere since 1800. This value appears to be fairly accurate as it is based mostly on measured values. It is also real—it is as real as the computers we both use to correspond.

    If all of the 545 GtC of carbon stayed in the atmosphere, the concentration today based on 280 ppmv in 1750, would be (280 + (545/2.13) = (280 + 256) = 536 ppmv. The total amount of carbon in the atmosphere then would be: (536 x 2.13) = 1142 GtC. The difference between 1142 GtC and the number of 800 GtC we agree on is (1142 -800) = 342 GtC.

    The 342 GtC is about 5/9 of the amount of carbon currently emitted to the atmosphere. It is the amount indicated by the NASA carbon cycle. This amount must be subtracted from 1142 GtC to give the 800 GtC that you use in your work.

    A problem arises because you say my step #2 provided by a climate modeller is invalid: “Step 2: about half of this CO2 has remained in the atmosphere, increasing average CO2 levels from 280 to 400 ppm.”

    I quote from your post of Feb 1 at 12:29 PM: “Your Steps 1 and 2 mirror the six steps in my Section 3.1. So, I have already shown your Step 2 to be invalid.”

    Although you say my statement #2 is not valid, you use it to obtain the 800 GtC necessary for your work.

    This shows the fault in your work. With a fault such as this it is unlikely that Elsevier will publish your paper. It all depends on the competence of the reviewers.

    I suggest you might wish to fully understand the carbon cycle. To help, below are the values on the NASA carbon cycle applied to an easier to read diagram.

    The diagram I inserted here did not come through. If you wish to have it, please send an email to my address. In the meantime here is a verbal explanation of parts of the NASA carbon cycle:

    Vegetation and soils: Out annually = 120 GtC; In annually = 123 GtC.

    Oceans: Out annually = 99 GtC; In annually = 101 GtC

    Totals: Out annually = 219 GtC; In annually = 224 GtC; difference = 5 GtC

    Human annually in: 9 GtC

    Human remaining in the atmosphere annually: 9 -5 = 4 GtC

    It would help readers to better understand your model if you were to show the actual flows of CO2 you are using directly on the model.

    The numbers for the calculations re your work are closer to those of the NASA carbon cycle if you use 1 ppmv of CO2 = 2 GtC. This is the value I use in my work.

    To change the subject, evidence is pointing strongly to the forthcoming collapse of the concept of CO2 as the cause of climate change.

    I sincerely hope some of this is helpful to you.

    Regards,

    Doug

    1. Hi again Doug:

      I'm just an old surveyor. I don't remember the correct math or notation to accurately express myself but I will take a swing at my understanding here and you or Dr. Ed correct me.

      From the first lump of coal that is burned on new years day to the last gallon of gas used the next new years eave the CO2 produced is being absorbed by natural sinks at a rate of 25% per year. The next year 25% of what remains is gone and so forth each year. Just a rough estimate of 75% remaining each year has the CO2 still in the atmosphere from that year at under 5% in ten years. I can't see how any of the CO2 I created when I was a kid in 1955 is anywhere to be found now.

      If the natural sinks can't differentiate between CO2 from burning Coal and CO2 from a warming ocean, and they can't, any amount added to the atmosphere over the human emissions of the last 10 or 15 years must be natural.

      Now this makes sense to me but it requires that don't assume the atmosphere had a constant 280PPM throughout the Holocene until the industrial revolution. I have found adequate info to reject that assumption in Beck's work on chemical analysis of atmospheric CO2 and Wagner's work on stomata.

      So that's my take on this aspect of the CAGW debate. How far wrong am I.

      1. Dear DMA,

        In Section 3.1, I wrote:

        The IPCC assumes the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide in 1750 was 280 ppm. Segalstad (1998) and Ball (2008) present evidence that the level in 1750 was much higher than 280 ppm. Nevertheless, this paper uses this IPCC assumption because it does not affect this paper’s conclusions.

        Segalstad and Ball quote Beck and Wagner. I did not want to make Beck or Wagner an issue in my preprint because it is a separate subject that would distract the reader from the subject I present. The conclusions of my preprint are valid, with or without the data from Beck and Wagner.

        Eqs. (7) and (10) represent the math you say you don't remember, but which you describe accurately in your comment.

