The Big Misconception

by Edwin Berry, PhD

The big misconception

The whole global-warming/climate-change fraud is built upon one big misconception, namely, that our carbon dioxide emissions continue to add to atmospheric carbon dioxide. The IPCC and other climate alarm groups merely “assume” their claim is true.

Yes, the IPCC has arguments to support its hypothesis, but all its arguments fail the scientific method. Their arguments violate the Equivalence Principle of physics and make outrageous, incorrect predictions. Therefore, the alarmists have no existing argument to support their most basic claim. If we follow physics, their game is over.

On the flip side, I have proposed a model hypothesis that shows a completely different view of how human and natural emissions contribute to the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide. My model accurately predicts the carbon-14 data. The IPCC model does not. My model makes no known incorrect predictions.

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

In keeping with the scientific method, I cannot prove my model hypothesis is true. However, it is now the ONLY existing hypothesis on this subject that has not been proven to be wrong.

An analogy

Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is like water in a lake. The inflow of carbon dioxide is like a river that flows into the lake. The outflow of carbon dioxide is like the lake water that flows out over a dam. When outflow equals inflow, the lake level equals its balance level.

If inflow becomes greater than outflow, the lake level will rise and increase the outflow. When outflow equals inflow, the lake level will equal its new balance level.

Inflow sets the balance level, not only for the lake but also for the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The level will always move toward the balance level set by the inflow.

Continued constant inflow will not increase the level. Continued constant inflow only maintains the level.

A paradigm shift

Our carbon dioxide emissions increase the carbon dioxide inflow into the atmosphere. Like our lake analogy, this increased inflow adds to the level, which increases outflow. As the level approaches its balance level, outflow approaches inflow. When outflow equals inflow, the level equals its balance level.

When the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide is at its balance level, continuation of constant human carbon dioxide emissions will not further increase the level of carbon dioxide.

Like the accelerator on your car. A constant accelerator maintains vehicle speed. Release the accelerator and vehicle speed decreases.

The human-produced balance level and the nature-produced balance level are independent. But they add to create a total balance level.

This is a paradigm shift in how we should view the effect of human carbon dioxide emissions on the level of carbon dioxide.

Our emissions DO NOT continue to add to the level and DO NOT create an irreversible level. Our emissions only maintain the human-produced balance level that adds to the nature-produced balance level. Balance levels quickly reverse when emissions decrease.

The effect of human emissions

IPCC data, combined with proper physics, show present human emissions increase atmospheric carbon dioxide by only 18 ppm, while present natural emissions increase atmospheric carbon dioxide by 392 ppm. The present total of natural and human balance levels is today’s 410 ppm.

Continued human emissions will not increase the 18-ppm human-caused balance level. They will only maintain it. Therefore, there is no cause for alarm. The human-caused 18-ppm would disappear in a few years if human emissions stopped. Nature’s 392-ppm balance level would remain.

The Paris Climate Agreement proposed to reduce worldwide human emissions by 28 percent of 18 ppm, or by 5 ppm. The Paris Agreement would not change climate and would not stop natural climate change.

[For the math, references, and other details, please see my preprint here: https://edberry.com/blog/ed-berry/human-co2-not-change-climate/]

Copyright (c) 2017 by Edwin X Berry

32 thoughts on “The Big Misconception”

  1. Dr. Ed

    I have reviewed the Kohler et. al. comment on Harde 2017 and see circular reasoning that never addresses Harde's central point that you have accepted and further explained. Kohler has assumed the increase of atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic because long term processes are in effect in the carbon cycle. My understanding of your and Harde's main point is that CO2 content is controlled by forces other than the carbon cycle so those long term processes are not needed to diagnose CO2 make-up and flow.

    I am discussing this with several folks that think Kohler has effectively torpedoed Harde and hope to continue that discussion soon. Do you know when you might print some rejoinder to Kohler? I have not yet pointed them to your preprint but will soon.

    Thank you for this good work, clear thinking, and vivid examples.

  2. Dear DMA,

    I will submit a rebuttal to Kohler after Elsevier accepts my preprint for publication. The review period is nearly complete, so I should hear from Elsevier soon.

    I wait only because of unseen politics. I am sure the Kohler folks are doing everything they can behind the scenes to prevent Elsevier from publishing my preprint. They already control many journals. I can't fight what I cannot see.

    Information I have indicates the journal that published Harde's paper will not allow Harde to rebut Kohler's comment. So it looks like the Kohler folks now control that journal.

    Ed

  3. In my opinion, your model represents correctly land/ atmosphere/ ocean flux and net sinks. However, the quantitative assessment needs some work. Hard to do without a grant.

