Ed Berry, PhD, Theoretical Physics, CCM
IPCC Theory (1) says human carbon emissions cause all the CO2 increase since 1750.
Andrews says Theory (1) is true. Berry says Theory (1) is false.
CO2 Coalition and Heartland agree with Andrews, but Andrews argues better than they do.
I help people “see.” If they don’t want to “see,” I can’t help them. – Dr. Ed Berry
Press down arrow to download PDF
Harde (2023) will be published here: Science of climate change
Berry (2021) for reference
Steven Koonin’s book Unsettled repeats this IPCC scientific error (page 68).
Carbon dioxide is the single human-caused greenhouse gas with the largest influence on the climate. But it is of greatest concern also because it persists in the atmosphere/surface cycle for a very long time. About 60 percent of any CO2 emitted today will remain in the atmosphere twenty years from now, between 30 and 55 percent will still be there after a century, and between 15 and 30 percent will remain after one thousand years.
The simple fact that carbon dioxide lasts a long time in the atmosphere is a fundamental impediment to reducing human influences on the climate. Any emission adds to the concentration, which keeps increasing as long as emissions continue. In other words, CO2 is not like smog, which disappears a few days after you stop emissions; it takes centuries for the excess carbon dioxide to vanish from the atmosphere. So modest reductions in CO2 emissions would only slow the increase in concentration but not prevent it. Just to stabilize the CO2 concentration, and hence its warming influence, global emissions would have to vanish.
I am saddened to see there are still people building on the elementary mistake which Andrews states in his article when he writes,
“Because the carbon from human emissions during this period exceeds the rise in atmospheric total carbon, we know immediately that land and sea reservoirs together have been net sinks, not sources, of total carbon during this period. We can be sure of this without knowledge of the detailed inventory changes of individual non-atmospheric reservoirs. This is not a model dependent result. It is a simple statement based on carbon conservation, data on emissions and atmospheric levels, and arithmetic. Note that this conclusion contains no assumption whatsoever about the constancy of natural carbon in this period. ”
Clearly, Andrews is unaware that almost all the CO2 is in the deep ocean and it is exchanged between deep ocean and ocean surface layer. The CO2 in the ocean surface layer is exchanged with the air such that – in each of the Northern and Southern hemispheres – the oceans release several times the annual CO2 emitted from all human activities in the spring, and they take most of it back in the autumn: the residual of the seasonal fluctuation in atmospheric CO2 concentration is the annual rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration. This is observed wherever atmospheric CO2 concentration is monitored (see e.g. https://www.climate.gov/teaching/resources/atmospheric-co2-mauna-loa-observatory )
The annual CO2 exchange rates and their variations between deep ocean and ocean surface layer are not known and there is no known method to determine them. So, this lack of knowledge means there are six (yes, 6) errors of fact in the short quotation from Andrews which I have selected. Everything Andrews asserts which relies on those errors is plain wrong.
Alarmists have been promoting the same falsehoods for decades. I remember a conference held at the HQ of the Royal Society (RS) in London about thirty years ago (i.e., before the IPCC devised and adopted its ‘Bern Model’ of the carbon cycle). A representative of the Hadley Centre gave a presentation in which he
(a) accounted anthropogenic CO2 emissions and
(b) then used his accounting as being the cause of the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration observed at Mauna Los since 1958.
Questions from the floor were requested following that presentation and I was fuming that such a ‘schoolboy error’ had been presented to such an august body as the RS, so I stood, took the microphone, and began to ask,
“Sir, On Thursday Nature magazine published a paper from Indermuhle et al. that showed there was a fall in atmospheric CO2 concentration about 300 years ago. You account all recent changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration as being a result of changes to emissions of CO2 from human activities. So, my question is, where were the power stations shut 300 years ago …”
At this point the audience burst into laughter, so I stopped. When the laughter had assuaged, I said,
“Please say where the power stations were shut 300 years ago or – failing that – why you do not account natural variations in CO2 emissions and sequestrations?”
