PREPRINT #2: The Physics Model Carbon Cycle for Human CO2

by Edwin X Berry, Ph.D., Physics

October 11, 2019: I posted the first draft of this paper for your comments.

November 7, 2019: I updated this post. Thank you all for your comments.

January 23, 2020: I am updating this preprint to correct an error I made in interpreting the IPCC data. The correction will not affect the conclusions of this preprint but it may reduce the human effect below the present 31 ppm. It will take me about a week to compute and post the new results.

Abstract

Copyright (c) 2019 by Edwin X Berry

Abstract

The scientific basis for the effect of human carbon dioxide on atmospheric carbon dioxide rests upon correctly calculating the human carbon cycle. This paper uses the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) carbon-cycle data and allows IPCC’s assumption that the CO2 level in 1750 was 280 ppm. It derives a framework to calculate carbon cycles. It makes minor corrections to IPCC’s time constants for the natural carbon cycle to make IPCC’s flows consistent with its levels. It shows IPCC’s human carbon cycle contains significant, obvious errors. It uses IPCC’s time constants for natural carbon to recalculate the human carbon cycle. The human and natural time constants must be the same because nature must treat human and natural carbon the same. The results show human emissions have added a negligible one percent to the carbon in the carbon cycle while nature has added 3 percent, likely due to natural warming since the Little Ice Age. Human emissions through 2019 have added only 31 ppm to atmospheric CO2 while nature has added 100 ppm. If human emissions were stopped in 2020, then by 2100 only 8 ppm of human CO2 would remain in the atmosphere.

Keywords: carbon dioxide, CO2, climate change, carbon cycle; climate politics; global warming

1.   Introduction

1.1 The problem

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) [1] incorrectly claims,

With a very high level of confidence, the increase in CO2 emis­sions from fossil fuel burning and those arising from land use change are the dominant cause of the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.

The primary source of the increased atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide since the pre-industrial period results from fossil fuel use.

The United Nations World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Global Carbon Project [2] incorrectly claims,

With solid justification, one can describe the annual carbon budgets as products of high scientific quality with strong political relevance.

The problem is to calculate the total effect of all human CO2 emitted since 1750 through 2019 on the carbon cycle and atmospheric CO2.

Authors who conclude that human CO2 increases atmospheric CO2 by only a small amount include Revelle and Suess [3], Starr [4], Segalstad [5], Jaworoski [6, 7], Beck [8], Rorsch, Courtney, and Thoenes [9], Courtney [10], Quirk [11], Essenhigh [12], Glassman [13], Salby [14-17], Humlum [18], Harde [19, 20], Berry [21-23], and Munshi [24-28].

Authors who support the IPCC [1] position – that human CO2 has caused all the increase in atmospheric CO2 above about 280 ppm – include Archer et al. [29], Cawley [30], Kohler [31], and their many references.

Courtney [10] (pp. 6-7) concluded in 2008,

“… the relatively large increase of CO2concentration in the atmosphere in the twentieth century (some 30%) is likely to have been caused by the increased mean temperature that preceded it. The main cause may be desorption from the oceans. … Assessment of this conclusion requires a quantitative model of the carbon cycle, but – as previously explained – such a model cannot be constructed because the rate constants are not known for mechanisms operating in the carbon cycle.”

IPCC [1] used different rules to calculate the human carbon cycle than it used to calculate the natural carbon cycle. The correct calculation of the human carbon cycle must use the same rules as the natural carbon cycle because nature cannot distinguish between human and natural carbon atoms.

1.2 The solution

Courtney [32] commented in his review of this paper’s Preprint, that this paper,

“quantifies the anthropogenic and natural contributions to changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration without need for knowledge of rate constants for individual mechanisms. This is a breakthrough in understanding which (other authors) including myself all failed to make.”

This paper uses the Physics model [23] with IPCC [1] data to determine the “rate constants” or “e-times” for IPCC’s natural carbon cycle. Then, this paper uses the e-times for IPCC’s natural carbon cycle to calculate the human carbon cycle. IPCC did not do this which is why IPCC got the wrong answer for the human carbon cycle. And the wrong answer has led to the incorrect public perception of the influence of human carbon emissions.

The correct calculation, described herein, shows that all human carbon emissions through 2019 have increased atmospheric CO2 by only 31 ppm (parts per millions by volume).

This paper converts carbon units of GtC (Gigatons of Carbon) and PgC (Petagrams of Carbon) into CO2 units of ppm (parts per million by volume in dry air) using:

            1 ppm = 2.12 GtC = 2.12 PgC

These new carbon-cycle calculations are not complicated. Anyone competent in basic physics and in simple numerical calculations should be able to reproduce the results shown in this paper.

(Some readers may wish to read the summary in Section 5.3 first.)

2.   The Physics Model

2.1 Physics Model description

There are four key carbon reservoirs: land, atmosphere, surface ocean, and deep ocean. The Physics model (Berry, 2019b) applies independently to each carbon reservoir. The “level” of each reservoir is the mass of carbon in each reservoir.

Each reservoir has an e-time defined as the time for the level to move (1 – 1/e) of the distance from its present level to its balance level. The balance level is defined below.

Figure 1 shows the Physics model system for carbon in a reservoir. The carbon in the atmosphere is in the form of CO2.

Figure 1. The Physics model system for atmospheric carbon. Inflow and Outflow determine the rate of change in level.

The Physics model shows how inflow, outflow, and e-time control the level of carbon in each reservoir.

The only way external processes can change a reservoir’s level is by changing the reservoir’s inflow, outflow, or e-time. Therefore, the Physics model INCLUDES ALL EFFECTS OF EXTERNAL PROCESSES (chemical, biological, etc.) on the level of carbon in a reservoir.

The Physics model rides above chemical processes. Chemical processes can change reservoir levels only by changing inflow, outflow, or e-time, which the Physics model includes.

2.2 Physics Model derivation

The calculation of the carbon cycle requires a theoretical base. The Physics model (Berry, 2019b) provides the base that is reviewed here.

A system describes a subset of nature. A system includes levels and flows between levels. Levels set flows and flows set new levels. The mathematics used in the Physics model are analogous to the mathematics used to describe many engineering systems.

Following [23], the Physics model derivation begins with the continuity equation (1) which says the rate of change of level is the difference between inflow and outflow:

            dL/dt = InflowOutflow                                                                                             (1)

Where

  • L = CO2 level (concentration in ppm)
  • t = time (years)
  • dL/dt = rate of change of L (ppm/year)
  • Inflow = rate CO2 moves into the system (ppm/year)
  • Outflow = rate CO2 moves out of the system (ppm/year)

The Physics model has only one hypothesis, which is outflow is proportional to level:

            Outflow = L / Te                                                                                                          (2)

where Te is the “e-folding time” or simply “e-time.” E-time is the time for the level to move (1 – 1/e) of the distance from its present level to its balance level.

 Substitute (2) into (1) to get,

            dL/dt = InflowL / Te                                                                                                 (3)

When dL/dt is zero, the level will be at its balance level. Define the balance level, Lb, as

            Lb = Inflow * Te                                                                                                           (4)

Substitute (4) for Inflow into (3) to get,

            dL/dt = – (LLb) / Te                                                                                                  (5)

Equation (5) shows the level always moves toward its balance level. Both L and Lb are functions of time. Te can also be a function of time.

In the special case when Lb and Te are constant, which means Inflow is constant, there is an analytic solution to (5). Rearrange (5) to get

            dL / (L – Lb) = – dt / Te                                                                                                (6)

Then integrate (6) from Lo to L on the left side, and from 0 to t on the right side to get

            Ln [(L – Lb) / (Lo – Lb)] = – t / Te                                                                                 (7)

where

  • Lo = Level at time zero (t = 0)
  • Lb = the balance level for a given inflow and Te
  • Te = time for L to move (1 – 1/e) from L to Lb
  • e = 2.7183

The original integration of (6) contains two absolute values, but they cancel each other because both L and Lo are always either above or below Lb.

Raise e to the power of each side of (7), to get the level as a function of time:

            L(t) = Lb + (LoLb) exp(– t/Te)                                                                                   (8)

Equation (8) is the analytic solution of (5) when Lb and Te are constant.

All equations after (2) are deductions from hypothesis (2) and the continuity equation (1).

2.3 Physics Model properties

Hypothesis (2) is a linear function of level. This means the Physics model applies independently and in total to human and natural carbon. The balance levels of human and natural carbon are independent.

The Physics model also applies independently and in total to all definitions of carbon or CO2. For example, it applies independently to human CO2, natural CO2, and their sums, and to 12CO2, 13CO2, and 14CO2, and their sums.

However, if outflow were a “strictly increasing function” of level other than level to the power of one, then the Physics model would not apply independently and in total to human CO2 and natural CO2.

Because of (2), it is not necessary (or desirable) to compute the carbon cycle for human and natural carbon simultaneously. It is better (and simpler) to compute their effects separately. Just ADD ANOTHER INSTANCE of the Physics model for each carbon definition. The separate results can be summed to produce the total result.

Equation (4) shows how inflow sets a balance level. Equation (5) shows how the level moves toward the balance level with a speed determined by e-time. When the level equals the balance level, outflow will equal inflow. At the balance level, continuing constant inflow will maintain a constant level of carbon in the reservoir.

Equation (4) shows CO2 does not accumulate in the atmosphere. If inflow decreases, the balance level decreases, and the level follows the balance level. The response is immediate. When inflow to a reservoir increases the level of the reservoir, that reservoir immediately increases its outflow.

2.4 Physics Model verification

The above-ground atomic bomb tests in the 1950s and 1960s almost doubled the concentration of 14C in the atmosphere. The 14C atoms were in the form of CO2, called 14CO2.

After the cessation of the bomb tests in 1963, the concentration of 14CO2 decreased toward its natural balance level. The decrease occurred because the bomb-caused 14C inflow became zero while the natural 14C inflow continued.   

Hua [33] processed 14C data for both hemispheres from 1954 to 2010. Turnbull [34] processed 14C data for Wellington, New Zealand, from 1954 to 2014. The 14C data from both sources are virtually identical after 1970. After 1970, 14CO2 molecules were well mixed between the hemispheres and 14CO2 in the stratosphere moved to the troposphere.

The 14C data are in units of D14C per mil [33, 34]. The lower bound in D14C units is -1000 which corresponds to zero 14C in the atmosphere. The “natural” balance level, defined by the average measured level before 1950, is zero.

A carbon atom has three isotopes, 12C, 13C, and 14C. Isotopes have the same number of protons and electrons but different numbers of neutrons. Isotopes undergo the same chemical reactions but the rates that isotopes react can differ.

Lighter isotopes form weaker chemical bonds and react faster than heavier isotopes (Wikipedia, 2019). Because 12CO2 is a lighter molecule than 14CO2, it reacts faster than 14CO2. Therefore, the 12CO2 e-time will be shorter than the 14CO2 e-time.

Levin et al. [36] conclude the 14C data provide “an invaluable tracer to gain insight into the carbon cycle dynamics.” The 14C data trace how CO2 flows out of the atmosphere. All valid models of atmospheric CO2 must replicate the 14C data.

The Physics Model, (5) and (8), accurately replicates the 14CO2 data from 1970 to 2014 with e-time set to 16.5 years, balance level set to zero, and starting level set to the D14C level in 1970.

Figure 2 shows how the Physics Model replicates the 14C data.

Figure 2. The 14C data from Turnbull [29] using 721 data points. The dotted line is the Physics Model replication of the data.

The Physics model is not a curve fit equation. The Physics model uses hypothesis (2) and allows only 2 parameters to be adjusted: balance level and e-time. Both are physical parameters.

The replication of the 14C data by the Physics Model has significant consequences. It shows hypothesis ­(2) is correct. It shows the 14C natural balance level has remained close to zero and e-time has remained constant since 1970. If the e-time had changed since 1970, it would have required a variable e-time to make the Physics Model fit the data

The Physics model’s replication of the 14C data may be the most elegant and important fit of a hypothesis to data in climate change literature.

2.5 Physics Carbon-Cycle Formulation

“The formulation of a problem is often more essential than its solution…” – Albert Einstein

There can be no solution for the carbon cycle until there has been a formulation of the problem. IPCC does not provide a formulation to calculate the carbon cycle. The following may be the first time the fundamental equations for the carbon cycle have been derived and presented.

This paper uses IPCC [1] numbers for the carbon cycle. These numbers will change as new data becomes available.  This formulation will likely endure. It provides an easy way to update these carbon cycle calculations as new data become available.

The carbon-cycle question for climate change is:

HOW MUCH does human CO2 increase atmospheric CO2 after we account for the recycling of human carbon from the land and ocean back into the atmosphere?

There are two different ways to view the carbon-cycle system. Figure 3 shows individual outflows where the arrows are all positive numbers.  

Figure 3. The Physics carbon-cycle model using individual flows.

Figure 4 shows net flows where the arrows can be positive or negative numbers.

Figure 4. The Physics carbon-cycle model using net flows.

The IPCC model uses individual flows. The Physics model uses net flows because they simplify the following derivations. .

Define the Levels:

  • Lg = level of carbon in the land
  • La = level of carbon in the atmosphere
  • Ls = level of carbon in the surface ocean
  • Ld = level of carbon in the deep ocean

Define flow e-times:

  • Tga = e-time for flow from land to atmosphere
  • Tag = e-time for flow from atmosphere to land
  • Tas = e-time for carbon to go from atmosphere to surface ocean
  • Tsa = e-time for flow from surface ocean to atmosphere
  • Tsd = e-time for flow from surface ocean to deep ocean
  • Tds = e-time for flow from deep ocean to surface ocean

Define reservoir e-times:

  • Ta = e-time for flow from atmosphere to land and surface ocean
  • Ts = e-time for flow from surface ocean to atmosphere and deep ocean

Notice these relationships:

            1/Ta = 1/Tag + 1/Tas                                                              (9)

            1/Ts = 1/Tsa + 1/Tsd                                                               (10)

Define other variables:

  • t = time in years
  • Hin = Inflow of human carbon

The Physics model (2) defines the net flows in Figure 4:

            Fga = Lg/Tga – La/Tag                                                             (11)

            Fas = La/Tas – Ls/Tsa                                                              (12)

            Fsd = Ls/Tsd – Ld/Tds                                                             (13)

The rate equations for these flows are:

            dLg/dt = – Fga                                                                         (14)

            dLa/dt = Fga – Fas + Hin                                                         (15)

            dLs/dt = Fas – Fsd                                                                   (16)

            dLd/dt = Fsd                                                                            (17)

Now, insert the flows (11-13) into the rate equations (14-17) to get the Physics rate equations:

            dLg/dt = La/Tag – Lg/Tga                                                         (18)

            dLa/dt = Ls/Tsa + Lg/Tga – La/Tag – La/Tas + Hin                  (19)

            dLs/dt = La/Tas + Ld/Tds – Ls/Tsa – Ls/Tsd                            (20)

            dLd/dt = Ls/Tsd – Ld/Tds                                                        (21)

Rather than use different e-times, the IPCC model specifies the “splits” to each connected reservoir.

