My Poster Presentation for the AMS Annual Meeting Jan 8, 2019

Human CO2 does not cause climate change. Below is the image of the 4’x 8′ poster I will use for my presentation to the American Meteorological Society on January 8, 2019. Scroll down to see larger views. For explanations, please read my preprint. Better yet, if your group would like to host my public presentation, you may email me at ed@edberry.com

The AMS published my abstract here. At the bottom of the AMS page is a link to the pdf of my paper.

My AMS poster uses many of the slides I used in my public presentation. The difference is my AMS poster includes slides with equations and omits slides that help the public understand the climate issue.

My public presentation on November 30 went very well. My audience was very excited about how we can prove the liberal climate claims are wrong. Many told me afterward that it was the best presentation they ever heard on climate. Some remarked that they wanted to hear my 40-minute presentation again.

My goal is to help the public understand why our CO2 emissions do not change the climate. 

10 thoughts on “My Poster Presentation for the AMS Annual Meeting Jan 8, 2019”

  1. This is an excellent example of why we should always question political views and motives – “follow the money.” There are many things that we can control and “nature” is not one of them!

  2. Great job in trying to get people to scientifically understand this hoax. Logic doesn’t seem to have anything to do with where the politicians are going. Keep it up Ed!!!

    1. Hi Warren, WUWT has invited me to send my papers to them. To be honest, I have been too busy to accept their kind invitation. And this post about my poster is totally new.

        1. Hi Warren, Thank you for reminding me. So, I just added at the top of my post the link to the AMS publication of my abstract with a link to the pdf of my paper. Yes, you can find my paper listed in the AMS conference program for January 8.

  3. Obviously, marketing is a significant (only?) factor in this issue. The poster seems to me to have the potential to go a long way toward educating the general public if we could just find a way to break through the media bias on global warming. Great work, Ed. Thank you!

  4. Thank you Dr Berry for your explanation of how the CO2 cycle works. I am doing my best to understand it fully and you have definitely been the best help to this point.
    There are a couple of things that are bothering me so I would like to ask a couple of questions to see if I am understanding this correctly.

    It is my understanding that the claim is the entire increase from 280 pm to 410 ppm is from man made sources, being primarily from the burning of fossil fuels.
    You would then have to assume that the carbon sinks can somehow differentiate between natural and man made sources and are rejecting the man made CO2.
    If this is true, then what is the point of propane/natural gas fueled CO2 greenhouse generators?

    If it’s not the source , then you would have to assume that it’s the extra amount added to the atmosphere.

    My other question is if our 5% contribution to the total amount of CO2 is enough to turn the planet into a fireball hurling through space, then how close were we to burning up before at the extremely low number of 280 ppm?

    The last point that I have is more political.
    A very recent report claims that we have 12 years left until the oceans boil and fire falls from the sky.
    According to the Paris agreement, China and India, 2 of the 3 largest emitters are not required to cap their emissions until 2030 (12 more years).
    How serious can they really be?
    When you look at all of the claims being made with a little common sense, things just don’t seem to add up.

    1. Dear Doug,
      The IPCC claims human CO2 emissions have caused the entire increase from 280 pm to 410 ppm. This claim violates physics. The IPCC claims the atmosphere traps 15 percent of all human CO2 forever but allows natural CO2 to flow freely out of the atmosphere. This IPCC claim requires that nature can tell the difference between natural CO2 and human CO2 which it cannot do.

      Higher CO2 levels in greenhouses increase plant growth.

      The human 5% contribution to the total amount of CO2 will NOT turn the planet into a fireball. Even nature’s contribution of 95% will not burn up the planet. CO2 increase has very little effect on temperature. But my point is alarmists incorrectly blame climate change on human CO2 which is insignificant compared to natural CO2. No one has proved there is any reason to restrict human CO2 emissions

      The report you mention that claims we have 12 years left until the oceans boil and fire falls from the sky is junk science. It is science fiction meant to scare the people.

      The Paris agreement, even if obeyed by all countries, would have no measurable effect on climate. The Paris agreement is about transferring money from countries like America to third-world countries. The claim that human emissions cause dangerous global warming, or even measurable global warming, violates common sense as well as physics.

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.