The speaker stood, said, “We only account anthropogenic emissions” then again took his seat and said no more. There being no other questions, the Chair called for the next Speaker to attend the rostrum.
Thank you for selecting the paragraph that summarizes Andrews’ argument,
“Because the carbon from human emissions during this period exceeds the rise in atmospheric total carbon, we know immediately that land and sea reservoirs together have been net sinks, not sources, of total carbon during this period. We can be sure of this without knowledge of the detailed inventory changes of individual non-atmospheric reservoirs. This is not a model dependent result. It is a simple statement based on carbon conservation, data on emissions and atmospheric levels, and arithmetic. Note that this conclusion contains no assumption whatsoever about the constancy of natural carbon in this period.”
Indeed, every sentence in Andrews’ paragraph is wrong. Dave Burton made the same argument as Andrews on behalf of the CO2 Coalition in these emails several months ago.
My reply to Andrews shows how he makes many physics errors including rejection of important data, and not realizing that he assumed the result of his argument in order to make his argument, e.g., circular reasoning.
Thus, the whole foundation of climate alarmism is based on circular reasoning supported by the claimed “97%” of scientists who agree with Andrews.
Another key part of my reply to Andrews is to use d14C data to show that human carbon emissions are insignificant to natural carbon emissions. Although Berry (2021) showed this, my 2023 reply shows it much better.
Per Dr. Ed’s direction this is my first impression without reading his response or other comments:
Figure 1 is a summation and not a flow chart. If the natural source is much larger than the human source the latter could be “lost in the noise”
If the husband quit putting in money the account would decline. CO2 increased before the marriage.
This is not a refutation but an alternate explanation similar to Kohler. What is wrong with the work of Salby, Harde, and Berry? Andrews answers this with “their method is a distraction.”
I want to see why the continuity equation Salby uses is in error or methods Berry uses are not valid or Harde’s conclusions are not consistent with his data.
Now for the Berry reply and other comments. Thanks Dr. Ed.
I just updated some figures in Berry (2023). No fundamental changes. Just some titles, etc. My biggest figure update is in Figure 13.
By the way, I will soon have my subscriber email going again. It has been down for almost a year because of the Montana Department of Revenue attack on Ed Berry LLC. MDOR conscripted over nine months of my work time. When you figure that a almost half of the owner’s time is overhead work, MDOR’s attack was a severe attack on my business. I have evidence that MDOR’s attack was a personal attack initiated by someone in Montana’s radical right. They treat their political friends much worse than they treat their political enemies.
So, after making me justify all my accounting data and finding NO errors, MDOR then said, “It has been decided that Ed Berry LLC is a not-for-profit business.” It took MDOR nine months of letters until it finally wrote the reasons for its decision, so I could properly rebut its decision. I requested mediation and wrote my own defense letter because there is no lawyer who can do that better than I can. The mediation judge ruled against MDOR. MDOR returned my deposit of $4500 that MDOR wanted. MDOR easily spent over $100,000 of taxpayer money trying to destroy me. And this happened under Republican Governor Gianforte, who I thought was my friend.
Dr. Ed, am I right to say:
A very simplified way to write an equation for the annual CO2 increase would be NE+AE-NS
NE(Natural emissions) =30±6,
AE(human emissions) = 4±0.5
So, it is (30±6) + (4±0.5) – (30±6) which gives no information about the source of the ≈2 increase without assuming NE =NS and ignoring the uncertainty.
I don’t follow your question.
Are you using units of PgC/year?
Does your question relate to my Figure 8 or 9?
Also, natural CO2 emissions per year are about 20 times human emissions per year.
Sorry for the incoherence. I have been sick and unable to focus well. I was just trying to state the equation with its uncertainty to show that it does not require the earth to be a net sink. I’m not sure I can do that before I get healed up. Maybe it isn’t even possible.