  • Kag = fraction of carbon flow from atmosphere to land = 0.64
  • Kas = fraction of carbon flow from atmosphere to surface ocean = 0.36
  • Ksa = fraction of carbon flow from surface ocean to atmosphere = 0.4
  • Ksd = fraction of carbon flow from surface ocean to deep ocean = 0.6

where:

            Kag + Kas = 1                                                                           (22)

            Ksa + Ksd = 1                                                                           (23)

IPCC’s splits are related to the Physics e-times as follows:

            Kag = Ta / Tag                                                                         (24)

            Kas = Ta / Tas                                                                          (25)

            Ksa = Ts / Tsa                                                                          (26)

            Ksd = Ts / Tsd                                                                          (27)

Substitute (24-27) into (18-21) and use (22-23) to get IPCC’s rate equations:

            dLg/dt = Kag*La/Ta – Lg/Tg                                                    (28)

            dLa/dt = Ksa*Ls/Ts + Lg/Tg – La/Ta + Hin                              (29)

            dLs/dt = Kas*La/Ta + Ld/Td – Ls/Ts                                        (30)

            dLd/dt = Ksd*Ls/Ts – Ld/Td                                                    (31)

Simplifications

With the above formalities, we tested and found that IPCC’s splits different from 0.5 do not give significantly different results than IPCC’s splits.  Using this simplification, (24-27) become:

            Tag = 2 Ta                                                                                (32)

            Tas = 2 Ta                                                                                (33)

            Tsa = 2 Ts                                                                                (34)

            Tsd = 2 Ts                                                                                (35)

            Tga = Tg                                                                                   (36)

            Tds = Td                                                                                  (37)

Equations (32-37) simplify the Physics rate equations (18-21) to:

            dLg/dt = La/2Ta – Lg/Tg                                                           (38)

            dLa/dt = Ls/2Ts + Lg/Tg – La/Ta + Hin                                     (39)

            dLs/dt = La/2Ta + Ld/Td – Ls/Ts                                             (40)

            dLd/dt = Ls/2Ts – Ld/Td                                                          (41)

This paper uses both the IPCC rate equations (28-31) and the Physics simplified rate equations (38-41). The Physics and IPCC results are identical when IPCC splits are set to 0.5. The Excel file used for the calculations is included in Supplemental Materials.

3.   The Natural Carbon Cycle

3.1 IPCC natural carbon cycle

IPCC assumes (a) the level of atmospheric CO2 in 1750 was 280 ppm and (b) human emissions caused all the increase in atmospheric CO2 above 280 ppm.

Regarding (a), Segalstad [5] and Jaworowski [6, 7] present evidence that the CO2 level before 1750 was much higher than 280 ppm. Nevertheless, this paper uses assumption (a) to make the Physics carbon-cycle calculations consistent with IPCC’s natural and human carbon cycles.  This paper proves assumption (b) is not compatible with IPCC data.

This paper uses IPCC [1] definitions for natural carbon and human carbon. Human carbon is the result of human emissions. All carbon inflow that does not result from human emissions is defined as natural carbon.

IPCC calculations of the human carbon cycle attempt to “tag” every human-produced carbon atom and follow them through the whole calculation. The Physics model shows why it is best to calculate the natural and human carbon cycles independently. After the independent calculations, the human and natural carbon-cycle results can be summed to get the total result. Independent calculations automatically keep track of human carbon as it flows through the carbon cycle.

IPCC [1] missed this important simplification and calculates human and natural effects together. As a result, IPCC made obvious and significant errors in its calculations.

IPCC [1] Fig. 6.1 shows IPCC’s version of the carbon cycle. Its legend says,

Black numbers and arrows indicate reservoir mass and exchange fluxes estimated for the time prior to the Industrial Era, about 1750.

Figure 5 shows the IPCC Figure 6.1 carbon cycle values for natural carbon.

Figure 5. The IPCC natural carbon cycle from the black numbers in IPCC Fig. 6.1.

IPCC’s marine biota level of 3 PgC is negligible because it is 0.3 percent of IPCC’s surface ocean level of 900. IPCC’s dissolved organic carbon level of 700 PgC is negligible because it is 1.9 percent of IPCC’s deep ocean level. This paper adds IPCC’s carbon flow through marine biota of 11 PgC per year to IPCC’s flow from surface ocean to deep ocean of 90 PgC per year to get 101 PgC per year.

IPCC’s levels and flows produce these e-times, using (2), for the natural carbon cycle:

  • Tg = 2300 / 107 = 21.5 years
  • Ta = 590 / 170 = 3.5 years
  • Ts = 900 / 161 = 5.6 years
  • Td = 37100 / 100 = 371 years

Table 1 shows selected years of the Physics carbon-cycle calculation for IPCC’s natural carbon levels for 1750. The Physics model shows IPCC’s flows do not maintain IPCC’s constant levels.

  • Table 1. IPCC’s e-times and splits increase the level of atmospheric CO2 to 302 ppm rather than keep IPCC’s claimed 280 ppm. Values for levels are in PgC except for the ppm column.

IPCC’s natural flows support a natural level of CO2 in the atmosphere of about 302 ppm rather than IPCC’s claimed 280 ppm after 1750. The difference is not significant, but it shows it is possible to correct IPCC’s natural carbon cycle calculations.

3.2 Corrected IPCC natural carbon cycle model

To correct the IPCC data to be internally consistent, we use IPCC’s natural carbon levels and find e-times, and therefore flows, that make the levels constant over time.

Table 2 shows corrected e-times for IPCC splits. These e-times produce flows that maintain the atmosphere level at 280 ppm, as IPCC claims, and other levels constant.

  • Table 2. Corrected e-times for IPCC splits that maintain IPCC’s levels for IPCC’s natural carbon cycle. Values for levels are in PgC except for the ppm.

Table 3 shows the corrected e-times for 0.5 splits. These e-times maintain the atmosphere level at 280 ppm and other levels constant.

  • Table 3. Corrected e-times for 0.5 splits to maintain IPCC’s levels for IPCC’s natural carbon cycle. Values for levels are in PgC except for the ppm.

The flows in Tables 2 are unequal flows. The flows in Table 3 are equal.

The End % values are the same in Table 3 and Table 2. So, the End % values are independent of IPCC’s splits. These End % values represent the long-term equilibrium percentages for the natural carbon cycle.

Figure 6 shows the IPCC natural carbon cycle corrected as in Table 3.

Figure 6. The IPCC natural carbon cycle with corrected e-times and flows to keep the IPCC levels constant.

The Physics model found e-times that properly model the IPCC natural carbon cycle. The corrected e-times slightly changed the End % in the reservoirs. IPCC’s splits produce the same result as 50-50 splits.

4.   The Human Carbon Cycle

4.1  IPCC’s invalid human carbon cycle

Because human carbon atoms are identical to nature’s carbon atoms, nature will treat human carbon the same as it treats natural carbon. This is an extension of the Equivalence Principle that Einstein used to derive his theory of relativity.

According to this extended Equivalence Principle, the human carbon cycle must have the same e-times as the natural carbon cycle. Also, the human carbon long-term percentages will equal the natural long-term percentages.

IPCC [1] AR5 Fig. 6.1 shows IPCC’s version of the carbon cycle. Its legend says,

Red arrows and numbers indicate annual ‘anthropogenic’ fluxes averaged over the 2000–2009 time period. These fluxes are a perturbation of the carbon cycle during Industrial Era post 1750.

Figure 7 shows IPCC’s Figure 6.1 data for the human carbon cycle.

Fig. 7. The IPCC human carbon cycle from the red numbers in IPCC Fig. 6.1.

IPCC shows 9 PgC per year (from fossil fuels, cement production, and land use change) flows into the atmosphere. IPCC shows a net 2.6 PgC per year flows from atmosphere to land, and a net 2.3 PgC per year flows from atmosphere to surface ocean. The leaves 4 PgC per year added to the atmosphere.

There are five obvious errors in IPCC’s human carbon cycle:

  1. The surface ocean level remains at 0 PgC, unaffected by the net 2.3 PgC inflow. That cannot happen because outflow is proportional to level, which means a level cannot go to zero so long as there is an inflow.
  2. The surface ocean, with zero outflow to the deep ocean, magically adds 155 PgC to the deep ocean. That cannot happen because no level can increase if its inflow is zero. And once the deep ocean level is greater than zero, carbon will flow back to the surface ocean.
  3. The net flow of 2.6 PgC per year from atmosphere to land does not add carbon to the land as it should. Rather it sucks carbon out of the land. This makes the land level decrease from 0 to -30 PgC. A negative level is impossible when there is only positive human carbon to fill the reservoirs. It is like having a glass filled with negative water.
  4. The carbon level in the atmosphere is 66%. That just happens to be the level IPCC needs to justify its assumption that human carbon caused ALL the increase in atmospheric CO2 above 280 ppm. IPCC used circular reasoning, not science, to achieve its desired result.
  5. IPCC’s human carbon level (Figure 7) for the atmosphere is 66% while its natural carbon level is 1.5% (Figure 6). This very significant difference shows IPCC treats human carbon differently than it treats natural carbon.

IPCC says human carbon is a “perturbation” on the natural carbon cycle. That is not the correct way to model the effect of human carbon on the carbon cycle. The correct way is to model the human carbon cycle independently as this paper does.

4.2 Human carbon added to the carbon cycle

This paper calculates the human carbon cycle independently from the natural carbon cycle. That eliminates the need to keep separate track of carbon from human and natural sources. These independent calculations add up to produce the same result as calculating human and natural carbon together, which is much more complicated.

Boden et al. [37] provides human CO2 emissions data from 1750 to 2014. The calculations in this paper add estimates of human emissions from 2014 through 2019.

Initially, the human carbon level in all reservoirs is zero. Then the calculations insert annual human carbon emissions into the atmosphere from 1750 through 2019. Each year, the calculations allow carbon to flow from the atmosphere to land and surface ocean, and from surface ocean to deep ocean.

All levels must have non-negative numbers. The addition of human carbon cannot remove natural carbon from any reservoir. The surface ocean level will rise before it can flow carbon to the deep ocean.

Table 4 shows the result of these calculations. All human emissions since 1750 have added 452 PgC of carbon to the natural carbon cycle. This human-carbon addition is about one percent of natural carbon. Human carbon has increased the 2020 level of atmospheric CO2 by 31 ppm.

  • Table 4. The carbon-cycle model for IPCC splits shows all human CO2 emissions from 1750 to January 1, 2020, increase atmospheric CO2 by 35 ppm. The calculation sets inflow to zero on January 2, 2020, to see how fast human CO2 exits the atmosphere.

Table 4 shows, at the beginning of 2020, only 14.7% of all human carbon remains in the atmosphere, 36.7% is in the land, 10.7% is in the surface ocean, and 37.9% is in the deep ocean.

If human emissions were to stop in 2020, then by 2100, 3.9% of human carbon would remain in the atmosphere, 19.3% would be in the land, 3.9% would be in the surface ocean, and 72.8% would be in the deep ocean.

Figure 8 shows the calculated increase in atmospheric CO2 caused by human emissions through 2019 and how this would decay if all human CO2 emissions were stopped in 2020.

Figure 8. All human carbon emissions from 1750 through 2019 have increased atmospheric CO2 by 31 ppm. The calculation sets human carbon emissions to zero beginning in 2020 to show how fast human carbon would exit the atmosphere.

Figure 9 shows the combined effects of human and natural CO2 on the level of atmospheric CO2.

Figure 9. The human effect on atmospheric CO2 is seen in the area under the dotted line and above the 280-ppm horizontal line. All other atmospheric CO2 below the dashed line is caused by nature.

Figure 10 shows how the reservoir levels change with time. Most human carbon finds its way to the deep ocean just as natural carbon finds its way to the deep ocean. The smallest amount ends up in the atmosphere.

Figure 10: Human carbon moves from the atmosphere to the land and deep ocean.

The fall of human carbon in the atmosphere after 2020, when the calculation stops human emissions, shows human carbon has little long-term effect.

4.3 Human carbon for constant emissions

Rather than set human CO2 inflow to zero in 2020, this section sets human inflow to its 2019 value from 2020 to 2100.

Table 5 shows the calculated values using the Physics carbon-cycle model.

  • Table 5. Results of Physics carbon-cycle model when human emissions are held constant beginning in 2020.

Figure 11 shows the effect of continued constant human CO2 emissions after 2019. The human-caused increase is still much smaller than the increase caused by natural emissions.

Figure 10. Continued, constant human emissions after 2019 would cause a rise in atmospheric CO2 of 52 ppm by 2100.

Figure 11 shows the continuation of constant human emissions after 2020 would cause a total increase in atmospheric CO2 of 52 ppm by 2100.

4.4 Pulse decay: Physics versus IPCC Bern

The IPCC Bern model, Joos [38], represents IPCC’s claim that human carbon sticks in the atmosphere much longer than natural carbon. Berry [23] shows how to deconstruct [38] to get an equation to represent the results of one pulse of human CO2.

The Physics carbon-cycle model uses IPCC data for the natural carbon-cycle.

Figure 12 shows how the Physics carbon-cycle model and the IPCC Bern model predict the decay of a 100-ppm pulse.

Figure 12: Pulse decay shows Physics carbon cycle model predicts much faster decay than the IPCC Bern model.

The Physics model shows the pulse decays to 15 ppm in 10 years and to 4 ppm in 100 years. By contrast, the IPCC Bern model predicts the pulse decays to 55 ppm in 10 years and to 30 ppm in 100 years. The incorrect Bern model says it is impossible for a pulse of human CO2 to ever decay below 15 percent.

Figure 13 shows how the carbon moves from the atmosphere to the other reservoirs.

Figure 13. Human carbon moves from the atmosphere to the other reservoirs.

Human carbon in the atmosphere moves rapidly to the land and the deep ocean because it flows between the reservoirs exactly like natural carbon flows. The IPCC human carbon cycle does not allow human carbon to flow like natural carbon.

Table 6 shows a summary of the pulse calculations.

  • Table 6. Human carbon moves from atmosphere to land and deep ocean.

After 200 years, only 2.2% of the human pulse remains in the atmosphere and 85% is in the deep ocean. Initially, the carbon moved to the land but after 30 years, carbon from the land moved to the deep ocean.

The Bern model contradicts the IPCC [1] data. The IPCC Bern model is a curve fit to the calculations of IPCC’s climate models. Threfore, IPCC’s climate models do not represent the data that the IPCC puts into its own reports.

4.5 Physics carbon cycle entropy

One might ask,

Why does the carbon in a system flow to other reservoirs? What makes the system seek an equilibrium? What defines equilibrium?