  21. Dear Doug:

    The formula, in my Section 1, that converts GtC of carbon into ppmv of carbon dioxide is universally accepted even by the IPCC. It is also easily calculated. Since level of carbon dioxide is measured in ppmv, it is much simpler to always use ppmv when discussion this subject.

    Yes, we agree on retention time of about 4 years, and even the IPCC agrees.

    Your numbers in your comment match the numbers I use for annual human emissions and annual increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide. The numbers should come from data sources that I reference. It is a simple matter to sum these over any given years. Therefore, you find no fault with my numbers.

    Your Step 2 says:

    “Step 2: about half of this CO2 has remained in the atmosphere, increasing average CO2 levels from 280 to 400 ppm.”

    Yes, I have shown your Step 2 claim to be invalid. And you have offered no rational argument that it is valid. Reiterating the numbers I use from the IPCC and talking about the carbon cycle, are not proof that your Step 2 is correct. Nor are they proof that my argument in Section 3.2 is wrong. To show that my argument is wrong, you will need to show I have made an error in my numbered equations. You have not done this.

    No, I do not use your Step 2 for my work, as you claim. I show in Section 3.2 why your Step 2 is wrong. My Step 5 in Section 3.2 is the same as your Step 2. My steps 1 through 4 go through the same data and the same argument you keep putting into your comments. Yet, you cannot show that my argument in Section 2.3 is wrong.

    The numbers you include for the carbon cycle are the same numbers the IPCC uses in its reports. These are the numbers that I have used and referenced. I understand the carbon cycle. But it seems you do not understand the physics, math, and philosophy of science that is in my preprint.

    To date, no one has shown any error in my preprint. Several very qualified atmospheric physicists have reviewed my preprint and have approved it.

    If a reviewer for Elsevier claims to find a fault in my preprint, then Elsevier owes me the professional courtesy to allow me to rebut any such claim. So far, Elsevier has not forwarded to me any reviewers claims.

    You can be sure, if any reviewer found a serious error in my preprint, Elsevier would have told me by now. Also, you can be sure, the reviewers include the most competent people on the IPCC side of this issue who are looking for any way to show my preprint is wrong.

    It says a lot when no reviewer has found an error in my preprint since reviewing began shortly after October 1, 2017.

    My concern, and it should be the concern of all scientists, is that some on the IPCC side, who may claim there is an error in my preprint, are themselves not competent to understand what my preprint says.

    Is it better for science publications to error on the side of consensus, or to error on the side of controversy?

    The answer should be obvious. Science dies on consensus and thrives on controversy.

    Sincerely,

    Ed

  22. Dear David,

    All journals, so far as I know, can reject a paper with no explanation or any statement the editor wishes to make. Journals are a private businesses.

    For example, the journal that published Harde's recent paper thereafter dismissed and replaced the good editor in charge. Then the newly appointed editor allowed the climate alarmists to rebut Harde's paper, and then prohibited Harde from rebutting the alarmists' miserable rebuttal.

    Such a restriction of scientific debate would never have happened before the powerful politics of the climate scam. Harde's experience shows the power of the climate alarmists to control what gets published.

    In my case, I have a very good editor, or my paper would not have survived this long in review. I am sure the climate alarmists have threatened this editor to try to stop the publication of my paper. The threat likely includes the editor's job. This editor is a science hero who is fighting the dark side.

    My paper, if published, could set readership records for the journal. So, much is at stake for the journal in its coming decision on my paper.

  23. Dear David,

    I don't have to defend my preprint from anything you wrote because nothing you wrote shows my preprint is in error.

    You provide no link your thesis, or to a professional paper based on your thesis. I assume your thesis publication does not exist.

    You say you can't find my thesis publication. My publication list includes this:

    Berry, E.X, 1967: Cloud droplet growth by collection. J. Atmos. Sci. 24, 688-701. (Publication of my PhD Thesis) plus four more publications that follow.

    You will find a link to the above publication in the references in my preprint, which you claim to have read.

  24. I flashed through the paper and the responses but could see no mention of Henry's Law. I have argued with Murry S about his first stab at the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide. I thought it too high on the basis of Henry's Law that as the slight warming since the LIA through whatever causes (other than CO2) to a first approximation it is close to zero as it contributes to the partial pressure and hence reduces by an equal extent that which would have been emitted from natural sources.