Dear All Concerned Citizens
The conversation continues to surround and focus almost entirely on CO2 which as I understand is a “greenhouse gas”. Greenhouse gases are what I consider to be part of the Heat Retention Factor on Mama Earth. And if our atmosphere did not have any heat retention we wouldn’t be here. This begs the question – are there other Factors that are not being included in the discussion. Short answer, Yes.
First, there is the Heat Generation Factor, you know, the Sun. The Sun goes thru 11 year solar cycles. Based on when they started counting solar cycles (1755), we are currently in the 25th solar cycle. This will end and the 26th cycle will begin in 2030. The Sun is not a constant, never changing source of heat. Some cycles are maximums, some are minimums. Check out the Maunder Minimum (1645 – 1715), 70 years of very cold. If you don’t discuss what the Sun is doing, you don’t have full climate conditions context.
2nd, there is the Heat Reception Factor, you know, Mama Earth’s tilt and wobble. Tilt is how Mama Earth is aligned on her axis. Wobble is the her pathway around the Sun. Depending on the tilt and wobble, Mama Earth is in a position to receive more or less solar radiation from the Sun. If you don’t discuss the tilt and wobble, you don’t have full climate conditions context.
3rd, there is the Heat Reflection Factor, you know, is there a bunch of stuff in the upper atmosphere that is reflecting solar radiation. Check our what happened in 1815 when Mt. Tambora blew. 1816 became know as the year without a summer. If you don’t discuss heat reflection, you don’t have full climate conditions context.
Then there is CO2, so frightening at 420 PPM, part per million. Sometimes reported as 0.042%. How about a discussion of why this absolutely minimal amount of gas in our atmosphere is so pivotal. And then there is methane at 1.9ppm. No red meat cause we have too much methane? Really? How about a discussion of the 3 gases, Nitrogen (78%), Oxygen (21%) and Argon (0.93%) make up 99.93% of our entire atmosphere. Isn’t this important to know? Let’s not focus just on co2, let’s look at the entire picture. And if co2 is so bad, why is the concentration of co2 in commercial greenhouses artificially elevated to 1200 ppm. Going green has one purpose, control. Henry Kissinger said oil, I will say energy. Control energy and you control nations. Control food and you control the people. Even if he did not say it, the statements still stand. Be safe and well.
Thank you for your comment. I guess I did not explain above how I partition discussions on climate change. So, I will do that here.
There are three basic theories of climate change:
1. Human CO2 causes all the CO2 increase.
2. The CO2 increase causes global warming.
3. Global warming causes bad stuff to happen.
Clearly, this post is about Theory (1) and not Theories (2) and (3). It is important to partition climate discussions. Otherwise, we cannot focus on the physics of each Theory. So, while you state many interesting things, we must ignore here the parts of your comment that do not deal with Theory (1).
In the big picture, I am not leaving out any part of the climate debate. I just focus on one part at a time. Notice that the alarmists must defend all three theories, whereas to defeat the alarmists logically, we only need to prove any one of the three theories is false.
So, it is very important to discuss here whether you think Andrews or Berry wins this debate and who would prevail in court.
So-called greenhouse gases do not keep mama earth all snuggly warm at all, they are the only radiating gases in the atmosphere and the only way it cools to space, the one percent cools the 99 percent, i didn’t read an thurther that that, whats the point when the rest is based on the polar opposite of reality.
Tat was to Alan ED.
Good luck with your endeavors and sorry for the missing letters in the post my keyboard and eyes ain’t what they used to be.
“Also, human CO2 emissions per year are about 20 times natural emissions per year.”
Shouldn’t that be the other way round Ed?
Touche. You win that one. So, I will fix my sentence now.
This was written:
“In the big picture, I am not leaving out any part of the climate debate. I just focus on one part at a time. Notice that the alarmists must defend all three theories, whereas to defeat the alarmists logically, we only need to prove any one of the three theories is false.”
NO, the alarmists do not need to prove anything, based on any doubt on any factor, they win all using the Precautionary Principles. This is not a legal court, where, in times past, harm had to be proved, now, with Precautionary Principles they only need to suggest that any warming might be harmful and that the warming might happen and that there are no benefits from warming that should need to be considered.