In physics, entropy drives a system toward equilibrium. Left alone, the entropy of a system always increases. Equilibrium occurs when the entropy of a system is at its maximum value within the system’s constraints.

We might further ask,

What parameter of the system represents the entropy?

Equations (38-41) define the simplified Physics carbon-cycle system. Equilibrium occurs when the flows are zero. When the flows are zero, the levels are constant, and the L/Te are equal:

            Lg/Tg = La/2Ta = Ls/2Ts = Ld/Td                                             (42)

Equation (42) defines equilibrium. The sum of the L/Te’s are an inverse measure of the system’s entropy. The inverse of entropy is negentropy:

            Negentropy = Lg/Tg + La/2Ta + Ls/2Ts + Ld/Td                      (43)

Think of negentropy as the ability to do work. Negentropy is maximum when all the carbon is in the reservoir with the smallest e-time. In year zero, all the carbon is in the atmosphere which is the reservoir with the smallest e-time. When the carbon flows to the other reservoirs, the negentropy decreases. Negentropy is at its minimum when there is no more flow which is when (42) is true.

Figure 14 illustrates the system in year zero when all the carbon is in the atmosphere. Carbon flow from A to G is defined as a negative flow for mathematical purposes.

An analogy is four water buckets connected by tubes. If all the water is in A then the system can do work, say, if turbines were in the tubes.

Figure 14. In year zero, all the carbon is in the atmosphere.

Figure 15 illustrates the system when the L/Te are distributed evenly between the reservoirs. At that point, the net flows between the reservoirs are zero. The entropy is maximum. If this were the analogy of four buckets, the system cannot do work.

Figure 15. In year infinity, the L/Te are the same in all reservoirs.

Figure 16 shows how the L/Te levels decrease as carbon flows from the atmosphere to the other reservoirs. The total L/Te begins near 33 and decreases uniformly with time.

Figure 16. The total L/Te decreases with time as the system approaches equilibrium.

Table 7 shows how the L/Te values for each reservoir change with time. Some values go up but only to speed the decrease of the total L/Te that represents negentropy of the system.

  • Table 7. The L/Te values as a function of time. The total always decreases.

The system seeks equilibrium because system entropy will increase as required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

4.6 The Principle of Least Action

The Principle of Least Action says a system will take the path from Start to Finish that requires the least “action.”

The formal definition of “action” is the time integral of the difference between kinetic energy and potential energy. OK, that is a bit heavy for non-physicists. So, let’s make it simpler.

Action is how something moves from state A to state B. Action is the path you take to get from your home to the grocery store. The quickest or least costly way to get there is the path of least action.

The top curve in Figure 16 represents the total negentropy of the system. It trends downward smoothly because the flows between the reservoirs find the fastest way to lower negentropy and move the system to equilibrium.

In Figure 16, carbon flows into the land and surface ocean in the first 10 years because that is the fastest path to reduce negentropy of the system.

The very definitions (11-13) of the flows in the Physics carbon-cycle model are in terms of entropy levels, not of carbon levels. This definition for the flows is a result of the hypothesis of the Physics model [1], namely,

            Outflow = L / Te                                                                                                          (2)

The Principle of Least Action says human carbon will flow from the atmosphere to the other reservoirs in a way that reduces the system negentropy the fastest. The calculation presented in this paper may not be the least action scenario, but it is likely close.

The calculations presented here assume IPCC’s estimated values for natural levels and approximate flows are accurate. Should better estimates become available these calculations can be quickly updated using the Excel file (Supplemental Materials).

5.   Discussion

5.1 Why the IPCC carbon-cycle models are wrong

Archer et al. [29] tests all IPCC carbon-cycle models and finds that all these models

“agree that 25-35% of the CO2 remains in the atmosphere after equilibrium with the ocean (2-20 centuries).”

However, the agreement among models does not means they are correct. ALL [29] models can be equally wrong. All [29] models use different rules for human carbon than for natural carbon.

Archer et al. [29] conclude,

“Some CO2 from the release would remain in the atmosphere thousands of years into the future, and the atmosphere lifetime calculated at that time would be thousands of years.”

The only difference in the human carbon cycle and the equilibrium natural carbon cycle is that human carbon adds new carbon to the carbon cycle. Human carbon still flows from reservoir to reservoir as described by the Physics model.

Contrary to [29], the decrease in atmospheric carbon dioxide has no long tail. What [29] calls a long tail is caused by the increase in the balance level of human carbon dioxide.

The [29] models assume natural carbon stays balanced while human carbon, which adds only 1% to nature, throws nature out of balance. That can’t happen because nature cannot tell the difference between human and natural carbon atoms.

There is no physics basis to assume what nature does is “good” and what humans do is “bad.” Maybe it is “good” to restore locked carbon to the atmosphere by burning carbon fuels.

There is no evidence that 1% more carbon in the carbon cycle changed the rules for the carbon cycle. If an added 1% did change the rules, it would change the rules for natural as well as for human carbon, and the effect would be very large. No such effect has been documented.

The Physics carbon-cycle model first simulates the natural carbon cycle using IPCC [1]. Then the Physics carbon cycle model uses the rules for natural carbon to calculate the human carbon cycle. The [29] models have no physics model.

Table 4 shows the human carbon level in the atmosphere never gets to 25% of total human carbon. The calculations show only 15% of all human carbon is in the atmosphere by 2020. That is because human carbon flows to the other reservoirs fast enough to keep the human carbon in the atmosphere below 25%. If human emissions were to stop in 2020, then by 2100 only 4% of all human carbon would remain in the atmosphere. There is no significant long-term effect of human carbon emissions.

Figure 12 compares a simulated pulse of human carbon with the Bern model. The Bern model, which simulates the Archer et al. models rather than IPCC data, incorrectly claims 15% of human carbon will remain in the atmosphere forever. The simulated pulse of human carbon will decrease to 15% in 10 years. Table 6 shows only 4.2% will remain after 100 years and 2.2% will remain after 200 years.

5.2 The effect of temperature on CO2

Salby [14-17] shows how changes in surface temperature precede CO2 changes. Harde [19, 20] shows how atmospheric carbon dioxide increases with surface temperature.

There are only two ways to increase atmospheric CO2: (a) add new carbon to the carbon cycle or (b) increase the e-time of the atmosphere.

Tests using the Excel file (Supplemental Materials) show the only permanent way to increase atmospheric CO2 is to add new carbon to the carbon cycle. Also, the 14C data show the e-time for the atmosphere has not changed since 1970 [23].

5.3 Summary

This is a summary of the fundamental information presented in this paper. Four charts show the percent distribution of natural or human carbon among the four key carbon reservoirs. These reservoirs are land, atmosphere, surface ocean, and deep ocean, in that order because that is how they connect. Carbon-cycle data is from IPCC [1] Fig. 6.1.

Figure 17 shows IPCC’s distribution for natural carbon in 1750 when, according to IPCC, the level of natural CO2 in the atmosphere was 280 ppm. Only 1.45 percent is in the atmosphere and 90 percent is in the deep ocean.

Figure 17. IPCC natural carbon numbers for 1750, from Table 3 End%.

The Figure 17 data represent the long-term equilibrium distribution for natural carbon. It is also the long-term equilibrium distribution for human carbon because natural and human carbon atoms are identical, so nature treats them the same.

Figure 18 shows IPCC’s human carbon distribution as of about 2013. An overwhelming 66 percent of human carbon is in the atmosphere.

Figure 18. IPCC claimed results for the human carbon cycle, from Figure 7.

Question: In Figure 18, how did IPCC get the 66 percent of human carbon in the atmosphere?

Answer: IPCC assigned 66 percent of human carbon emissions to the atmosphere because that is the percent necessary to support IPCC’s invalid claim that human carbon emissions have caused all the increase in atmospheric CO2 above 280 ppm. IPCC simply used its assumed result rather than calculate the human carbon cycle.

IPCC’s errors are obvious. IPCC shows human carbon in land is negative 8 percent. That is like having a glass of negative water. It is impossible. Also, no carbon can get to the deep ocean if there is no carbon in the surface ocean. IPCC’s human carbon cycle is clearly wrong. Yet, these IPCC errors are the basis of all climate alarmism.

Figure 19 shows the physics model calculation for human carbon. The physics model simply applies IPCC’s rules for natural carbon to the human carbon cycle.

Figure 19. Physics model human carbon cycle numbers from Table 4 for 2020.

Figure 19 shows less than 15 percent of all human carbon emissions from 1750 through 2019 remain in the atmosphere in 2019. About 25 percent is in the atmosphere and surface ocean. About 75 percent of human carbon has flowed to land and deep ocean. As human carbon enters the atmosphere, it simultaneously flows to land and surface ocean, and from the surface ocean to the deep ocean.

Figure 20 shows the physics model distribution of human carbon in 2100 under the assumption that human carbon emissions are terminated in 2020. In 2100, less than 4 percent, or 8 ppm, of human carbon remains in the atmosphere.

Figure 20. Physics model human carbon cycle numbers from Table 4 for 2100 which assumes human emissions are terminated in 2020.

In the absence of human carbon inflow, the carbon level in the atmosphere falls as carbon flows into the deep ocean. The distribution of human carbon moves toward the natural carbon equilibrium shown in Figure 17. Given enough time, the distribution of human carbon will be the same as the equilibrium distribution of natural carbon.

This summary shows the result of using proper physics to calculate the natural and human carbon cycles. The result shows that human carbon is not a danger to the planet.

Conclusions

This paper shows, possibly for the first time, a formulation of the carbon-cycle model and separate calculations of human and natural carbon cycles using the same time constants.

IPCC’s own data show human emissions through 2019 have added only one percent to the carbon in the carbon cycle. During the same period, nature has added 3 percent to the carbon in the carbon cycle, likely due to natural warming since the Little Ice Age.

In terms of quantity, human emissions through 2019 have added 31 ppm to atmospheric CO2 while nature has added 100 ppm. So, natural emissions have increased atmospheric CO2 from 280 ppm to 380 ppm and human emissions have increased atmospheric CO2 from 380 ppm to 412 ppm.

If human emissions were to stop in 2020, then by 2100, 8 ppm of human carbon would remain in the atmosphere. If nature remained constant, then stopping all human carbon emissions could not reduce atmospheric CO2 below 388 ppm. But any small changes by nature would overwhelm the decrease of 23 ppm achieved by eliminating all human carbon emissions.

Human carbon emissions cause no significant long-term change to atmospheric carbon dioxide and are not the cause of climate change because human carbon flows from the atmosphere to the land and oceans as fast as natural carbon does.

Acknowledgements

The author thanks those who reviewed and commented on the draft of this paper: Richard Courtney, Nils-Axel Morner, Chuck Wiese, Gordon Fulks, Gordon Danielsen, Larry Lazarides, John Knipe, Ron Pritchett, Alan Falk, Leif Asbrink, Mark Harvey, Case Smit, Stephen Anderson, and Chic Bowdrie. This research project was funded by the personal funds of Valerie and Edwin Berry.

Author’s Contributions

The author declares he is the only contributor to the research in this paper.

Downloads

Download supporting files

References

  1. IPCC. 2013. Carbon and other biogeochemical cycles. Fig. 6.1, p 471. CrossRef
  2. Candela, J., D. Carlson. 2017. The annual global carbon budget. World Meteorological Organization. CrossRef
  3. Segalstad, T. V. 1998. Carbon cycle modelling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO2: on the construction of the Greenhouse Effect Global Warming dogma. In: Bate, R. (Ed.): Global warming: the continuing debate. ESEF, Cambridge, U.K. (ISBN 0952773422): 184-219; 1998. CrossRef, CrossRef2
  4. Revelle, R., H. Suess. 1957. CO2 exchange between atmosphere and ocean and the question of an increase of atmospheric CO2 during past decades. Tellus. 9: 18-27; 1957. CrossRef
  5. Starr, C. 1992. Atmospheric CO2 residence time and the carbon cycle. Science Direct, 18, 12, pp. 1297-1310; 1992. CrossRef
  6. Jaworowski, Z. 2003. Climate Change: Incorrect information on pre-industrial CO2. Statement written for the Hearing before the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. CrossRef
  7. Jaworowski, Z. 2007. CO2: The greatest scientific scandal of our time. 21st CENTURY Science & Technology. CrossRef
  8. Beck, E. 2007. 180 Years of Atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods. Energy & Environment. Vol 18, No. 2. CrossRef
  9. Rorsch, A., R.S. Courtney, D. Thoenes. 2005. The Interaction of Climate Change and the CO2 Cycle. Energy & Environment, Volume 16, No 2. CrossRef
  10. Courtney, R.S. 2008. Limits to existing quantitative understanding of past, present and future changes to atmospheric CO2 concentration. International Conference on Climate Change, New York. CrossRef
  11. Quirk, T. 2009. Sources and sinks of CO2. Energy & Environment. Volume: 20 Issue: 1, pp. 105-121. CrossRef
  12. Essenhigh,R.E. 2009. Potential dependence of global warming on the residence time (RT) in the atmosphere of anthropogenically sourced CO2. Energy Fuel 23, pp. 2773-2784. CrossRef
  13. Glassman, J.A. 2010. On why CO2 is known not to have accumulated in the atmosphere and what is happening with CO2 in the modern era. Rocket Scientist Journal. CrossRef
  14. Salby, M. L. 2012. Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate. Cambridge University Press. (ISBN: 978-0-521-76718-7) CrossRef
  15. Salby, M. L. 2013. Relationship between greenhouse gases and global temperature. Video Presentation, April 18. Helmut-Schmidt-University Hamburg. CrossRef
  16. Salby, M. L. 2016. Atmosphere Carbon. Video Presentation, July 18. University College London. CrossRef
  17. Salby, M. L. 2018. What is really behind the increase in atmospheric CO2? Video Presentation, October 10. Helmut-Schmidt-University Hamburg, Germany. CrossRef
  18. Humlum, O., K. Stordahl, J.E. Solheim. 2013. The phase relation between atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures. Global and Planetary Change, 100, pp 51-69. CrossRef
  19. Harde, H. 2017: Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO2 residence time in the atmosphere. Global and Planetary Change. 152, 19-26. CrossRef
  20. Harde, H. 2019. What Humans Contribute to Atmospheric CO2: Comparison of Carbon Cycle Models with Observations. International Journal of Earth Sciences Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 139-159. CrossRef
  21. Berry, E. X. 2018. A fatal flaw in global warming science. Basic Science of a Changing Climate. Porto University, Portugal. Sep 7. CrossRef
  22. Berry, E. X. 2019a. Contradictions to IPCC’s climate change theory. Annual meeting of the American Meteorological Society, Phoenix.  CrossRef
  23. Berry, E. X. 2019b. Human CO2 emissions have little effect on atmospheric CO2. International Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences. Volume 3, Issue 1, June 2019, pp 13-26. CrossRef
  24. Munshi, J. 2016b. Dilution of atmospheric radiocarbon CO2 by fossil fuel emissions. CrossRef
  25. Munshi, J. 2016c. Some methodological issues in climate science. CrossRef
  26. Munshi, J. 2016d. Circular reasoning in climate change research. CrossRef
  27. Munshi, J. 2017. Responsiveness of atmospheric co2 to fossil fuel emissions: updated. CrossRef
  28. Munshi, J. 2018. Carbon Cycle Measurement Problems Solved with Circular Reasoning. 2018. Thongchai Thailand. CrossRef
  29. Archer, D., M. Eby, V. Brovkin, A. Ridgwell, L. Cao, U. Mikolajewicz, et al. 2009. Atmospheric Lifetime of Fossil Fuel Carbon Dioxide. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci., 37, pp. 117–134. CrossRef, CrossRef2
  30. Cawley, G.C. 2011. On the Atmospheric residence time of anthropogenically sourced CO2. Energy Fuels 25, pp. 5503–5513. CrossRef
  31. Kohler, P., J. Hauck, C. Volker, D.A. Wolf-Gladrow, M. Butzin, J.B. Halpern, et al. 2017. Comment on ‘Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO2 residence time in the atmosphere’ by H. Harde. Global and Planetary Change. CrossRef
  32. Courtney, R.S., 2019. Public comment on global-warming-realists@googlegroups.com, Nov 21, 2019.
  33. Hua, Q., M. Barbetti, A. Z. Rakowski. 2013. Atmospheric radiocarbon for the period 1950–2010. RADIOCARBON, Vol 55, pp. 2059–2072. Table S2c. CrossRef
  34. Turnbull, J. C., S. E. Mikaloff Fletcher, I. Ansell, G. W. Brailsford, R. C. Moss, Norris, et al. 2017. Sixty years of radiocarbon dioxide measurements at Wellington, New Zealand: 1954–2014. Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, pp. 14771–14784. CrossRef
  35. Wikipedia. 2019. Isotopes. https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope
  36. Levin, I., T. Naegler, B. Kromer, M. Diehl, R. Francey, A. Gomez-Pelaez, et al. 2010. Observations and modelling of the global distribution and long-term trend of atmospheric 14CO2. Tellus B: Chemical and Physical Meteorology. CrossRef
  37. Boden, T., B. Andres. 2017. Global CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel burning, cement manufacture, and gas flaring: 1751-2014. CrossRef
  38. Joos, F. 2002. Parameters for tuning a simple carbon cycle model.CrossRef