    1. Dear Peter,

      In section 2.1, I wrote:

      The Model does not include the causes of the inflow because the causes do not affect the conclusions of the Model. Therefore, Henry’s Law is not included.

      I purposely focus on how carbon dioxide behaves in the atmosphere no matter what causes the inflows of carbon dioxide. Plus, I needed to show the errors in the IPCC approach in order to make room for what I believe is a correct model.

      In section 2.6, which I added later, I show how the my model is compatible with the theory that temperature drives the rate of change of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

      After the journal publishes my preprint, I plan to expand my model to include the causes of the inflows.

      I think it would have been too much to address, in this paper, the causes of inflows until the scientific community generally accepts what I present in this paper. Because of climate politics, my preprint is already controversial before I add more processes.

  25. "How can human carbon dioxide, which is only 5 percent of natural carbon dioxide, add 30 percent to the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide? It can’t."

    This is your fundamental error — and it's what one sees deniers make all the time.

    Nature emits CO2, BUT IT ALSO ABSORBS IT.

    In fact, it currently absorbs MORE CO2 than it emits.

    So about half of human CO2 emissions aren't absorbed — a number that's been fairly constant for a few decades now — but isn't guaranteed to stay constant.

    This is why CO2 is piling up in the atmosphere. Pretty easy to understand.

    (As is the argument about how atmospheric carbon isotopes shows the increase is due to fossil fuels, and not due to "natural" emissions.)

    This has been known for many years.

    1. Dear David,

      Your comment above proves you simply do not understand climate physics. Your invalid claims ignore the content of my preprint. Your comment does not include a physics argument that shows there is any error in my preprint.

      In addition, you have not shown that the claims I have made against the IPCC position are wrong. Until you can do that, you have no basis for your alarmist position on climate.

      You are not even playing in the same tennis court as I am.

      To respond to your other comments of today, I note your publications show you began your career as a nuclear physicist, but after 1990 wrote nothing in any depth in science.

      After, 1990, you became just another simplistic environmentalist writer who has contributed nothing to science. You have never been an atmospheric scientist, and that is why you are having a difficult time pretending to be one.

      Nothing in your background or experience or comments shows you have any knowledge of the philosophy of science, logic, the methods of scientific proof, numerical models, weather modification, or climate change.

      1. I didn't become a science writer until 1997, so you're wrong on that score. I left research physics after I got my PhD in 1988.

        It's not my responsibility to prove you wrong, it's your responsibility to prove yourself right. Publishing in a good, peer reviewed journal would help do that. Publishing on a blog accomplishes nothing.

        You claim I'm wrong but don't say why.

        1. Dear David,

          My point is you have never done any professional work and you have no professional experience in atmospheric physics.

          You are a nuclear physicist, not an atmospheric physicist.

          Furthermore, you know nothing about the scientific method, and you prove your ignorance in your comment:

          It’s not my responsibility to prove you wrong, it’s your responsibility to prove yourself right.

    2. Dear David,

      Your error is you do not understand systems. You are talking about a hypothesis that applies only to what happens outside my defined atmosphere system.

      Your comment proves you do not understand how theoretical physics works. The error you, and your alarmist friends, make is you talk about what carbon may do outside the atmosphere system and then delude yourself into thinking this makes you understand the atmosphere system. It doesn't.

  26. Ed Berry wrote:

    "Yet, the IPCC claims human emissions have caused all the increase in carbon dioxide since 1750, which is 30 percent."

    Actually, the increase is 45%, from 280 ppm to 405 ppm.

    Bad start. Any reason to read past this?

    1. Dear David,

      Did you flunk fractions in high school?

      The ppm increase since 1750 in round numbers is 130 ppm. 130 ppm out of 410 ppm is 31.71 percent, or about 30 percent. And you compute 45 percent?

      Why should anyone give your comments any credibility?

    2. (This is a copy of my answer to David Appell's comment in another post because it is relevant here.)

      Dear David,

      Your statement "I'm not going to read your paper …" admits that you have not read my paper.

      Do you accept Raoult’s Law and Dalton’s Law? If so, then you agree that carbon dioxide from all sources behave independently once in the atmosphere.

      The only way this would not be true is if you could insert a Maxwell's Demon that would restrict carbon dioxide from a particular source from leaving the atmosphere. Of course, that is impossible.

