Why the UN IPCC is wrong about climate science

Please click on the title below to see my newer post on August 2, 2018, that has been reposted by others:

Human CO2 emissions are not responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2. So climate change is natural.

by Ed Berry, Ph.D., Physics

This post proves the alarmist IPCC climate change claims are WRONG.

You will understand this even if you can’t remember any physics or math. For scientific details, see my preprint.

IPCC claims human emissions have caused ALL the increase in CO2 since 1750. They say it was 280 ppm in 1750 and human emissions alone caused it to rise to 410 ppm today.

P.S. My preprint shows natural CO2 causes 392 ppm of today’s CO2 level and human CO2 causes only 18 ppm, for today’s total of 410 ppm.

IPCC also claims (stay with me here):

“The fraction of anthropogenic CO2 that is taken up by the ocean declines with increasing CO2 concentration, due to reduced buffer capacity of the carbonate system.”

To put this in your terms, suppose you have a bucket with a hole in the bottom. Water from your hose flows into your bucket while water leaks out of the hole. Let’s say you adjust the inflow until the water level stays almost constant.

This IPCC claim says the hole in your bucket is shrinking because a very small part of the water you put into your bucket came from … humans!

As you know, the smaller the hole, the slower the water leaks out, and soon the level will rise and overflow your bucket.

Enter the carbon-14 data

For this proof, we thank the atomic bomb tests in the 1960’s which increased atmospheric carbon-14 by more than 80 percent. After the halt of the tests in 1963, the level of carbon-14 decreased smoothly toward its previous equilibrium level of 100 percent. The level decreased because outflow of carbon-14 was greater than inflow.

Carbon-14 traces the behavior of atmospheric carbon dioxide. As it turns out, carbon-14 data tell us the IPCC claims are wrong.

Below is a plot of the carbon-14 data. After 1965, the carbon-14 level fell halfway to its equilibrium level of 100 every 10 years.

The significance of the carbon-14 data

My preprint shows a very simple model for atmospheric CO2 that assumes outflow equals level multiplied by the size of the hole in your bucket. (My preprint uses “residence time” which is the inverse of the size of the hole.)

Here’s the thing.

My physics model exactly simulates the carbon-14 data from 1965 to 1995. You would say my model “nails” the data.

So, what does this mean? Well, to start with, it shows my model is right and the IPCC model which cannot simulate the carbon-14 data is wrong. That alone proves the IPCC climate claims are wrong.

But there is more, much more.

Since my model assumes outflow is proportional to level and it matches the carbon-14 data, this means the outflow of atmospheric CO2 is proportional to the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.

This means the size of the “hole” in your bucket did not shrink.

This means the IPCC claim that human emissions have reduced the “buffer capacity of the carbonate system” is WRONG … and the whole alarmist case for human-caused climate change falls apart!

In other news…

The organizers of the “Basic Science of a Changing Climate” conference in Porta, Portugal, in September, have invited me to present a summary of my preprint. This is the first time an independent group of scientists reviewed and approved my preprint. This will also give my ideas on climate international visibility.

My fellow Caltech alumnus, Alan Carlin, reports the Trump administration while making good decisions about climate policy, seems to not be interested in challenging the alarmists “consensus” on climate. So, the greatest opportunity we have, to bring true climate science to America and the world, may not happen. The Trump administration may not have read the memo that we can win this scientific fight if someone will let us in the ring.

The climate fight comes down to money. Money gave the alarmists their power. Money brainwashed the population. Money hired only professors that supported the IPCC agenda. The alarmists still have their government jobs, contracts, and billions of dollars from environmentalist foundations.

Meanwhile, most realist climate scientists continue to fund themselves. For example, I have spent years developing my present preprint and now I am spending $4000 to travel to present my paper in Portugal. Such time and expenses would have been fully paid by government research contracts in the 1960’s and 1970’s. But our government has supported climate Lysenkoism for 40 years.

The message is, if we are to return American climate science back to real science, our government must provide some support.


  1. 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.

  2. What would the chart of C-14 have shown if testing had continued into the 90s, Ed?
    and your ‘money’ funding the alarmists was probably the funniest statement ever. Like the energy companies and industry have no money…beaten down by the big bad environmental corporations…ROFL

    1. Hi Stan, to your question, go to my post of today

      If bomb tests had continued, we would simply insert the annual Inflow of C-14 from the tests into Equation (4). Each year, there would be an Inflow from the tests and an Outflow proportional to the Level.

  3. The energy companies have a lot of money, but the “green” movement has plenty. The Standard Oil folks moved billions from fossil fuel portfolios into SRI portfolios on Wall Street. There is an awkward video of Bill McKibben of 350.org admitting that he gets his funding from them. It’s just re-branding. There is probably more money in taxing the air and installing a solar panel on billions of homes than there will ever be in fossil fuels, especially since fracing technology has made it so abundant. My favorite blog other than Dr. Ed’s in the http://www.theartofannihilation.com/. Dr. Ed talks climate science, Ms. Morningstar talks climate money.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

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