183 thoughts on “PREPRINT #2: The Physics Model Carbon Cycle for Human CO2”

  1. Larry Lazarides

    Although your paper is very learned, I prefer a simpler means of disproving IPCCs alarmist predictions, as follows –

    1. The Australian Academy of Science publishes data and graphs showing temp changes over (a) the last 800,000 years and also over (b) the last 160 years. The years in (b) represents .02% of the years in (a).
    The data for (a) shows the planet’s temp has increased and decreased numerous times over a range of 16 degrees.
    The data for (b) shows temps have increased over the last 160 years and that the increases correlate with increases in CO2, however, when the (b) graph is overlain on that part of the (a) graph for the last 160 years, it can be seen that the last 160 year increases are perfectly consistent with the increases and decreases that have been occurring for thousands of years and that we are presently in an temp up cycle which will be followed by a down cycle ie temp decrease.

    2. There is 26 times the amount of CO2 in nature as there is man made. Water vapour accounts for 80% of greenhouse gas warming and CO2 less than 20%. One 26th of 20% is .7% and that is the amount which man made CO2 contributes to warming.

    3. Simple maths shows that there is simply not enough snow and ice on the planet to increase sea levels by anywhere near the amount which IPCC claims, even on their revised downward sums.

    1. Dear Larry, Thank you for your comment. I agree with your arguments but I think we need to show that every step of the climate argument is false. Step one is the IPCC claim that our CO2 is causing all the increase in atmospheric CO2. Step 2 is the IPCC claim that CO2 in the atmosphere is causing all the warming. Step 3 is the IPCC claim that warming causes bad stuff to happen. You have made good points on Steps 2 and 3.

      By the way, do you have any links to the Australian data you mention?

      1. I read all your work, but Pangburn is simpler
        ******
        IPCC Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change
        GCM General Circulation Model (many, based on IPCC CO2 assertions)
        ——————————-
        These six links from five authors are all you really need to understand global warming.
        My speculation: As the temperature went down into the Little Ice Age, limestone was deposited around the edges of bodies of water. As the temperature has recovered since, the limestone dissolved and added CO2 to the oceans, with a delay of 300-400 years. It was just an accident that this added CO2 coincided with our industrial revolution. Temperature creates CO2, not the other way around. There is proof of that. Read on.
        —————————-
        Pangburn
        Shows that temperature change over the last 170 years is due to 3 things: 1) cycling of the ocean temperature, 2) sun variations and 3) moisture in the air. There is no significant dependence of temperature on CO2.
        https://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com/
        —————————–
        Connolly father & son
        Shows the vertical temperature profile follows the ideal gas laws and is not caused by CO2. Millions of weather balloon scans and trillions of data points have been analyzed to come to these conclusions. One important conclusion is that there is no green house gas effect.
        https://globalwarmingsolved.com/2013/11/summary-the-physics-of-the-earths-atmosphere-papers-1-3/
        utube:
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfRBr7PEawY
        ——————————
        Pat Frank
        Shows that GCM results cannot be extrapolated a few years, let alone 50 or 100.
        https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2019.00223/full
        and
        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/15/why-roy-spencers-criticism-is-wrong/
        ———————————
        Joe Postma
        Shows that the “flat earth model”of the IPCC is too simple. Their real models are built into the GCMs which don’t fit the real data.
        https://climateofsophistry.com/2019/10/19/the-thing-without-the-thing/

    2. I wonder if there was ever any data collected on 13CO2? There should have been an increase of 13C02 also during the testing. If the 13CO2 data showed an e-time somewhere between natural e-time and 14CO2 e-time it would be pretty compelling.

  2. At this point, I am simply “working through” your paper (no where near finished yet!). Therefore, please take my few introductory comments as more of an inquiry for clarification.
    At the beginning of your paper, a number of statements are made but not referenced for verification. Examples include: “…only 1.5 percent of human carbon is left in the atmosphere.” How do we know that?
    “…if all human emissions were to stop, that 18 ppm increase would fall to a 4-ppm increase in 20 years.”
    How can we confirm this number? Where does the 20 years come from and on what is that claim based?
    “…about 6 percent of human carbon emissions will end up on the land to increase the growth of vegetation.” 6%? How? Why?
    Etc.
    Please don’t take these comments in the wrong vane as I’m only trying to be sure I can understand and defend your paper, if need be.
    Thanks and good luck with the research and paper,
    Dale

    1. Dear Dale, Thank you for your comment.
      The Preface I wrote is not part of my paper. It is only a brief summary of some key conclusions of my paper. You will find all the numbers I mention in the Preface derived in Sections 3 and 4 of my paper. These numbers are the result of properly calculating how human and natural carbon flow through the carbon cycle.

  3. Would part of your paper be better served if it referenced: (not my work)

    IPCC has stated that man is responsible for 40% of the total amount of the CO2 in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution (taken as 1850 on), but admits man-made CO2 only contributes 3.4% annually. This must mean nature’s 96.6% is selected by nature to be recycled but not man-made CO2 despite there being no chemical difference or process that would explain this. This is impossible without an explanation as to why the recycling process does not select natural and man-made CO2 in proportional amounts.
    One of the purported signatures of anthropogenic CO2 is the carbon isotope ratio, C13/C12. The difference between “natural” and “man-made” CO2 has a demarcation value of 1.1% C13. Above 1.1% C13 content is considered “natural”, and below is considered “man-made”.
    The concentration of C13 isn’t reported directly, it is given as “dC13”, which is computed as:

    dC13=1000*((C13/C12 Sample)/(C13/C12 STD)-1)

    If you examine the above equation, you will see that the C13 index that is reported can go down not only from decreasing C13 content, but also from an increasing C12 content (the other 98.9% of the CO2).
    We’ll fast forward through the science of analysing multi-year data trends and signals from Mauna Loa, an active volcano in Hawaii and state that no difference was found between the “natural” multiyear variability and that found for the trends, so the previous claims of all the increases of CO2 being man-made are false. Exactly what common sense would predict.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/28/spencer-pt2-more-co2-peculiarities-the-c13c12-isotope-ratio/

    1. Dear John, Thank you for your comment and link. Spencer makes a good argument that the decrease in dC13 does not imply a human cause. Also, in my [1], I show that d13C does not support the IPCC claim of human cause.
      However, this preprint does not need to involve 13C. This preprint simply calculates the effect of human CO2 emissions on the carbon cycle.

  4. Dear Dr. Ed,
    Your audience wants a clear, direct statement comparing annual contributions of CO2 from nature and humans. Your audience may tease the answer from:

    Lbp = 4.6 (ppm/year) * 4 (years) = 18.4 ppm (9)

    Lbn = 98 (ppm/year) * 4 (years) = 392 ppm (10)

    Consider introducing this section with: “Each year, nature produces more than 21 times the human contribution of CO2” and state sources. Thereby, you will introduce dominance of the natural CO2 contribution, supporting your models.
    Thank you!

  5. Great work. Two comments! The sexual propensitivity of Termites is also important as it is estimated that they emit from two to ten times the green house gases from mans activity. This was before finding about two million new mounds in South America.
    In 2000 Joseph O. Fletcher gave a lecture showing the heat released from the Warm Pool (sun induced) to be about ten times the then calculated estimate from green house gases. He predicted the slow down in warming at that time with a peak about 2020 then a drop.
    Clearly we are fighting a against a UN grab for power.
    Push forward because stupid laws might be passed before the cooling brings this to an end.

  6. Did I find an auto-complete typo?

    “This paper converts carbon units of GtC (Gigatons of Carbon) and PgC (Pentagrams of Carbon) into CO2 units of ppm (parts per million by volume in dry air) using:…”

    Did you mean “petagrams”?? 🙂

    And I would like to link your finished product to the ‘my website’ link, too!

  7. Introduction….
    Why mix upper case with lower case here:

    “This paper uses e-time rather than “residence” time because there are many definitions of residence time. E-time has a precise definition: the time for the level to move (1 – 1/e) of the distance from its present level to its balance level. The balance level is defined below.”

    How about “e-time” has a…
    Or “However, ‘e-time’ has a…”
    Yes, it’s the first letter of the sentence, but….
    ?

  8. 2.1 again… suggested edits… my style versus yours… SUGGESTIONS IN ALL-CAPS

    The Physics Model is ALL THAT IS REQUIRED. It is not necessary to add separate inflows for human and natural CO2 to the Physics Model. Just ADD ANOTHER INSTANCE of the Physics Model for each CO2 definition desired.
    ………..

    Kohler is wrong. There is no such thing as a system being “too simplistic.” A system should be as simple as NEEDED/REQUIRED(?) to solve a problem. The Physics Model shows how inflow, outflow, and e-time affect the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. The IPCC model DOES NOT do this.

  9. 2.5…. “PER MIL”??? new term here or previously used and I missed it?

    “The 14C data are in units of D14C per mil. The lower bound in D14C units is -1000. “

  10. “The bottom line is while human emissions add carbon to the carbon cycle, human carbon that enters the atmosphere quickly finds its way to the land and deep ocean reservoirs.”.
    Ed, could you tell me how the outflow from the atmosphere of human carbon dioxide or, indeed, naturally produced carbon dioxide is measured, please? Or are the amounts just based on modelling?

  11. 2.6…
    How do the arrows, all of equal length in the figure, represent flows in petagrams per year?!
    “Figure 4. The carbon-cycle system with corrected data for the IPCC natural carbon cycle.”

    Ah, the numbers appear in figure 6…. so, in figure 4, they just represent “flows.” Hm?

    But you’re still calling them ALL “outflows” when some are outflows and some are ‘inflows,’ as indicated by the directions of the arrows! Sounds like ‘flows’ is still a better term…

      1. Heidi
        Nearly all of Potholler’s assertions have been adequately refuted in Dr. Ed’s Co2 paper at ( https://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/agw-hypothesis/human-co2-emissions-have-little-effect-on-atmospheric-co2/).
        If you have time to watch videos addressing the things Potholler was trying unsuccessfully to debunk look for those by Dr. Murray Salby especially
        https://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/agw-hypothesis/what-is-really-behind-the-increase-in-atmospheric-co2/

  12. The bomb test curve essentially shows the C14/C12 ratio compared to a reference ratio valid for year 1950. The ∆C14 value is among other things affected by human emissions of C14-free CO2 from fossil burning. The ratio we would have had today if the bomb tests were never done is of course unknown, but we can correct for the effects of human C12 emissions. Here is a paper showing the result: http://www.klimatupplysningen.se/2013/10/21/%e2%88%86c14-bombprovskurvan/ Fig 1, red dots. The reason for the C14 not to go to zero can be emissions from the nuclear power industry and also emissions from the biosphere which stored C14 enriched carbon ever since 1960. I do not know in what way the correction would affect your application of the physical model, but it seems you should mention this correction. Another thing, the increased CO2 concentration has caused greening of the planet with up to 30% increase of biomass production per year. That has obviously increased the flow of CO2 into the biosphere but the release back into the atmosphere from e.g. Amazonas will be delayed for a long time. It seems to me one could estimate this memory effect of the biosphere and perhaps neglect it after showing that it is small. Only long-lived plants will contribute, of course. This memory effect is a very good thing – it makes life on earth easier for humanity and all other animals that depend on plants for their living.

  13. Ed,

    I like the concept and am still studying the detail. My first observation (and probably my only one) is that your mass unit, pentagrams, shouldn’t that be petagrams?

    Mark Harvey

  14. Hi Ed,
    1. You may have defined it somewhere in the paper, but to me “human emissions” are the exhalations of us people.
    2. I view the matter of atmospheric carbon dioxide very simply. The partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere is the same as the partial pressure of CO2 in our oceans (possibly with some delay although there is intimate contact between the two). As the oceans warm after the Little Ice Age, so the partial pressure of the contained CO2 rises – this will be balanced by the atmospheric CO2.

    1. Reason I ask is because he comes to approximately the same percentage as Archer utilizing a different method but promotes this view of climate carbon feedback from the ocean that resists ocean being a sink-i.e the sink is acting as a positive feedback instead of a sink.

      1. Dear Stephen, my preprint considers the ocean as a reservoir for carbon. Carbon flows in and carbon flows out. The rate of change of level is the difference between inflow and outflow.

  15. In Sweden, where I live, about 70% of the land is covered by forests. That is 28 million hectares or 280000 square kilometers. 75 % of that is cultivated with an average time to felling of about 80 years. The Swedish forests bind about 0.14 GTCO2 per year. After felling a large part will become CO2 within a couple of years while roots will stay in the forest and give away CO2 during a long time. It seems reasonable to assume that the carbon stored in a forest will essentially be back in the atmosphere after 150 years. We can assume that
    CO2 from a single event like the C-14 from the bomb tests that is stored in a forest will be given back to the atmosphere as a delayed, wide peak with a long tail.

