More people sign up to support climate truth

by Ed Berry, Ph.D., Physics

Visitor statistics for the past 3 months show about 1000 people visit edberry.com each day. The number of subscribers to my email list continues to grow very fast.

My paper is submitted.

Yesterday, I submitted my preprint to a professional scientific journal. I retitled it to “Human CO2 has small effect on atmospheric CO2.

I added some neat new stuff about the Bern model and “residence” times that will be new to you.

No, I won’t say which journal because I am wary of the power of the climate-religion elite to block papers they don’t like as they did for Hermann Harde’s reply to a comment on his paper.

Here is my paper’s Abstract

A simple physics model makes only one assumption: outflow is proportional to the level (or concentration) of CO2 in the atmosphere. This model replicates the decay of 14CO2 after 1970 using a constant e-time of 16.5 years. This replication has significant theoretical consequences.

Human and natural CO2 inflows set independent balance levels in proportion to their inflows. The total balance level is the sum of the human and natural balance levels. The level moves to its total balance level until outflow equals inflow. Then the level remains constant if inflow remains constant.

Continued, constant human emissions do not add more CO2 to the atmosphere. Neither human nor natural CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere.

Human CO2 has not caused all the increase in atmospheric CO2 since 1750, or above 280 ppm. Present human CO2 adds only 18 ppm to the balance level. Natural CO2 adds 392 ppm.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) model cannot reproduce the decay of 14CO2 after 1970. Therefore, the IPCC model is wrong. IPCC assumes human CO2 reduced the buffer capacity of the carbonate system. However, the 14C data show e-time is constant, which means the buffer capacity has not changed.

Here’s a 200-word letter I sent to several Montana newspapers on January 15, 2019:

The real solution to climate change

Those who work hard to address climate change do so because they sincerely believe (1) Our CO2 emissions cause the increase in CO2; (2) More CO2 warms the planet; (3) If the planet warms, bad stuff will happen.

I just returned from presenting a scientific paper at the Annual Meeting of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) in Phoenix, Arizona, on January 8. My paper focused on the first point. It shows our CO2 emissions have so little effect on atmospheric CO2 that our CO2 emissions cannot possibly cause climate change.

About 80 percent of the reviewing scientists agreed with my paper. Ten percent said they would think about it. No one rejected my paper. In addition, many climate scientists worldwide support my paper.

Most of all, the physics in my paper is so simple that high-school students can understand it. It should be taught in all our schools. The real solution to climate change is better education.

So, if you are serious about the science behind your efforts to save the planet and want to learn some simple physics, email me at ed@edberry.com. I will be happy to talk to your group.

Ed Berry, Ph.D., Physics, AMS Certified Consulting Meteorologist

The results of my letter

Only the Missoulian printed my letter. Many people emailed me that they want to learn more and possibly have a meeting in Missoula.

Conclusion

My preprint paper is finally done and submitted to a scientific journal for review and publication. I thank all those whose comments helped me improve my preprint.

In the next month, I will improve my public presentation and complete my climate book for the public.

1 thought on “More people sign up to support climate truth”

  1. ‘A simple physics model’: Interestingly this (kinetic) model is not only applicable to climatology but also to other fields such as pharmacokinetics where its validity has been tested hundreds of times.
    And indeed, if e-time is constant, this means not the same amount but the same fraction of the athmospheric CO2 is reabsorbed per unit of time. As a result only a temporary accumulation occurs when the inflow increases, until a new equilibrium is reached (99% of the new equilibrium is reached after 7 times the elimination half-life of CO2 in the athmosphere).
    As a non-climatologist I conclude that this paper at least argues in favour of more investigation in the role of natural causes of climate change rather than to focus on CO2 alone.
    Thank you Edwin Berry for your scientific contribution to the criticism of CO2-based climate alarmism.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.