    I cannot recall what you have said about the partial pressure of CO2 and its connection to the following, "Our carbon dioxide emissions increase the carbon dioxide inflow into the atmosphere. Like our lake analogy, this increased inflow adds to the level, which increases outflow."

    Does this say that the increase in partial pressure of CO2 increases the amount sequestered in CO2 sinks? (I think it does.)

    Would the increase in the partial pressure of CO2 explain the greening of the Earth shown on NASA's NDVI page? If so, is there any way to compute the mass of CO2 that has been sunk into the greening described by the NDVI papers? (The authors of the NDVI papers might have views on this subject.)

    Murry Salby has shown the total CO2 flux is so much greater than the inter-annual increases in CO2 that an accounting approach is not feasible. Nevertheless, it would be interesting to know the mass of CO2 that has been locked up in global greening over the 30-year period for which NDVI has been calculated. (I understand there have been at least two estimates of the greening but cannot recall if they cover the same 30-year periods.)

    Since anthropogenic CO2 production will accelerate in line with global economic development, the greening should accelerate for at least another 50 years.

    The NDVI studies appear to be capturing the greening of perennial plants and also part of increased growth of annuals, including crops. And, while this is only one sink, it is one that is both cumulative and directly related to increased partial pressure of CO2 operating via known plant physiology (respiration, stomata, evapotranspiration, photosynthesis).

  4. Ed wrote:

    "The whole global-warming/climate-change fraud is built upon one big misconception, namely, that our carbon dioxide emissions continue to add to atmospheric carbon dioxide. The IPCC and other climate alarm groups merely “assume” their claim is true"

    False.

    They don't assume anything.

    Are you really and truly unaware of the evidence??? Hard to believe.

    "How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?" RealClimate.org, 22 December 2004

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/200

  5. Ed wrote:

    "Their arguments violate the Equivalence Principle of physics…"

    What?????????????

    What exactly is this principle you're citing here?

    Tellingly, you don't explain it.

    1. David A

      Go to https://edberry.com/blog/ed-berry/human-co2-not-ch

      study it to get the answers to your questions. Make comments on the preprint on the clearly described points that you think are in error and provide evidence for your positions.

      I have studied the pre-print and find nothing I can refute. It aligns well with Harde, Salby, Humlum, and Wallace. It does disagree with IPCC but any reasonable analysis of the IPCC position that all the increased CO2 in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution is anthropogenic will reveal deep flaws and insurmountable inconsistencies. The paper by Kohler attempting to defeat Harde fails to address the central position of his paper and the crux of Dr. Ed's paper so it it becomes an ineffective attack couched in circular reasoning.

  6. Ed wrote:

    "Yes, the IPCC has arguments to support its hypothesis, but all its arguments fail the scientific method. Their arguments violate the Equivalence Principle of physics and make outrageous, even laughable, incorrect predictions. Therefore, the alarmists have no existing argument to support their most basic claim. If we follow physics, their game is over."

    Ed, you didn't offer a scintilla of evidence proving the IPCC wrong.

    Is that really how you learned to do science?? Hard to believe….

  7. Ed Berry wrote:

    The human-produced balance level and the nature-produced balance level are independent.

    No, they aren't.

    You write as if natural absorption doesn't take place. As humans have begun emitting CO2, nature has begun absorbing *more* CO2. That is, currently nature is absorbing its own emissions, plus about half of human emissions (greening + acidifying the ocean and lakes). The other half of these emissions have been building up in the atmosphere.

    Again, this is very basic science, well known. That you don't know it, Ed, is very telling.

    1. Dear David,

      Again, you make the same error that I corrected in my other post. My post is about what happens in the atmosphere system, not about what happens outside the system.

      You imply that what happens outside a system determines the physical processes inside a system. Have you ever taken a basic course in thermodynamics? You should have learned how to define a system with inflow and outflow, and then how to describe what happens inside the system.

      If you re-read my preprint, you will see where I acknowledge that my system can be expanded, later, to consider some processes presently outside my system.

      "Telling"? Your comments are "telling" about you. You clearly don't know the basic science that you need to know to properly critique my preprint.

      1. Ed, you wrote:

        "The human-produced balance level and the nature-produced balance level are independent."

        Both are about the atmosphere, right?

        If so, then this is just flat-out wrong. The "balance level" depends on natural emissions, human emissions, and natural absorption. Very obviously.

        I'm not going to read your paper when you make a trivial mistake like this, or (worse), that (405-280)/280-1 = 30%. Why should I?