    In the period 1982 to 2015 the leaf area in Swedish forests has increased by about 25% on the average. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth/ According to the site about 70% of the increase is because of CO2 fertilization. From 1982 to 2015 CO2 has increased from 341 to 400 ppm. If we assume that the increased leaf area results in a proportionally bigger growth, the binding of CO2 per year would have increased by 0.025 GTCO2 each year. This is of course good – but it means
    that the increase of CO2 we see today will cause an increase with a maximum maybe 80 years from now. That increase will in turn cause increased storage in threes that would be released another maybe 80 years into the future. Sweden with 0.7% of all forests stores 0.025 GTCO2 extra in 2015 relative to 1982. The entire world, if similar, would store 3.6 GTCO2 but that is with 341 ppm CO2 as the baseline. As compared to pre-industrial levels,
    280 ppm, assuming a linear dependence the extra long-lived storage in the biosphere should be in the order of 7 GTCO2 or 2GTC or 4 ppm. Now, assuming the world as whole has the same growth rate of forests as the Swedish forest industry is most probably seriously wrong, more realistic would probably be to assume that the extra stored CO2 is an order of magnitude smaller. IPCC, 2007, states that the exchange between atmosphere and biosphere is about 120 GTC/year. Most of that is very fast because the life span of most plants is short. There is however a small fraction that goes into long lived threes.

    The point of this posting is that indeed there is a tail on the response curve for a single CO2 emission like the bomb tests. How large it is and how long it lasts should be possible to estimate far more accurately by professionals on forestry. My very rough estimate was just intended to inspire someone to do it better.

    Worldwide forests have a much wider life span so a computation for the entire world would presumably give something similar to a slow exponential fall-off. An exponential never falls to exactly zero so the statement from IPCC that a carbon emission to the atmosphere will change the atmospheric CO2 for thousands of years is mathematically correct. The way the political spokesmen for IPCC present this to the public is however most inappropriate. This is not a dooms day thing. An increased amount of long-lived biomass on the planet is a good thing. Mankind can make good use of it.

    Based on the above I suggest that you mention the effects of long storage times in the biosphere and explain why you neglect them completely. Alternatively add one more reservoir that connects to the atmosphere with an appropriately guessed very long
    e-time and size. This tail shows up in IPCC models as several long e-times in the bern model.

    The big controversy, as I see it is that IPCC makes models under the assumption that the temperature would have stayed constant at the pre-industrial level if there would have been no antropogenic CO2. This means that IPCC assumes that the heating due to CO2 is the reason for for the oceans to give off more CO2 causing an increased heating – with an additional amplification from water vapor. That means they model our climate as a system with a very large feedback. To me that seems very unlikely because a large positive feedback should have made the climate very unstable – and that is not what we can learn from climate history.

    The e-time from the bomb test curve is about 16.5 years. I do not understand why you use an e-time from IPCC. They use multiple e-times in a complicated model. I can not see any reason why the e-time should depend on the isotope. If you use a different time from 16.5 years there is at minimum a need for a precise reference so we can read what IPCC is saying that the time stands for – and how they arrived at it.

    IPCC attributes all heating to antropogenic emissions and consequently they attribute the CO2 from the oceans due to a higher temperature to antropogenic CO2. In your model heating is external and causes a natural increase of CO2. With a 16.5 year time constant I think you would find that about 50% of CO2 is natural while 50% is antropogenic. Assuming external heating means that the radiative forcing of CO2 has to be much lower than the 3.7 W/m2 assumed by IPCC. (There are many papers that arrive at lower values.)

    1. Dear Leif, Thank you for your comment. The NASA article repeats the incorrect IPCC claim that half of human CO2 emissions cause of all the rise in atmospheric CO2 and the remainder adds to the ocean and plants:

      “Every year, about half of the 10 billion tons of carbon emitted into the atmosphere from human activities remains temporarily stored, in about equal parts, in the oceans and plants.”

      The calculations in my preprint show human CO2 distributes itself in the same percentages as natural CO2 distributes itself, namely, 6% to land, 1.4% to the atmosphere, 2.2% to surface ocean, and 90.7% to deep ocean.

      You are, of course, correct that the e-time for land is a composition of different e-times for the plants.

      My paper [1] shows the e-time for 14CO2 is 16.5 years. The only place my preprint uses the IPCC e-time of 4 years is in Section 2.4 but that use is for illustration purposes only. Equation (11) shows that the ratio of human to natural CO2 in the atmosphere is independent of e-time.

      Section 2.5 explains why the e-time for 12CO2 is smaller than for 14CO2. It is because the lighter isotopes react faster.

      1. Dear ED, as we know, a CO2 molecule does not have any memory so it is obvious that molecules of human origin and natural origin behave the same. The statement from NASA that you refer to must be ill-written, neither NASA nor IPCC can believe molecules have memory. I, therefore, rephrase their statement like this: “Every year, when 10 billion tons of carbon is emitted into the atmosphere from human activities, about 5 billion tons is temporarily stored, in about equal parts, in the oceans and plants while 5 billion tons remain in the atmosphere. (forever?)” I think it is even more clear how absurd the statement is. Further, it is in clear disagreement with IPCC models.

        This link: http://unfccc.int/resource/brazil/carbon.html “A preindustrial background (CO2 around 280 ppm, zero emissions) was used and a pulse of 40 GtC was released instantaneously into the model atmosphere”

        The graph shows the response of IPCC models. The paper fits parameters to the IPCC-TAR curve: 15% or 6 GtC will stay forever in the atmosphere. I have seen arguments that the parameter a(0) must be identically zero. Now, that is false but we can estimate a(0) from 40 GtC in relation to all the carbon: (Approximate in GtC: 40000 sea, 2300 biosphere, and 780 atmosphere.)

        After many thousand years reservoirs have evened out the extra CO2 in the atmosphere so a(0) could be 0.009 maximum. The somewhat higher CO2 level might increase the permanent storage of calcium carbonate at the sea bottom causing a(0) to be a bit smaller. The graph reaches 50% in about 20 years. The equivalent e-time is obviously very much longer than 4 years.

        You write: “The IPCC [2] estimates the e-time for natural CO2 is 4 years. It takes an e-time of 4 years to make the IPCC’s flow estimates equal to the IPCC’s level of atmospheric CO2.”

        There must be a misunderstanding here. The graph they show from the 40GtC sudden exposure is not consistent at all with an e-time of 4 years.

        A remark: Your ref [2] does not have any figure 6.1. I did, however, find a figure 6.1 here: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter06_FINAL.pdf so I suggest you change the reference.

        Your figure 5 with 90 down and 100 up from deep ocean does not agree with IPCC figure 6.1. When you ignore “Marine biota” and “dissolved organic carbon” you must move those boxes into the two ones you have. That means that from surface ocean to deep ocean IPCC has a flow of 103 down and 100 up. That makes more sense, if you would incorporate decimals you would find that the net flow into the ocean (surface+deep) is zero and to the sediments 1,75. The net flow into the atmosphere is 0,4 instead of zero, but that is well within error limits.

        To me, it is obvious that the e-time for the atmosphere can not be 2.95 years. It has to be very close to the C14 e-time. Your ref. [29] states that the isotope effect is small. A factor of 5.6 is absurd. Exchange rates have to be seriously wrong since the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere should be fairly accurate.

        Maybe you need one more box for the biosphere with a flow of maybe 80 in and 80 out and an e-time of 1 year representing the one year plant season. The amplitude of the 1-year variation of CO2 at Mauna Loa is in the order of 6 ppm. Maybe also another box for the surface of the sea where CO2 gas dissolves in water and releases again with a small e-time while 16.5 years is for carbon to get into “Surface Ocean.”

        1. Dear Leif,

          Thank you for your comment.

          Regarding: “Every year, when 10 billion tons of carbon is emitted into the atmosphere from human activities, about 5 billion tons is temporarily stored, in about equal parts, in the oceans and plants while 5 billion tons remain in the atmosphere. (forever?)”

          Even the IPCC Figure 6.1 data show this is not the case. When I extract the e-times from the IPCC data and apply them to human CO2, I calculate that human CO2 flows to the other reservoirs fast enough to keep the amount of human carbon in the atmosphere below about 15 percent. There is no calculation that shows it is 50 percent.

          Regarding the link: http://unfccc.int/resource/brazil/carbon.html “A preindustrial background (CO2 around 280 ppm, zero emissions) was used and a pulse of 40 GtC was released instantaneously into the model atmosphere.”

          My previous paper [1] references that link to the Bern model and discusses the Bern model. I am considering showing in this paper how the Berm model prediction compares with the Physics model prediction.

          Regarding: “The IPCC [2] estimates the e-time for natural CO2 is 4 years. It takes an e-time of 4 years to make the IPCC’s flow estimates equal to the IPCC’s level of atmospheric CO2.”

          The IPCC does say the e-time is about 4 years and, indeed, the Bern model disagrees. I am adding a new section to my preprint that shows how the Physics model calculates an e-time of about 6 years based, of course, on IPCC’s data for the levels.

          Regarding the link to figure 6.1: thank you for checking. I have corrected the link.

          Regarding: “Marine biota” and “dissolved organic carbon”. I consider these reservoirs negligible. The amounts in these levels are in the noise level of the carbon-cycle calculation.

          Regarding e-time: As mentioned above, I am adding a section to my preprint that will show how to get an e-time of about 6.5 year using IPCC’s data.

          Regarding “one more box for the biosphere: Perhaps but I think it is outside what I can include in this paper. I have enough to handle just sticking with IPCC’s for major levels.

          Thanks again.

        2. Leif what I don’t understand is how they can assume only 50% of human emission is absorbed every year. Only 50% absorbed in 1750. Only 50% absorbed in 1800, in 1850, in 1900, in 1950, in 2000. How is that possible?

        3. Stephen,
          The way it’s done is to assume that natural emissions have not increased at all since preindustrial times. Next, assume that all natural emissions are absorbed first followed by the human emissions. Voila! 50% of the human emissions corresponds to roughly 100% of the rise in atmospheric CO2.

        4. Chic,
          I’m a Louis L’amour fan too by the way. But they believe it was 50% in 1750 and then also 50% in say for instance 1950 when anthropogenic emission was much greater. I understand they need that scenario for their math to work but it defies all logic.

  16. Off topic but very substantial finding supporting Dr. Ed’s contention of small effect from human CO2.
    See( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfRBr7PEawY )
    The Connolly’s analysis of 20 million radiosondes “categorically shows that there is no greenhouse effect in our atmosphere.” Conclusion is that increased radiative gasses will absorb more but simultaneously emit the same amount and cause no warming.

  17. Here is the definitive argument that the atmospheric carbon dioxide growth rate is driven by temperature (and not by human emissions):

    First we’ll compare the carbon dioxide growth rate with the SSTs of the southern ocean going back to 1958…

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1958/mean:12/derivative/plot/hadsst3sh/from:1958/scale:0.253/offset:0.099/plot/esrl-co2/from:1958/mean:12/derivative/trend/plot/hadsst3sh/from:1958/scale:0.253/offset:0.099/trend

    Next we’ll compare the integrals of both data sets…

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1958/mean:12/derivative/integral/plot/hadsst3sh/from:1958/scale:0.253/offset:0.099/integral/plot/esrl-co2/from:1958/mean:12/derivative/trend/plot/hadsst3sh/from:1958/scale:0.253/offset:0.099/trend

    Then we’ll compare the carbon dioxide growth rate and temperature again, but this time extending temperature all the way back to 1850…

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1958/mean:12/derivative/plot/hadsst3sh/from:1850/scale:0.253/offset:0.099/plot/esrl-co2/from:1958/mean:12/derivative/trend/plot/hadsst3sh/from:1958/scale:0.253/offset:0.099/trend

    And then we’ll take the integral of the temperature data set from 1850…

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3sh/from:1850/scale:0.253/offset:0.099/integral

    Note the increase of about 125ppm. Ice cores tell us that the carbon dioxide level was 287ppm in 1850. Add 125ppm to that and we get 412ppm. Let’s see how we did…

    https://www.sealevel.info/co2.html

    Not bad(!) Lastly lets compare the carbon dioxide levels in ice cores with the moberg temperature reconstruction…

    https://i0.wp.com/i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/dhm1353/LawMob1.png

    Note that for the past five hundred years the temperature relationship with the carbon dioxide growth rate still holds true. Low temperatures produce flat or falling carbon dioxide levels. Relatively high temperatures produce rising carbon dioxide levels. (and the higher the temps, the faster the rise)…

    So, there you have it folks. The definitive argument that it is temperature that causes carbon dioxide levels to rise in the atmosphere. (a 500 year correlation !!!)

  18. I applaud your efforts in taking on Big Climate. “It’s a dirty job, but somebody has to do it” comes to mind. I’ve been defending your model on drroyspencer.com, so some of my comments will only be the devil’s advocate variety.

    My first point involves the title. This paper extends your argument from the previous paper “Human CO2 emissions have little effect on atmospheric CO2” by showing how the Physics model also applies to the other CO2 reservoirs involved in the carbon cycle. While the previous title addresses the accounting of the CO2 budget appropriately for the atmosphere, I do not think the current title is best for this paper. A seemingly small effect on the carbon cycle budget may translate into a large detrimental effect on the ecosystem in terms of ocean acidification and carbonate depletion. I agree that the IPCC climate cycle budget is in error. Would you consider changing the title to reflect your correction of the IPCC’s numerical accounting thus avoiding criticisms you may get from the title as is?

    Furthermore, the effect of fossil fuel emissions on the increase in atmospheric CO2 is one thing. What about the effects of land use changes that contribute to changes in the carbon cycle, even potentially positive ones? A need for third paper perhaps?

    The penultimate paragraph in your abstract contains sentences that invite criticism of the body of the paper. “The Physics carbon-cycle model shows if all human CO2 emissions stopped in 2020, the increase caused by human CO2 would fall by 78 percent in 20 years.” This presumes something about the future of natural emissions. You will already be challenged about the lack of data on past natural emissions. By my calculation, the fall would be 55%.

    “Stopping all human emissions cannot lower the level of atmospheric CO2 below the level set by natural emissions which is about 390 ppm.” Isn’t 390 your model’s estimate of natural emissions? You will be challenged to cite actual data to back it up.

    “In the long-term, only 1.5 percent of human carbon emissions will end up in the atmosphere.” Again this assumes some prediction about future emissions. Stopping human emissions would make it virtually 0%, holding both human and natural emissions constant at present levels would be more like 4%. The former is impossible and the latter very unlikely.

    The model development sections seem to be mostly word for word from your previous paper. A brief summary with a reference would suffice. The thrust of this paper begins at section 2.6.