      I derived the equations for the balance level and proved these equations apply equally to all forms of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. You have not in any way shown my equations are wrong.

      You inability to comprehend basic physics never ceases to amaze me.

      You cannot understand a simple high-school percentage problem.

      Here is what I wrote that you cannot understand:

      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).

      How can human carbon dioxide, which is only 5 percent of natural carbon dioxide, add 30 percent to the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide? It can’t.

      Where I added the obvious "(of today's total)" to help you understand simple English.

      It should be obvious that I am comparing human-caused inflow of carbon dioxide, which is only 5 percent of total inflow, to the 130 ppm of the 410 ppm presently in the atmosphere.

      The IPCC claims the full 130 ppm increase, which is 30 percent of the total 410 ppm, is caused by human emissions. You may use 45 percent if you are math challenged, but you have only made the problem worse for yourself … because you have not answered this fundamental question:

      Question: How can human emissions, which are only 5 percent of total inflow, be responsible for 30 percent of the final mixture?

      Answer: It can't!

      Nothing in your dozens of comments shows my simple and obvious conclusion is wrong.

  27. Dear David,

    Anyone at the high-school level of physics, can easily prove in a simple laboratory experiment, that the ratio of two sources of non-reacting fluids in a mixture is equal to the ration of their inflows, when their outflows equals their levels in the mixture.

    There is nothing for me to prove. This is a fact that has already been proved. If you disagree with the result of such an experiment, then devise an experiment that proves your claim. You can't.

    Regarding your question about how much carbon nature emits and absorbs: If you will actually read my preprint before you comment on it, you will discover I use the emission and absorption numbers given in the IPCC reports. Are you now challenging the IPCC numbers?

  28. "Question: How can human emissions, which are only 5 percent of total inflow, be responsible for 30 percent of the final mixture?"

    Once human contribution is absorbed, it becomes part of "nature," Ed. All of the CO2 is "natural", in that it's from burned fossil fuels. Where is your proof that the 95% "coffee" doesn't include some of the 5% cream that was in the inflow 10 years ago?

    How do you differentiate that 'diluted" mixture from the pure coffee? The 5% figure isn't attempting to do that, it's just saying what proportion we are adding, not what has been absorbed into the system. Maybe I'm missing something very basic in your argument, but then perhaps you need to be more clear.

    1. Dear Stan, I am always happy to try to explain something better.

      First, I have defined the "system" as the atmosphere. I connect the system to the outside world with Inflow and Outflow. Whatever happens outside this system does not affect what happens inside the system.

      That answers your question about stuff that happens outside the system.

      My equations apply to any individual source that we may wish to define.

      The equations apply separately and in total to all sources of carbon dioxide. I don't need to derive special equations for each source. Therefore, the equations show how human and natural carbon dioxide behave separately and in total.

      That answers your question about the 5 percent.

  29. Ed, you acknowledge that "the equilibrium level has increased since 1750" (and indeed, the observations clearly show that)

    Yet, you insist between (4) and (5) that dLe/dt=0

    How is that not a direct contradiction?

    1. Dear Stan,

      My use of dLe/dt = 0 is the standard way to solve a differential equation.

      Setting dLe/dt = 0 is only using a special case for the equation, namely, when the system is at equilibrium.

      In this case, the equilibrium setting allows us to find that Inflow = Le/Te as shown in Eq (5).

      There is no contradiction created by this method because it does not constrain the equations to always be at equilibrium. It is simply a way to define parameters.

      Notice how I began with the continuity equation (1) and then, step by step, derived equations for Inflow and Outflow in terms of levels and time constants.

  30. Pingback: David Appell, PhD, punches Tar Baby - edberry.com

  31. Richard S Courtney

    Ed:

    Appell's attack on your arithmetic is a 'red herring' that attempts to deflect attention from his inability to find fault in your argument.

    The important points are that

    (a) Appell wants to refute your argument

    because

    (b) your argument is heretical to his belief in human-made global warming

    but

    (c) he cannot fault your argument

    so

    (d) he is attempting to ridicule your argument

    by

    (e) pretending you have made an error of simple arithmetic

    which

    (f) he hopes will start an argument about that (instead of your argument)

    although

    (g) he must know your arithmetic is correct (unless he is even more stupid than I think he is).

    Richard

  32. This is only the second time I have done this to anyone.

    As of this comment, I have blocked further comments from David Appell. He can make all the irrational comments he wants to on his own website.