        {Your mistake was that you thought this calculation should be (405-280)/405-1, which is not how a percentage change is calculated. 5th grade arithmetic, Ed.}

        1. In the off chance that someone trying to learn something studies this conversation and is misled by Mr. Appell's latest comment, let me explain.

          Dr. Ed's model treats all CO2 emitted into the atmosphere the same. The model is in fact based on the obvious fact that "The “balance level” depends on natural emissions, human emissions, and natural absorption. Very obviously."

          The model allows the computation of the flow rate of each quantified source to be calculated to determine that sources individual contribution to the atmospheric content.

          The IPCC assumes some unexplained buffer exists that can tell when the source is from fossil fuels and only part of it can be absorbed by natural sinks while the rest persists for hundreds or thousands of years. Not only that this miraculous buffer can adjust the natural sinks to control the rate of rise in atmospheric CO2 so it is not correlated to the rate of fossil fuel emissions and remains almost constant.

        2. 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 added since 1750 to get 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.

          PS: I copied this comment to my preprint post, where it is more relevant. Please go here to comment further: https://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/agw-hypot

        1. Dear David,

          Now you show you do not know how to use systems definitions to solve physics problems.

          You should have learned how to use systems in your sophomore thermodynamics classes. And yes, the carbon cycle can be defined as a thermodynamics system.

          Also, read Jay Forrester's "Principles of Systems," and Weiner's "Cybernetics."

        2. David, Your responses belie that PHD you hold in Physics. You really don't have a clue and you must have barely passed Themodynamics because your understanding of it is so poor.

          I enjoy Dr. Berry's roasting of your sorry butt, time and again. No wonder you troll on Dr. Spencer's website.

        3. Ed Berry wrote:

          "The IPCC claims the full 130 ppm increase, which is 30 percent of the total 410 ppm"

          Good lord, you can't even calculate a percentage increase. That is shameful.

          The original amount of CO2 was 280 ppm. The increase is 130 ppm. Thus the percentage increase is

          130/280 = 47%

          You can't even do basic arithmetic.

        4. Dr. Ed says

          "And yes, the carbon cycle can be defined as a thermodynamics system."

          How?

          Your inability to get your paper published suggests otherwise.

          PS: How long until you start submitting to the crappy and predatory journals?

        5. Dear David,

          You are counting your chickens before they are hatched. We do not yet know what the journal editor will decide.

          We do know that NO reviewer has found anything wrong with my preprint in 4 months. That is remarkable.

          You hoot and hoot about my preprint but you have not made any valid scientific critique of my preprint. Like a foghorn trying to scare away the fog, you hoot and hoot, but the fog comes in just the same.

          I understand you are math challenged, and therefore you could never be a theoretical physicist. You even do not understand that your percentage miscalculation, even IF you were correct, has no bearing on the validity of my preprint.

          David, please invite your AGW buddies to help you challenge my preprint. You need help.

        6. "We do know that NO reviewer has found anything wrong with my preprint in 4 months. That is remarkable."

          Ed: What journal did you submit to?

          What is the average response time for that journal?

          PS: Have you learned how to calculate percentage change yet?

    1. David, the only scientific thing I have to say is that you are a moron with zero understanding of thermodynamics despite your physics PHD. Extra CO2 is not changing the climate and YOU can't show that it is. The concept of 'back-radiation' further warming the surface is a poor joke. If you claim that a cooler CO2 molecule warms a warmer surface then you really haven't a clue.

  8. Ed Berry wrote:

    “The IPCC claims the full 130 ppm increase, which is 30 percent of the total 410 ppm”

    Successful science includes attention to detail. Dr. Berry clearly defines the 30% as the percentage of the new total. It's a free country, he can do that. He's not defining the percentage stated as a "change" from or "increase" of anything. This is a classic case of how expectations make fools of wanna-be scientists.

  9. "When the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide is at its balance level, continuation of constant human carbon dioxide emissions will not further increase the level of carbon dioxide."

    I agree completely.

    Increasing the concentration of CO2 will mean chemical reactions that depend on CO2 will tend to occur more frequently, meaning a new balance steady CO2 level will be established.

  10. David: One common place our carbon is going is into trees (and other plants), The trees are converted into lumber for building materials which become semi-permanent places to sequester carbon.

    Probably the largest repository is at the bottom of the oceans. Plankton take up carbon, larger animals eat the plankton, some die and sink to the bottom, others are eaten by larger animals ……..and on and on. If the oceans rise a little, no problem, more plankton, less carbon, the oceans eventually recede.

    You don't have to have a Phd to see the fraud in "global climate change". You have to live in an echo chamber and only listen to the "cool and smart people", kind of like a groupie. As in group think.

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.