    The caption for Figure 4 describes corrected data which you put in a later figure, not 4.

    I agree with Lief that your IPCC Figure 6.1 numbers are wrong. The Physics carbon-cycle model still shows that IPCC flows don’t produce IPCC levels. But you can easily get the right levels by much more modest adjustment of their flows (109 for land to air and 105 for deep ocean to surface ocean).

    You have 12 as the land to air flow in Figure 7. I sum all anthro emissions to 20.5 PgC/yr. That would explain the negative 30 PgC for the land reservoir. Again this doesn’t make the IPCC model right, just less wrong.

    I’ll stop at this point to see if we are still on the same page, before proceeding to your other models.

    1. Dear Chic,

      Thank you very much for your extended comment. I will consider all of your suggestions as I edit my preprint.

      Change title: yes.

      Effects of land use changes? Well, the IPCC adds these into its numbers for human emissions. For this paper, I need to stick with IPCC’s numbers for the levels and human inflows.

      Regarding: “The Physics carbon-cycle model shows if all human CO2 emissions stopped in 2020, the increase caused by human CO2 would fall by 78 percent in 20 years.”

      Check again. It says the increase “caused by human CO2.” I think this makes the sentence independent of natural CO2.

      Regarding: “Stopping all human emissions cannot lower the level of atmospheric CO2 below the level set by natural emissions which is about 390 ppm.”
      You are correct. I need to justify the 390 ppm.

      Regarding: “In the long-term, only 1.5 percent of human carbon emissions will end up in the atmosphere.”

      I need to be sure this sentence is based on the assumption that all human CO2 emissions stop. If stopped, then that 1.5 percent is caused by the new carbon put into the carbon cycle by human CO2. It can never go to zero in the less than a million-year time frame.

      Holding human emissions constant after 2020 would still increase the amount of human CO2 in the atmosphere, according to my latest calculations.

      Since I am introducing additional equations in this paper, I choose to include the derivation of the Physics model. Perhaps I can reduce my descriptions and focus on the equations.

      Thanks for catching my error in Figure 4, etc.

      To correct the IPCC Figure 6.1 numbers, it takes more than simply adjusting the flows. It takes calculations of the equilibrium state where chosen e-times produce constant levels over time. This calculation can be done only with a carbon-cycle model.

      No matter what, it is impossible to get a negative level. I will explain this more in my next edits but consider human carbon as water in four buckets connected by tubes. We add water to the atmosphere bucket, and it flows out into the other buckets. There is no way to get negative water in any of the buckets. Water will flow between buckets until all have the same water levels.

  19. So far, so good until IPCC Figure 6.1. Check the arrows involving “Marine biota” and “dissolved organic carbon”. There is a net transfer of 13 PgC/yr from surface to deep ocean. This should be added to the 90 PgC/yr giving about 103 total. This constitutes a crucial error in your Figure 5 which will continue to cause you unnecessary further criticism if left uncorrected, IMO.

    Regarding the IPCC flows and e-times, I believe I created a reasonable facsimile of your spreadsheet which uses ratios of flows divided by sums of flows to get the Ki “splits” as you call them. The method used to calculate IPCC e-times from Figure 5 are not consistent with the way you derive your e-times in Table 2. Is anyone else confused about this? Perhaps it would be more clear what you are doing with a link to your spreadsheet.

    Splits are not very physically meaningful to me. They seem to be related to rate constants which are not arbitrary in nature. The Mauna Loa data seems to indicate the removal rate of CO2 is about 0.28 equivalent to an e-time of 3.6 years which is consistent with your model.

    The bottom line is not how the IPCC preindustrial numbers don’t fit a model properly. The improper treatment of human emissions is the problem you should be emphasizing, not the IPCC preindustrial numbers.

    1. Dear Chic,
      Thank you very much for your helpful comment.

      I changed Figure 5 and nearby text to include the flow through the marine biota, as you suggested. You are correct. This required a change to Table 1. It did not change anything else in my paper.

      I will put my spreadsheet online so you can download it at the link I will put under downloads.

      Of course, my overall goal is to calculate the effect of human emissions. But I must begin with the IPCC data if I am to refute the IPCC claims. That is why I use IPCC level data to derive equilibrium e-times that I can then use to calculate the human effect. The IPCC equilibrium levels are preindustrial by IPCC’s definition.

  20. Dear Ed,

    Regarding: “Marine biota” and “dissolved organic carbon”. You consider these reservoirs negligible. Yes, but ignoring them makes your figure 5 open for criticism since it implies that the IPCC figure 6.1has a source of 10 PgC in the deep ocean while they actually have a sink of 2 PgC. I suggest you just change 90 to 102 for the flow into the Deep Ocean. Then you represent 6.1 correctly and I do not think it would change anything of your basic results.
    The e-time for CO2 is about 16 years. I find it ridiculous to assume isotopic effects could change that significantly. You have taken flows from IPCC 6.1 that sum up to 169 PgC/year for the atmosphere. With the correct e-time the summed flows into land and sea has to be about 36 PgC/year. To be consistent with the physical model all flows have to be reduced by the factor 169/36=4.7. In figure 5 the flow from the atmosphere to the biosphere is 109 PgC/year. This number, actually 123 (minus 14.1 for the increased growth today due to the fertilization effect of CO2.) The number comes from Beer et al. 2010. Here is table 1 in the paper:
    Tropical forests 40.8
    Temperate forests 9.9
    Boreal forests 8.3
    Tropical savannahs and grasslands 31.3
    Temperate grasslands and shrublands 8.5
    Deserts 6.4
    Tundra 1.6
    Croplands 14.8
    Total 121.7

    As stated by IPCC “carbon can be released back into the atmosphere … on a very wide range of time scales (seconds to millennia)” I think croplands savannahs and grasslands have an e-time of not much more than 1 year. Threes in the rain forest several hundred years. To me this seems to be a show stopper. I do not think you can use IPCC data to split the outflow from the atmosphere between sea and land. Also the sea is complicated somewhere I have seen that the equilibrium between CO2 in the atmosphere and dissolved CO2 in a thin laminar layer, less than 1 mm, is very fast. mixing with deeper layers and forming bicarbonate and other ions is much slower and mixing with deep water is presumably associated with the 16 year time constant. The biosphere is presumably essentially one reservoir with a very short e-time that we can include in the atmosphere and another with a much longer e-time that we can associate with threes. Had the biosphere e-time been similar to the sea e-time we should have seen a distortion on the bomb test curve as plants with twice the normal C-14 concentration would rotten and send out C14 to bend up the tail. The sea is a container of almost infinite size. We know that organisms that live in the sea seem to have an age of 500 to 1000 years when analyzed for the C14 content.

    From the bomb-test curve we know the time constant and with only two containers, the atmosphere and “all the rest” it is possible to compute the contribution to the atmospheric CO2 from human emissions as you do in [1] while the rest of the CO2 is “natural.” That “natural” is essentially from the oceans that have become warmer. IPCC would argue that the warmer oceans are due to the heating effect of CO2 and argue they are not natural, but caused by humans! In case you would correct the e-time to 16.5 years and apply to the model in [1] you should find that about 50% of CO2 is human and 50% is natural. IPCC would of course still argue that what you attribute to natural, which is outgassing from the sea, is the greenhouse effect caused by humans, but it could equally well be caused by phenomena on the sun – and considering historical temperature data I personally find it most likely that the sun is responsible for a large part.

    1. Dear Leif,
      Thank you very much once again for your helpful comment.

      I changed Figure 5 and nearby text to include the flow through the marine biota, as you suggested. You are correct. This required a change to Table 1. It did not change anything else in my paper.

      Let’s review what I am attempting to do in my paper. I do not assign e-times from external information. I find e-times that support the IPCC data for natural levels at equilibrium. The IPCC claims (incorrectly) that nature remained constant after 1750 so it would support the level of 280 ppm. Therefore, I do not include information outside of the IPCC data.

      If data exists for additional levels, then they would be easy to add to my calculations. For example, what I and the IPCC call land, could be separated into sublevels, as you describe. But that step is outside the scope of my present paper.

      Yesterday, I made several other changes to my paper that will require a new read.
      Regarding e-times, please note that the Physics model calculates an e-time for the atmosphere and surface ocean that is 2 times the IPCC model e-time.

      The scope of my paper is to use IPCC data to show the IPCC claims are wrong, and to use IPCC data to calculate that human emissions since 1750 have increased atmospheric CO2 by only 32 ppm. Then, by default, nature has caused all the rest of the increase above 280 ppm … which, of course, is due to the increase in surface temperature.

      1. Dr. Ed Berry,

        I just started reading a book by Dr. J. Marvin Herndon, Ph.D.. Dr Herndon states that we should not assume “constant Earth-heat production” but “one should consider and investigate Earth-heat variability. The fundamental implication of Earth-heat variability is ocean temperature variability which directly affects atmospheric CO2 variability.” Dr. Herndon is questioning with scientific evidence the assumption that Earth-heat is constant. If there is a warmer ocean there will be more CO2 and a cooler ocean there will be less CO2.

        As a lay person, I thought that Dr. Herndon’s information should be examined and might be beneficial in the study of atmospheric CO2. I’m not sure if this fits in with your paper on AGW.

        “Herndon’s Earth and the Dark Side of Science”

        Dan Dewey

  21. You stated in one of the responses “The scope of my paper is to use IPCC data to show the IPCC claims are wrong, and to use IPCC data to calculate that human emissions since 1750 have increased atmospheric CO2 by only 32 ppm. Then, by default, nature has caused all the rest of the increase above 280 ppm … which, of course, is due to the increase in surface temperature.”

    I am trying to figure out where the 100 ppm increase in atmosphere is coming from if it is not due to human activity adding Carbon Dioxide to the Carbon Cycle.

    Are you saying there would be 100 ppm increase absent human activity just because the global temperature anomaly has increased by ~ 0.8C since 1880? Are you sure the increase in total atmospheric CO2 isn’t due to the increase in total carbon dioxide in the carbon cycle? My understanding is ice core data suggest CO2 was about 280 ppm during Roman and Medieval warm periods … so why would the modern warm period be having a different effect?

    Regards,

    Ken Van de Burgt

  22. Dear Ed B. – will this be published? Is it going to be peer reviewed? Where are your other articles published?

    Thanks

  23. A lot of things I don’t understand your work. But what I would like to say is thank you for being there for all people and giving me a voice I trust.

  24. Why do you trust a voice you don’t understand? Ed Berry’s work is nonsense and his misconceptions have been pointed put by myself and others. Do you just not want to face the truth?

    1. Dear David, you have not pointed out any errors in my paper. You are delusional. You have lost the scientific argument. That is why you are incapable of discussing physics.

  25. Dear Mr Andrews,
    if a guy with just an engineering degree like myself can understand the physics model, and it’s basic hypothesis, and then understand that such model replicates measured data….well, then I believe that in Dr Ed’s paper there is no nonsense, but just a scientific approach that is honestly not visible in the other IPCC papers referenced to in Dr Ed’s preprint. How can the IPCC “theory” survive in the scientific community is the real nonsense to me. Let me say that IPCC theory “e-time” is incredibly long, compared with its extremely weak “foundations”…but in the long run we see how the curve goes…

  26. Remarks on Dr. Ed Berry’s hypothesis.
    Before going into details, a remark. The first and foremost test of a new hypothesis is plausibility. Berry’s hypothesis fails that test on two accounts:
    • So, of the 134 ppm excess CO2, only 32ppm are from burning fossil fuels, the rest is natural. Where does it come from? It can not come out of the ocean, because that’s where the excess CO2 goes. What part of nature has so fundamentally changed after about 1850 that it started to spew CO2 into the atmosphere?
    • Since the late 1950s, that is 6 decades, scientists have measured the isotopic composition of atmospheric CO2, the changing CO2 content of the oceans, tracked the amount of carbon burned and many more relevant parameters and have come to the conclusion: of the CO2 that we spew into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, about half remains in the atmosphere for a while, some is taken up by a growing phytosphere and the rest is taken up by the oceans. What we observe in the atmosphere is that part that goes neither in the ocean nor in plants. Now in 2019 Dr. Berry finds that they have all been wrong. Well, that’s not impossible – remember Galileo – but that requires a very rigorous proof. Berry doesn’t deliver.
    The following notes are as I wrote them down while reading the paper attentively. Berrys words are in “Quotation marks”.
    ____________________
    Physics Model: “Each reservoir has an e-time defined as the time for the level to move (1 – 1/e) of the distance from its present level to its balance level.”
    With respect to which other reservoir? The e-time has to be calculated for each pair of reservoirs.
    “Outflow = Level / e-time”
    Should read:
    Outflow = (Level- Balance Level) / e-time
    because if level = balance level, the outflow is zero. Unless there is an inflow.
    Hence, Equ 2 should read: Outflow = (L-Lb) / e-Time
    Therefore (3): dL/dt = Inflow – (L-Lb) / Te
    And (4): Inflow = (L-Lb) / Te
    So equ. 5 becomes:
    dL/dt = (L-Lb) / Te – (L-Lb)/Te = 0 which just states the assumption that lead to equ (4)
    “Equation (4) shows CO2 does not accumulate in the atmosphere. If inflow decreases, the balance level decreases, and the level follows the balance level. The response is immediate. When inflow to a reservoir increases the level of the reservoir, that reservoir immediately increases its outflow.”
    None of that can be derived from (4). It was derived under the assumption that dL/dt is 0. So, the conclusion “The response is immediate” follows from the assumption. If we increase Inflow, what happens? Either Te has to decrease or (L-Lb) has to increase what of course it does.
    “Because of (2), it is not necessary (or desirable) to compute the carbon cycle for human and natural carbon simultaneously. It is better (and simpler) to compute their effects separately.”
    Why? There is one carbon cycle and in the exchange between the atmosphere and the mixed layer it is one CO2-cycle. If we add something to one reservoir, we just get it out of its equilibrium and we need to calculate how fast it regains the new equilibrium.
    “The replication of the 14C data by the Physics Model has significant consequences. It shows hypothesis ¬(2) is correct.”
    That is so because the L(t) for 14CO2 is renormalized to have a Lb of 0. The Lb of total CO2 is not 0. There is another discrepancy that disallows the use of 14C data to calculate residence time of total CO2. Equ. 4, stated correctly, gives:
    Inflow = (L-Lb) / Te; or Te = (L-Lb) / Inflow (A) (strictly, as defined, only for the equilibrium state)
    Now, in the case of total CO2, the inflow is of the order of 1%, whereas in the case of 14CO2, it was almost a factor of 2 within a few years.
    If the Te for 14CO2 is 16.5, then Te for total CO2 can be estimated according to equ. A:
    L-Lb is 700 vs 412-280= 132
    inflow is 0.1 vs 0.01
    16.5*(132/700)/(0.01/.0.1) = 16.5*19 = 310 Years.
    I have not checked if that corresponds to the number that the IPCC uses but it seems to confirm the generally accepted fact that CO2 remains in the air “for many centuries”.
    Dec 29 2019 / SAe

    1. Dear Simon,

      Thank you for your comment. I will reply in sections to allow for separate discussion of the components of your comment.

