Comment on ‘Why human CO2 does not change climate’

by Edwin Berry, PhD, CCM

By private email, a good physicist commented on my preprint, “Why human CO2 does not change climate.” Even if you are not a scientist, I think you will understand my reply. 

Dear …..,

Thank you for your email.

First, to answer your questions. You asked,

  • Do you consider the clearing of forests in Europe, North America, and the Amazon a natural and not a man-made phenomenon?
  • Are you saying that the industrial revolution was just happened to coincide in time and magnitude to the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but there is some other, unidentified geochemical phenomenon that is responsible?

I use the same definitions as the IPCC. The IPCC defines the difference between natural and human emissions of carbon dioxide.

Yes, I consider the build-up of carbon dioxide to be coincidental with the industrial revolution. Proper science does not allow us to assume a seeming correlation proves a cause-effect relationship.

Unfortunately for the IPCC case, Munshi, whom I reference, has done a statistical analysis that proves the correlation between the annual increases in carbon dioxide and annual human emissions is zero. Therefore, the increase in human emissions during the industrial revolution cannot be the cause of the increase in carbon dioxide.

You wrote:

  • I do not see that your preprint offers a convincing alternative explanation for the rapid build up to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere since 1750.

The fact is, I do not need to provide a convincing alternative to prove the IPCC hypothesis is wrong. We can prove a theory wrong without providing an alternative explanation.

Separate from introducing my model, I prove the IPCC hypothesis is wrong by showing its physics is wrong and its predictions are wrong. Case closed. The only way to save the IPCC hypothesis, is to show my proof is wrong. No one has done this.

You suggest my hypothesis is wrong because I do not include a level for the oceans and the Revelle effect.

I claim you miss the point. For the Revelle effect to save the IPCC hypothesis, you must prove the Revelle effect treats human-produced carbon dioxide differently than it treats natural-produced carbon dioxide, in the manner claimed by the IPCC.

Do you wish to claim the Revell effect treats carbon dioxide from the two different sources differently?

I don’t think you do.

The Revelle effect must treat carbon dioxide from the two sources equally because it can’t tell the difference between carbon dioxide from either source.

The IPCC errors when it says nature treats carbon dioxide from the two sources differently. I have proved this IPCC claim is unphysical and impossible.

Further, both the IPCC model and my model include the Revelle effect.

You object to my use of partial pressure. However, no matter what numbers you may wish to insert for the Revelle effect, the flow to the oceans will continue to be proportional to the partial pressure of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

The Revelle effect can modify the proportionality constant in net flow of carbon dioxide from atmosphere to oceans. However, that effect is included in the residence time.

Since my model and the IPCC agree the residence time is about 4 years, then I and the IPCC have treated the Revelle effect the same. So, the Revelle effect cannot be an issue with my hypothesis or model.


While I cannot prove my model is correct, because no one can prove any hypothesis is correct, no one yet has proved my model is wrong. But I have proved the IPCC hypothesis is wrong, and no one has shown my proof is wrong.

The IPCC claim, that nature treats human and natural carbon dioxide differently, is the basis of its climate models. Therefore, its models and its resulting climate claims are scientifically wrong.

Thank you for this interesting discussion.


  1. When I was trying to understand it I wanted to ask how the Revelle effect could differentiate CO2 released by a man caused forest fire from that of a lightening caused fire. The quandary implicit in that question speaks to the inappropriateness of their being some natural ability to treat them differently.

    Thanks Dr.Ed. Have you heard any more from Harde on his response to Kohler? It seems something should have shown up by now.

  2. Greetings-

    I read your comments with interest. You have not let me down yet.

    It is my understanding that 95% of the CO2 in the air that we breathe is from natural causes like decay. meaning that less that 5% of the CO2 is from the activities of man. This would seem to add immensely to your point that the IPCC is wrong in asserting that CO2 from man's activities is different from that of CO2 from natural causes.


  3. Ed, there is a research group that has spent 15 years exploring the subject you explore here, except they focus on the noble gases. Argon seems to me the most interesting noble gas in the atmosphere.

    Article in Nature: Bereiter, et al. Mean global ocean temperatures during the last glacial transition, January 2018

    Bernhard Bereiter's university:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

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