    I continue to accept disagreement from anyone when it is sensible and productive.

    I allowed Appell to make 92 comments. That is a sufficient opportunity for him to make his point. But he has no point. His only intention is to interrupt productive discussion on the subject of a post. Appell, by his own admission, does not read my posts or my replies to his comments before he adds further comments.

    My post yesterday, "David Appell, PhD, punches Tar Baby" shows why Appell's comments are wrong. Appell chose to not reply to that post because he knows I am correct.

    I am not going to reply to Appell's 6 separate comments today because my reply is in my post of yesterday, that Appell chose to ignore. I have deleted Appell's irrelevant comments on this post because he had his chance to made a good comment.

    Appell could have made one good comment on my post of yesterday. Instead, he made 6 scattered, off-subject comments on this post. This is disruptive rather than productive. Appell's actions prove he has no rational reply to my post of yesterday and his only intent is to stop scientific discussion on this website..

    Appell is arrogant, repetitive, and unable to make a productive comment. His brain is blocked. He is a perfect poster boy for the climate alarmists.

    Goodbye, David Appell

  33. Ed *still* can't admit to his inability to do arithmetic.

    Instead of simply correcting his error, he tries to ban me. Which is not how a scientist acts, denier or otherwise….

    1. Dear David, I banned you because you are a moron who does not understand how to carry on a scientific discussion.

      Note your first sentence above. It is a false statement. It is arrogant. It results from your inability to understand English, or to suggest a correction to the English where you are confused.

      The bottom line still is: you have not been able to show there is any math or scientific error in my preprint.

      And since you cannot show there is an error, then you must admit that your climate religion is wrong … if you want to act like a real scientist.

  34. "Appell is arrogant, repetitive, and unable to make a productive comment."

    What can possibly be more simple & productive than, "your arithmetic is wrong?"

    Why are you too proud to admit to a basic error?

    1. Dear David, You will notice I added three words to my Abstract. These three words refute everything you have been claiming was a math error. I made no math error. You made an error of jumping to an unjustified conclusion because you purposely wanted to misinterpret my English sentence.

      Any normal person (normal, meaning not a frickin' climate alarmist) would have simply suggested I add these three words to avoid having a moron like David Appell claim I made a math error.

      The three words are added. Now it is up to you to apologize and to remove all your claims that I made a math error.

  35. Ed wrote:

    "This preprint represents my climate research over the past year and is a significant improvement over my previous post “Why our CO2 emissions do not increase Atmosphere CO2.”"

    Ed, here's another fact you have to explain.

    The climate transition from the last glacial period to interglacial period was a global average surface temperature change of 5 C, resulting in an increase in atmo CO2 of 100 ppm, from 180 ppm to 280 ppm.

    Yet the current climate change of 1 C has been accompanied by a atmo CO2 change of 45% — from 280 ppm to (currently) 408 ppm.

    These two facts are wildly out of proportion. If you want to make claims about atmo CO2, you'll have to explain where this is such a difference.

    And you'll have to explain where man's emissions of about 2,300 Gt CO2 has gone.

    Where has it all gone?

    1. Richard S Courtney

      DavidA;

      You have run a ridiculous campaign complaining that correct arithmetic is an "error".

      Having failed in that campaign you now say,

      "Ed, here’s another fact you have to explain."

      NO! He does not "have to explain" anything that is irrelevant to his argument.

      (But you need to get a life).

      Berry's argument is about variations in the existing state of the carbon cycle: it is NOT about transition between the different states of the carbon cycle which exist in glacial and interglacial conditions.

      Furthermore, your CO2 data are ice core indications. The ice core CO2 data are NOT comparable to the direct measurements such as those from Mauna Loa, Alert, etc.. There are no direct measurements for the change to atmospheric CO2 concentration during transition from the last ice age so your question merely demonstrates you don't know what you are talking about.

      And before you ask, I will not explain to you why the ice core CO2 data cannot be compared to direct CO2 measurements because I see no reason to "cast pearls before swine". Find out why they don't compare for yourself: as a start look up stomata data.

      Your previous 'red herring' did not swim and your new one is dead on arrival.

      For your own sake, I suggest you abandon your campaign against Berry which has failed so dismally and, instead, you find another way to gain some meaning in your life.