      First and foremost, you have the scientific burden of proof reversed. IPCC and its contributors claim (a) human emissions cause all the increase in atmospheric CO2 and (b) most human carbon stays in the atmosphere essentially forever. IPCC and its contributors have the burden of proof to show their claims are correct.

      The Null Hypothesis requires that we assume these claims are wrong until they are proven otherwise. No one has provided evidence that the IPCC claims are correct. Many have proved the IPCC claims are not correct.

      My preprint shows how these IPCC theories fail physics. I published my calculations so anyone can try to prove my calculations are wrong. No one has yet done this. I am prepared to defend all challenges to my calculations and arguments.

      You are welcome to try to defend the IPCC claims or to prove my arguments are wrong. But merely stating the past papers disagree with my preprint does not constitute proof that my calculations or arguments are wrong. Those papers agree with the IPCC claims and I have proved the IPCC claims are wrong. So, the conclusions of past papers are not valid arguments against my preprint.

      I show how IPCC’s natural carbon cycle is basically correct according to the Physics model.

      (I realize you do not understand the Physics model from your comment further below. I will address that later. For now, assume the Physics model is correct.)

      The fact that the Physics model shows the IPCC natural carbon cycle is basically self-consistent, indicates the value of the Physics model to calculate the carbon cycle. The Physics model allows calculation of IPCC’s e-times inherent in IPCC’s data.

      The Physics model then allows the correction of IPCC’s natural carbon cycle e-times to make its levels consistent with its flows. IPCC did not do this.

      Then, independent of the above, I show how IPCC made obvious, significant errors in its human carbon cycle. Those obvious IPCC errors prove all the contrary claims your comment lists are invalid.

      Then, I show IPCC made an invalid assumption that affects all its reports. IPCC assumed nature treats human carbon differently than it treats natural carbon. That is a no-no, and it blows all the IPCC conclusions in your comment out of the water.

      So far, there is no math. Just simple observation. The IPCC human carbon cycle model is significantly incorrect. Yet this incorrect IPCC human carbon cycle is the basis of IPCC’s claims (a) and (b), as well as the worldwide “climate crisis” hallucination. No math and we have proved this basic IPCC claim is wrong!

      Also, please see my prior preprint1 here

      It describes the Physics model more completely that done in this preprint2.

      Now, to address your specific comments:

      “So, of the 134-ppm excess CO2, only 32ppm are from burning fossil fuels, the rest is natural. Where does it come from? It cannot come out of the ocean, because that’s where the excess CO2 goes. What part of nature has so fundamentally changed after about 1850 that it started to spew CO2 into the atmosphere?”

      Reply: Who says it cannot come out of the oceans? Who says that’s where the excess CO2 goes?

      Courtney [10] (pp. 6-7) answered your comment back in 2008:
      “… the relatively large increase of CO2concentration in the atmosphere in the twentieth century (some 30%) is likely to have been caused by the increased mean temperature that preceded it. The main cause may be desorption from the oceans. … Assessment of this conclusion requires a quantitative model of the carbon cycle, but – as previously explained – such a model cannot be constructed because the rate constants are not known for mechanisms operating in the carbon cycle.”

      The earth has warmed after the Little Ice Age. The warming has released carbon formerly trapped in the oceans. This is consistent with all the data.

      Section 5.2 addresses the issue of how surface temperature increase causes atmospheric CO2 to increase. Please see the noted references. My preprint1 shows Harde’s conclusions for how temperature changes CO2 level in 2.4.

      Where are the models that supposedly prove the excess carbon cannot come out of the oceans?

      Where is a formulation of the carbon cycle that any previous study has used to prove the assertations in your comments?

      They all assume human carbon emissions have caused all the increase in atmospheric CO2 above 280 ppm. That is circular reasoning.

      “Since the late 1950s, that is 6 decades, scientists have measured the isotopic composition of atmospheric CO2, the changing CO2 content of the oceans, tracked the amount of carbon burned and many more relevant parameters and have come to the conclusion: of the CO2 that we spew into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, about half remains in the atmosphere for a while, some is taken up by a growing phytosphere and the rest is taken up by the oceans. What we observe in the atmosphere is that part that goes neither in the ocean nor in plants.”

      Those are not facts. They are assumptions. Carbon isotopes data do not prove human carbon emissions caused all the rise in atmospheric CO2 above 280 ppm.

      My preprint1 shows how the IPCC theory does not fit the isotope data in 3.3 and 3.4. The burden of proof is upon those authors to prove their calculations are correct.

      Their calculations did not begin with a valid carbon cycle formulation. Then they made unwarranted assumptions.

      So far, your comment has not shown there is an error in my preprint’s calculations or arguments.

      You are welcome to try to defend the calculations made in the papers that support your comment.

      I will reply to the rest of your comment in another comment.

      Thank you again for your comment.

      1. I am not a scientist, but the answer to Aegerters question what part of nature changed around 1850 seems, if i am not mistaken, obvious to me: The Dalton mimimum came to its end.

    2. Dear Simon,
      Thank you for your comment. This replies to the second part of your comment.
      My replies are in bold.
      Physics Model: “Each reservoir has an e-time defined as the time for the level to move (1 – 1/e) of the distance from its present level to its balance level.”
      With respect to which other reservoir? The e-time has to be calculated for each pair of reservoirs.
      “Outflow = Level / e-time”
      Not true. The e-time is a function of each individual reservoir:
      e-time = Level / Outflow.

      Should read:
      Outflow = (Level- Balance Level) / e-time
      because if level = balance level, the outflow is zero. Unless there is an inflow.
      No. Outflow is NOT a function of Balance Level. That is incorrect physics.
      At the Balance Level, Outflow still = Level / e-time.
      But when Level = Balance Level, then Outflow = Inflow.

      Hence, Equ 2 should read: Outflow = (L-Lb) / e-Time
      Therefore (3): dL/dt = Inflow – (L-Lb) / Te
      And (4): Inflow = (L-Lb) / Te
      So equ. 5 becomes:
      dL/dt = (L-Lb) / Te – (L-Lb)/Te = 0 which just states the assumption that lead to equ (4)
      No, no, no, and no! Please go back and do the physics correctly.

      “Equation (4) shows CO2 does not accumulate in the atmosphere. If inflow decreases, the balance level decreases, and the level follows the balance level. The response is immediate. When inflow to a reservoir increases the level of the reservoir, that reservoir immediately increases its outflow.”
      None of that can be derived from (4). It was derived under the assumption that dL/dt is 0. So, the conclusion “The response is immediate” follows from the assumption. If we increase Inflow, what happens? Either Te has to decrease or (L-Lb) has to increase what of course it does.
      Lb = Inflow * Te (4)
      (4) was not “derived under the assumption that dL/dt is 0.” (4) is a definition, not an assumption. Nothing in the physics changes by using the definition of Balance Level, but the definition simply makes the physics easier to understand.

      “Because of (2), it is not necessary (or desirable) to compute the carbon cycle for human and natural carbon simultaneously. It is better (and simpler) to compute their effects separately.”
      Why? There is one carbon cycle and in the exchange between the atmosphere and the mixed layer it is one CO2-cycle. If we add something to one reservoir, we just get it out of its equilibrium, and we need to calculate how fast it regains the new equilibrium.
      Stop and think. (2) makes the system linear. Therefore, we can compute carbon cycles separately and add them up afterward. The answer will be the same as when we calculate the cycles together.
      It is no different than if we calculated with half the natural carbon and then doubled the answer.
      And since we can do this, we should do this because it very much simplifies the calculations. Yes, IPCC did not understand this either. I may be the first to point this out.
      If IPCC had understood this simplification, it might have found its significant error in its human carbon cycle. Then IPCC might have corrected its error and saved the world from the climate delusion.
      The key point is the human and natural carbon cycles are truly independent and do not interfere with one another. And they must use the same e-times because nature cannot tell the difference between human and natural carbon atoms.

      “The replication of the 14C data by the Physics Model has significant consequences. It shows hypothesis (2) is correct.”
      That is so because the L(t) for 14CO2 is renormalized to have a Lb of 0. The Lb of total CO2 is not 0.
      The Lb for 14CO2 of zero is not really zero 14C. The true zero level in D14C units is -1000. The D14C zero level is defined as the normal 14C level before the bomb tests. It is 1000 D14C units above the 14C zero level.
      The important point is that (2) properly replicates the 14C data when Lb is set to zero and Te is set to 16.5. No IPCC model can do that.

      There is another discrepancy that disallows the use of 14C data to calculate residence time of total CO2. Equ. 4, stated correctly, gives:
      Inflow = (L-Lb) / Te; or Te = (L-Lb) / Inflow (A) (strictly, as defined, only for the equilibrium state)
      Those are not correct equations, as I pointed out above.
      Now, in the case of total CO2, the inflow is of the order of 1%, whereas in the case of 14CO2, it was almost a factor of 2 within a few years.
      That is irrelevant.
      If the Te for 14CO2 is 16.5, then Te for total CO2 can be estimated according to equ. A:
      L-Lb is 700 vs 412-280= 132
      inflow is 0.1 vs 0.01
      16.5*(132/700)/(0.01/.0.1) = 16.5*19 = 310 Years.
      Sorry, that is incorrect because the equations are incorrect. There is no way to estimate the Te for 12CO2 from the 14C data other than to say the Te for 12CO2 will be less than the Te for 14CO2.
      I have not checked if that corresponds to the number that the IPCC uses but it seems to confirm the generally accepted fact that CO2 remains in the air “for many centuries”.
      Sorry, it does not so confirm this.
      Thank you again for your comment.

    3. As an amateur scientist, I can answer the very first line of your response. Since 1950 the World population has exploded. Each of us spews out 2.3 pounds per DAY of CO2. Seven billion of us spew out 2.94 BILLION tons of CO2 per year. Compare that to the population in 1950. The IPCC didn’t take anything but SUV’s into consideration. What about Termites? Have they increased? Have any of the 700+ volcanoes changed their out put? And prove to me that CO2 is a pollutant causing the temp to rise when it is only .039% of the atmosphere. Putting that into context, imagine the atmosphere as a 100 yard football field. CO2 makes up only one INCH at the goal line. Water vapor and the sun determine our climate, not the IPCC.

    4. Who to trust in the climate debate? One minute it is volcanoes and fires that are major CO2 sources, but who can see CO2. Best explanation Dr Willy Soon, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zrejG-WI3U who explained this very well.

      And who decided that the base line should be after an ice period? Chemically CO2 dissolves better in cold water than warm and if temperature arisen then water will be realized. Check out cold coke versus warm coke.

      And climate models, have they ever given the correct measurements? 415 ppm equals 0,04% amongst approx. 78% N2 and 21% O2 ++. How log spacing between each CO2 molecule that can adsorb desorb beams (agree that it can in a 100% filled tube, but comparing to clouds where you can see a lot of them when you have heat in northern part of the earth and the other way along equator when it rains there gets colder.

      Then you have all the activities from sun, rotation of the earth and so forth- but still the believers say it is almost certain this is a human created disaster due to CO2 emission. Well a religion it is and therefor even though I do not understand all the arguments in Eds model to be more thrust worthy than the Swiss very unclear criticism.

      If you can not prove something so many can understand and claim models gives the truth then we are back to how good are they to predict weather or in the oil industry do the models find the oil. No rubbish in = rubbish out.

      1. Dear Raymond,

        To follow up on your note about Soon’s video, you can read my summary of Soon’s paper here. It shows why the sun and not CO2 drives the earth’s climate.

        While the level or concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is relevant to our discussion, the percentage of CO2 compared to N2 and O2 is irrelevant. The calculations of all models, so far as I know, do not care about how much N2 or O2 is in the atmosphere except when they do radiation calculations.

        My Physics model is much different than a climate model. My Physics model has only one hypothesis (outflow = level / e-time). By contrast, climate models have a multitude of interconnected hypotheses and arbitrary parameters for curve fitting.

        The Physics model can replicate the decay of 14C from 1970 to 2014, and it replicates the IPCC natural carbon cycle within the error bounds of the IPCC numbers. IPCC has no such model.

        Independently of the Physics model, I show that the IPCC human carbon cycle contains such gross errors that it must be rejected. That leaves the IPCC without a valid human carbon cycle…. which means there is no scientific basis for the so-called climate crisis.

        Only then, do I use the Physics model to calculate the human carbon cycle. I simply apply the e-times found for IPCC’s natural carbon cycle to the human carbon cycle. That is how the IPCC should have calculated the human carbon cycle.

        Overall, if you don’t let the required math in this preprint stop you, this preprint is really very simple. Far simpler, I might add, than the many papers that support the IPCC invalid claims about the human carbon cycle.

        1. Interesting. However someone here says Soon & Connery have cherry picked the satellite measurements 🙁https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=18&p=24)….
          It’s really hard for a non-expert to discern.

          On Dr.Ed’s preprint, it seems to me that no one has so far raised any solid argument against. Presumed formulations of the carbon cycle suggested by John and endorsed by Prof Aergerter do not stand (in my very humble opinion).

        2. I agree fully with DR Ed’s preprint. However, I do feel that the whole question really revolves around whether or not the small amount of CO2 in the atmostphere has any measurable effect on climate. So far, I have seen nothing to make me thing it has, and I have been studying climate for the last 40 years.

        3. Thanks for the reply and informative arguments. I will study your paper, but so far we are agreeing but I am only in the start phase of digging into this based on all the so-called facts coming from IPPC that in my mind do not ad up. When also an environmentalist like Patrick Moore is onto it the maybe some of those org might turn. This presentation was quite good, https://youtu.be/UWahKIG4BE4
          Anyway, hopefully time and your excellent work will turn this CO2 religion, but so far at least in Europa the madness increases every year! Have a nice weekend

        4. Dear Raymond,
          Although Patrick Moore and I agree that more CO2 is beneficial to humanity, Patrick and I disagree on one major point:

          Patrick Moore claims, like the IPCC, that human carbon emissions are the sole cause of the increase of atmospheric CO2 above 280 ppm.

          Whereas, I believe I have proved the IPCC claim makes serious errors, and human emissions have caused no more than 31 ppm of the rise above 280 ppm, and nature has caused the other 100 ppm rise.

  27. This discussion with Swiss physicist, Dr. Simon Aegerter, should be very helpful everyone. Dr. Aegerter says that man-made carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere a long time. Dr. Berry says it stays a much shorter time. Whether they come to agreement or not, the most important thing for many non experts on this topic will be if they can come to agreement as to whether the additional CO2 is having a serious effect on Earth’s climate and if so what must be done about it and in what time frame.

    I look forward to their discussion and answers to the points mentioned here.