People, this has progressed in this evil manner for decades now. NO, they do not need to prove anything, look at the wind and solar that has been built and the fossil fuel that has been shut down and, in some places, even nuclear that has been shut down. No one is studying, understanding and teaching natural climate change, there is no funding for study of natural factors that cause change and no study of internal factors that resist changes that are extreme and there is now trillions to prevent the study of natural factors.
”NO, the alarmists do not need to prove anything, based on any doubt on any factor, they win all using the Precautionary Principles.”
Exactly right, i remember back in 96 i think it was announcing climate scences split from meteorology and becoming a stand alone discipline.
I didnt know what he meant when he said a post normal science, because it isn’t a science at all, and thats wh all they do is data gathering and modelling no real science experimentation or practice in sight.
Because its a post normal discipline not science, they just dress it up to be, where in fact the are curators of data and science.
This is why its dominated by mathematicians with add on climate creds, you gotta have them tickets to board the gravy train.
I couldn’t even get past Andrews’ first couple of sentences before feeling my rhubarb starting to frost! He starts his opus with “A cornerstone of the argument that humans are responsible for climate change is the consensus among climate scientists that human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels have caused the rise of atmospheric CO2 concentration during the Industrial Era, all of it. This is perhaps the most well-established piece of the case for anthropogenic global warming.”
Saying that a consensus of scientists is the “cornerstone” argument of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) theory is not, and I repeat, NOT evidence of its veracity. Consensus isn’t science; it’s politics. If we’re going to be discussing a political white paper, that’s one thing, but you can’t put a lab coat on it and say that it’s making scientific claims when by its own admission, its strongest piece of evidence for its hypothesis is that a bunch of people believe it.
If that is what passes for science, then we’d have stopped with Dalton’s model of the atom, and the “consensus” of scientists would’ve told Thomsen, Rutherford, Bohr, and the quantum physics boys to pipe down because the science is settled. On the one hand, we have scientists using the scientific method. On the other, we have politically-motivated activists couching their opinions in the language of scientism. Sadly, we will never be able to come to any accord on the CAGW issue if we are not even using the same dictionaries! Bless you, Dr. Ed, for at least trying to stand in the gap by defending the scientific method. I look forward to reading your book.
Thank you for your comment. Of course, I agree with you.
Nevertheless, I believe it is important for people to see how the alarmists defend their case for climate change. The fact is they are winning most of their climate lawsuits.
I view climate debates like this one in the context of a climate lawsuit. The challenge of the “experts” on my side is to present their case clearly enough to convince the judge (who likely believes our CO2 causes climate change) to rule on my side.
So, I am interested in your view of how I presented my case in opposition to David Andrews.
Also, I view David as a professional and a friend. I always try to win competitions, but I always remain friends with my competitors.
Albert Einstein said that “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” Your “Balance Level as Determined by Inflow and Outflow” model is simple, elegant, and most importantly, bulletproof. Combining Dalton’s law of partial pressures and the IPCC data for Carbon contributions by the natural carbon cycle, the remainder is those contributions from humans. Simple again, and elegant. Applying this physics model to the Andrews example on two sources of money in the married couple’s jar, you get the correct answer. “It does not matter how many B or F coins were in the jar in the beginning, or who withdraws the coins. The only thing that matters is the ratio (or percentage) of their balance levels which is the ratio (or percentage) of their inflows.” It simply works because the coins don’t behave differently if they’re B or F. They are all the same in terms of their physics. Likewise, carbon is all the same regardless of which cycle is in (land, atmosphere, deep sea, and shallow sea), and to suggest that the source of this carbon somehow makes it behave differently is just wrong. It is for these reasons that I’m skeptical when Andrews says, “Isoflux effects explain and dominate the evolution of 14C distributions… over the last 100 years.”