      Richard

  36. Dear David,

    You simply DO NOT understand how to do physics. My model explains what happens inside the system I defined, which is the atmosphere. I do not have to explain what happens outside my system in order to validate my system.

    If you understood how to use systems properly, like I do, you would not believe in your climate religion.

    All your claims about my preprint result from your lack of education. You have found no problem with my preprint. The problem is you think you understand physics but you don't.

  37. Dear David,

    I will unblock your access to this site if you do the following:

    1. Write an apology on your website about your invalid post about me, and notify your Twitter followers.

    2. Admit that your tirade about my use of "30 percent" was wrong because you should have noticed that the "30 percent" in my Abstract clearly intended to mean "30 percent of today's total" … as I have now revised it for clarification.

    3. Admit that, so far, you have not found any error in my preprint as shown on my website.

    4. Admit that, so far, you have not found any error in my Section 2 that proves the carbon dioxide percentages in the atmosphere will be a fingerprint of the Inflow, at equilibrium.

    5. Admit that you now understand that the use of a system, as in my Section 2, does not require an explanation of what occurs outside the system.

    6. Admit that, so far, you have not found any error in my Section 3 that proves the IPCC is wrong because the IPCC argument violates the Equivalence Principle and makes incorrect predictions.

    7. Admit that the correlation of zero, as found by Munshi, between annual human emissions and the annual increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide means any cause and effect of human emissions on the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is undetectable.

    8. Agree that henceforth you will organize your thoughts and make constructive scientific comments relative to the post you are commenting on. You do not have to agree with my posts. You only have to make valid, organized, scientific comments.

    Do these things on your website first, email me, and I will allow you to do the same on my website.

  38. Note what my screenshot shows you wrote:

    "…human emissions have caused all the increase in carbon dioxide since 1750, which is 30%."

    That number is wrong; since 1750, it is 45%.

  39. Ed wrote:

    "My model explains what happens inside the system I defined, which is the atmosphere."

    But this is a wrong assumption, because more than just the atmosphere determines the atmospheric level of CO2. Silicate ground cover does (through weathering), ocean CO2 pH and carbon uptake does, volcanic emissions do, the biosphere does.

    You cannot treat the system as just a gas. Until you include these additional factors, you won't get anything close to the correct physics. David Archer et al did this modeling last decade — you should read his work. Or at least read his popular book:

    "The Long Thaw: How Humans Are Changing the Next 100,000 Years of Earth's Climate," David Archer (University of Chicago), 2008.
    http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10727.html

    1. For example:

      “The millennial atmospheric lifetime of anthropogenic CO2,”

      David Archer and Victor Brovkin,

      Climatic Change (2008) 90:283–297

      DOI 10.1007/s10584-008-9413-1

      1. Richard S Courtney

        David:

        Attempting to dispute Berry's thesis by citing papers that disagree with Berry's argument is a denial of the scientific method.

        You need to state an error in Berry's analysis. And you have not done that.

        Clearly, your ignorance of the scientific method is clouding your understanding of this matter, so I will relate Einstein's explanation of it.

        Albert Einstein was shown that 100 scientists had written papers which disagree with Einstein's "jewish" science. He replied, "It would only take one of them to show an error in my science."

        Richard

  40. Dear David,

    And my most recent post about your punching the Tar Baby contains the same image. I have made it very clear in my notes above the beginning of this post that I show all edits in red. I show the addition is red.

    But, David, it is not an error. It is merely an addition to help people like you, who can't understand normal English, to understand the meaning of my sentence. If you keep harping on your senseless claim that this is an error, I will keep blocking every email address you use.

    You could have been a hero by simply suggesting that I add these 3 words at the end of this sentence. Then I could have acknowledged your help. After all, it is obvious that when 130 ppm is stated to be 30 percent, that I mean 30 percent of the total. Or are you too dense to have figured that out?

    Really, if you keep claiming the lack or these 3 words is an error, then you are only proving to the world that you are a moron. So, its your choice:

    Do you want to be known as someone intelligent enough to suggest a correction to a sentence to make its meaning more clear to some readers?

    Or do you want to be known as an idiot that thinks the omission of 3 words is a math error?

    Like I wrote in my conditions for you to participate in these discussions, it is time for you to apologize for your claim that 3 words is a math error.

Comments are closed.