I could also note that he uses charged language that is popular with people today who are trying to sound sciency. I question Andrews’ use of words like “evolution” and “bomb C14” which sounds similar to the term “bomb cyclone” which was used mimetically by the media in recent years to replace the word “storm” with something much more ominous. The intent was to imply that the storms in question were unprecedented and caused entirely by “climate change” by which they mean the human-caused carbon cycle. Language like this is intended to shut down debate and not to further it, and also makes the same assumptions that you rebut in this latest paper. Great work! I enjoyed reading all three papers.
Also if you want to divorce everything from the bomb blast logic on which Andrews seems fixated, could I refer you to the
first confirming paper by New Zealander G. J. Fergusson in the Royal Society 1958. Andrews has to refute that paper too.
and he found fossil fuel CO2 expected to be 14% was actually 2.0 +/-0.15% in 1958. As he also suggested nuclear tests would enable us to measure more and we learned so much from the C14 doubling around 1965 and the additional C14 has all gone but with a half life of C14 it cannot vanish, so it is in the oceans or at least 98% of it. The fact that it can be so easily fitted with only a single e-kt means there is only one sink, which contradicts the Bern diagram.
Also there is the date of the bottom of the ocean at around 350 years according to C14 measurements. That means cosmic ray affected CO2 has made it to the bottom of the ocean Is the CO2 at the bottom thousands of years old? No, around 350 years.
So as the atmosphere contains only 2% of total CO2, you can calculate that the CO2 turns over such that 2% or 1/50th is recycled every 350 years, giving a cycle time of only 7 years for all CO2 from air to ocean. This corresponds very nicely to the single exponential decay E-kt of the bomb decay process.
And I think Andrews completely misunderstands the ‘Suess effect’ which he seems to think is an actual process. Dr Suess simply noted that atmospheric C14 was diluted very slightly by fossil fuel and that affected radio carbon dating. It is not a force of an activity in itself.
However please consider just Fergusson. Andrews would have to prove him wrong as well and apart from Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Russia with tiny 60kton blasts, there was no great contribution to C14 and very little dilution by fossil fuels from 100 years and a few world wars, just 2%. (The dilution is known as the Suess effect. It is not a process as intimated by Andrews but an observation)
I remain very surprised that anyone would claim that fossil CO2 was 33% when C14 is pretty much as it was over the last 20,000 years. The doubling proved everything and it is gone. Total fossil fuel CO2 is now just under 3%. If 33% of the CO2 was fossil fuel, free of C14, the C14 level would be 33% lower. It’s that simple.
But in a way I am pleased that Andrews made it clear that anyone who claimed there was little fossil fuel CO2 in the air was cancelled. “Most..ignore such papers if they are even aware of them”. That’s such Woke science.
Judges have been conditioned by the successful air and water quality improvements their pollution reduction orders have fostered.
The claim that CO2 is a pollutant, is as wrong as to claim pure water is a pollutant.
Three things: (1)Andrews says that Climate Science consensus is the “cornerstone” of his (their) theory that human activity caused the rise. Consensus isn’t science. (2) Andrews makes the same mistake as the ICPP in his “continuity equation” in that he treats natural CO2 and human CO2 differently. Berry has shown this is a violation of the Principle of Equivalence. (Einstein used this principle to demonstrate that acceleration and gravity are the same.) (3) Berry applied the C14 bomb curve to his hypothesis that outflow is proportional to L and that e-times are short and not decades or centuries like IPCC claims. Andrews either missing the point or intentionally distorted.
I have questions for Dr. Andrews. Dr. Andrews, please explain the IPCC’s human carbon cycle. If no human carbon flows from the surface ocean to the deep ocean, how did human carbon get into the deep ocean? How can the surface ocean level be zero if the surface ocean absorbs 20PgC and emits 17.7PgC? How does nature treat the human carbon cycle differently? How does it differentiate a human CO2 molecule and a natural CO2 molecule? How is a human carbon’s e-time different than a natural carbon’s e-time? If human carbon is 4% of all emissions, how can it be 100% of the increase of 130 ppm? How can natural carbon’s e-times remain short, but human carbon’s e-times are long? What Laws of Physics are your theory based upon?