    1. The fact is CO2, both Natural and Man-Made, have absolutely no driving influence on Earth’s climate, whatsoever. CO2 is basically meaningless, as it follows…and does not presage…climatic change. Water vapor simply overwhelms any effect CO2 might have completely. Man-made CO2 is absolutely meaningless to climate, but very important in regards to controlling humanity…and in the confiscation of wealth.

      1. I fully endoese this comment. The idea that CO2 is the driving force in climate change dates back to the time of Arrehnius and Forier who were looking for a reason why the earth came out of an ice age into an inter-glacial period. Their assumption was later proved wrong, but the establishment keeps on pushing it.
        If you study the underlying cyclic events, you will see that we are, in fact, just starting the long slow descent into the next ice age. This will take about 5,000 years, so shouldn’t bother us too much at the moment.

      2. CO2 is highly relevant in the higher colder (& DRIER) regions of the troposphere. It is here that a significant proportion of LWIR is finally emitted to space. Because of the lower temperatures, the rate of emission is reduced (S-B Law). This disturbs the energy equlibrium at the Top of the Atmosphere (outgoing less than incoming). The surface & lower atmosphere must, therefore, warm until balance is restored.

        Increased CO2 is warming the planet – not catastrophically perhaps – bit it’s happening.

        Without CO2 there would be less Water Vapour.

    2. Richard S Courtney

      John Shanahan,

      You assert,
      “the most important thing for many non experts on this topic will be if they can come to agreement as to whether the additional CO2 is having a serious effect on Earth’s climate and if so what must be done about it and in what time frame.”

      Sorry, but NO.
      The important point about this topic is whether or not human activities are making a significant contribution to changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration.

      This is because any effects of altered atmospheric CO2 concentration are not affected by human activities which do not make a significant difference to atmospheric CO2 concentration.

      Richard

      1. Richard,

        You have three NOs in your comment. I don’t understand what you are trying to say.

        Here is my position:

        1) The website allaboutenergy.net presents over 600 articles on all sides of the man-made global warming debate so the public can access any material. I’m the editor and have uploaded all this content after studying it carefully. See here:

        http://allaboutenergy.net/environment

        2) The conclusions about future use of fossil fuels are of the utmost importance of the modern world. They must be scientifically sound, not a politician’s or activist’s whim.

        3) After carefully studying all these articles and speaking and e-mailing many of these authors, my conclusion as of January 2020 is that carbon dioxide from fossil fuels is not causing serious man-made global warming, man-made climate change, man-made climate disruption (President Obama’s Science Advisor, John Holdren’s terms). It is important that the world continue to use fossil fuels, especially with real pollution control systems and no cheating on pollution monitoring instrumentation.

        In following the Scientific Method, I am open to changing my position, given the necessary proof.

        1. Richard S Courtney

          John Shanahan,

          You claim you “do not understand” what I was “trying to say” when I wrote,
          “The important point about this topic is whether or not human activities are making a significant contribution to changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
          This is because any effects of altered atmospheric CO2 concentration are not affected by human activities which do not make a significant difference to atmospheric CO2 concentration.”

          I fail to understand how I could be more clear than those two sentences. Perhaps the problem is that I was not sufficiently explicit in my use of the word “significant”. If that is the problem them I correct it by explaining why I thought my meaning was indicated by the context of the explanation.

          In the context of my explanation
          a “significant difference to atmospheric CO2 concentration”
          is
          a “difference to atmospheric CO2 concentration” that has discernible effects.

          I hope the matter is now clear.

          Richard

    3. Dear John: As Dr. Ed has stated multiple times, there is no molecular difference between naturally occurring CO2 and manmade CO2 so to try to claim that manmade CO2 remains in the atmosphere longer is just plain false. Dr. Ed has proven that extensively.
      One question that has never been answered by any of the “Experts” is what is the perfect level of CO2 our planet should be experiencing. Can you give us an answer?
      Last but not least, the current alleged CO2 level in our atmosphere is supposedly around 410 PPM. Why is that bad and what should the level be? 410 PPM sounds pretty bad but when you put it into the proper context and compare it to a monetary value, that turns out to be a mere 41 cents per $1,000…………….LOL!

  28. I think that Dr Berry should be honored to have the attention of a prestigious professor like Simon Aergerter, and I see that the discussion is becoming quite stimulating, if not exciting.
    Hopefully Prof Aergerter will have better points than what I’ve read here in this thread : https://www.quora.com/profile/Simon-Aegerter, by which he assumes as an apodiptic truth the fact that the entire increase of CO2 from 280 to 410 is due to humans, without even a doubt, simply because other hypothesis are not “plausible” ? With all my due respect (I am just a poor engineer that loves physics, not a professor, not a climatologist) I cannot believe that the scientific method – that was really rigorous when I was taught it by my professors a long ago – has evolved to this point.

    1. The argument for all/most of the increase in CO2 being man made strikes me as similar to the Police taking someone to court and saying, “Well if he didn’t do it, then who did” ?? Whilst the argument is obviously stupid in this example, in the form of the climate debate it has gained far more credibility than it deserves.

  29. Please see Eric Jelinski’s comments on the Ed Berry – Simon Aegerte debate on man-made carbon dioxide at the following link:

    http://allaboutenergy.net/environment/item/2488-eric-jelinski-comments-on-carbon-dioxide-debate-between-ed-berry-and-simon-aegerter-canada-switzerland-usa

    Eric’s comments were not posted on Ed’s website because we couldn’t find a way to include Eric’s graphics and figures.

    This is an important debate because it is between two physicists. A debate between a physicist and a scientist in any other field often runs into needless differences, the other debaters not accepting the physics model Ed presents.

    Eric’s endorsement of Ed’s physics flow model is important.

  30. Eric Jelinski has degrees in mechanical and chemical-nuclear engineering. He has a long and distinguished career working as a project manager for Canada’s nuclear power plants. He is a lecturer in nuclear engineering at the University of Toronto. In addition to all this, he is an outstanding and very observant farmer. We did not post his comments on the Ed Berry – Simon Aegerter debate about man-made carbon dioxide because we wanted everyone to see his graphics.

    Please see Eric Jelinski’s comments at this link:

    http://allaboutenergy.net/environment/item/2488-eric-jelinski-comments-on-carbon-dioxide-debate-between-ed-berry-and-simon-aegerter-canada-switzerland-usa

    Eric supports Ed Berry’s physics flow model. This is an important endorsement.

  31. There is no doubt that the core issue of alarmism is whether human emissions of CO2, ACO2, causes all or most of the undisputed increase in atmospheric CO2 since 1900. If humans are not responsible for the increase in CO2 it doesn’t matter whether CO2 does the magical things alarmists claim it does.

    The Barrett/Bellamy emission page sums up as well as any pro-ACO2 source the reasons for ACO2 causing the increase in CO2:

    http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page24.htm

    Until Dr Berry and others started work on this issue myself and Bob Cormack summed up the arguments against ACO2 being the main or entire source of the increase in atmospheric CO2:

    https://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14581

    Bob did a separate proof which goes into much more detail than the journal article. I have asked him if he is ok in communicating with Dr Berry about this.

    1. I think the main issue is whether CO2 in the atmosphere actually causes climate change. This is purely conjecture, and until that is proven, the amount in the atmosphere is irrelevant.

      1. Michael Beattie

        I would have to disagree David. Whether CO2 causes climate change is an important point that has not been proven. However if it can be proven that usage of fossil fuels does not cause significant CO2 increase then the role of CO2 in climate change becomes moot. If anthropogenic CO2 is an insignificant contributor to overall CO2 increase then we cannot control the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. If we cannot control the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere then we cannot control Climate Change. This is regardless of whether CO2 actually causes Climate Change. Therefore all the angst about our use of fossil fuels is unwarranted.

  32. It is often stated: “IPCC and its contributors claim that most human carbon stays in the atmosphere essentially forever.” That is however not true. What they claim is that the consequences of human carbon emissions last essentially forever. This becomes quite clear if you look at the definition of the Bern model https://unfccc.int/resource/brazil/carbon.html where one can find that the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere according to the IPCC SAR model depends on “The CO2-fertilization parameter beta.” After 30 years CO2 concentration could be anything between 36% and 48% of the original increase depending on beta when beta is “varied within plausible ranges ”

    What the IPCC climate model is telling us is thus that 40GtC into the preindustrial atmosphere would quickly fertilize the carbon-starving biosphere and store a large fraction of the human emission in plants. According to the model plants will die and release carbon to the atmosphere to make the concentration higher than it would have been without the human emission. This elevated CO2 concentration will continue to fertilize the green plants and keep the CO2 levels elevated and the planet greener for a very long time.

    It is obvious to me that this mechanism exists. Earth is greener now according to satellite data. Whether the IPCC climate models reproduce the mechanism anywhere near correctly is beyond my understanding – but it is quite clear that the statement that most human carbon stays in the atmosphere essentially forever leads our thinking wrong – and it is particularly unfortunate when spoken out to the general public.

    The fertilization effect of CO2 stays for a long time. The planet is greener and at the same time the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is elevated.

    The question about whether the increased CO2 concentration is natural or induced by humans is another thing. We have two different assumptions: Human CO2 disappears into the other reservoirs quickly just like C14 from the bomb tests. The rest of the increased CO2 comes from the higher temperature of the sea that has natural causes (sun, cosmic rays,…whatever.) The other alternative: All the CO2 increase is caused by humans. In this assumption the increased temperature is entirely caused by the greenhouse effect of CO2 so the CO2 released from the sea is caused by the human CO2. The fundamental difference between the two alternatives is the assumption about the net warming effect of a higher CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. The first assumption is that it is negligible and the second assumption is that CO2 is the only factor behind the increased temperature since 1880.

    My personal belief is that the truth is somewhere in between (based on historical temperature variations) and I do not think that available scientific evidence supports any of the two extremes.

    I do not think the discussion about the CO2 decay time is helpful at all. The simple physics model can not prove IPCC is wrong in the assumption that CO2 is the only reason for the global warming we have experienced since preindustrial times. The increased growth rate today (by 30% due to more CO2 that we can find claimed on the Internet) will certainly lead to higher CO2 concentrations hundreds of years into the future (lifetime of trees in a rain forest). It seems to me that the simple physics model does not describe that phenomenon properly – but I find it difficult to believe that IPCC models are particularly accurate either.

    1. Dear Leif,

      You make a valid point about the terminology of whether human carbon “stays in the atmosphere essentially forever” or whether “the consequences of human carbon emissions last essentially forever.”

      However, I think the human carbon cycle presented in this preprint shows that the two phrases mean “essentially” the same thing.

      To help clarify this point, I added the “Section 5.3 Summary.” I may have added this section after you last read this preprint.

      The point is, when we treat the human carbon cycle independently from the natural carbon cycle then we include all the “consequences of human carbon emissions.” This treatment accounts for the increase of carbon in the land reservoir that you point out. Section 4.2 explains this.

      The human carbon cycle adds a layer of new carbon on the natural carbon cycle. The human carbon cycle operates independently from the natural carbon cycle, but it must obey the same “rules” as natural carbon.

      It does not take the Physics model to prove IPCC’s human carbon cycle is wrong. IPCC’s data alone prove IPCC’s human carbon cycle is wrong. We need no math. We only need to realize that human carbon must obey the same rules as natural carbon. Mere observation of IPCC’s human carbon cycle proves it is wrong. Figure 18 in Section 5.3 shows how the IPCC human carbon cycle fails basic physics.

      The Physics model fills the gap left by IPCC’s failed human carbon cycle. To date, the Physics model is the only model that fills this gap.

      The first step is to solve for the static solution. The long-term distribution of human carbon will equal the long-term distribution of natural carbon, which is shown by IPCC’s natural carbon cycle.
      See Section 5.3, Figure 17. We do not need time constants. This step proves wrong the IPCC claim that significant human carbon will remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years.

      For the dynamic solution, we need time constants, or e-times, to calculate how human carbon distributes itself to the other carbon reservoirs over time. This calculation first derives the e-times for IPCC’s natural carbon cycle. Then it applies the same e-times to the human carbon cycle.

      The result of this dynamic calculation shows the faster the inflow of human carbon, the more human carbon that will temporarily reside in the atmosphere. This calculation includes all recycling of human carbon among the carbon reservoirs, or the “consequences” of human carbon.

      The amount of human carbon that remains in the atmosphere in any year is a competition of inflow and outflow. The faster the inflow, the higher the temporary level of human CO2. And the more total human carbon added to the carbon cycle, the higher the long-term level of human CO2.

      The calculations (which are elementary calculations that every engineer should know how to do) show the human carbon that exists in the atmosphere at the end of 2019 is about 31 ppm. That leaves 100 ppm that must be filled by the increased inflow of natural carbon.

      So, we have replaced our need for “belief” with numbers that guide us in our quest to understand the real effect of human carbon emissions.

  33. Dear Ed,
    thank you for the extensive replies. The first one is to my argument of plausibility. You call this reversal of burden of proof. I don’t think so. If somebody challenges established knowledge the burden of proof is on him.
    Then the question on where the excess CO2 is coming from and the contention that it is outgassing from the ocean: In this paper:
    Gruber, Nicolas et al.: “The oceanic sink for anthropogenic CO2 from 1994 to 2007”, Science, 15. March 2019, (363) pg. 1193
    Measurements of CO2 in the oceans have been compiled for all the oceans and the authors come to the conclusion that the total amount has increased by 125 billion tons during these 13 years. I don’t call that outgassing. That paper was not published in some crackpot journal, but in AAASs “Science”.
    If the excess CO2 comes out of the ocean, then why is the excess larger in the northern hemispere and not in the southern hemisphere, where most of the oceans are? And if the excess CO2 does come out of the oceans, where are the 35 billion tons of CO2 hiding, that come out of stacks and tailpipes every year?
    That’s what I mean by a plausibility test. If a result looks implausible, the first thing to do is look for an error. I am convinced that the error is the use of 14CO2 to estimate the e-time of 12CO2. You think otherwise. let’s agree to disagree. I understand that the paper is submitted for publication. Let the reviewer be the judge.
    Best
    Simon

    1. Dear Simon,

      Thank you for your contribution to the discussion of my preprint.

      You say, “If somebody challenges established knowledge the burden of proof is on him.
      Given all the challenges to the IPCC theory, the IPCC theory cannot be called “established knowledge.” The IPCC theory is not a physical law.

      The scientific method always puts the burden of proof on those who claim a theory is true. This means, if anyone finds an error in the theory, then the theory is false. Such errors can be an incorrect prediction or a violation of established physics in the formulation of the theory.

      I have shown the existence of blatant, obvious errors in IPCC’s human carbon cycle. I have shown that IPCC’s theory incorrectly assumes nature treats human and natural carbon differently. Each observation alone proves the IPCC theory is not “established knowledge.”

      You reference the Gerber, Nicolas et al. paper, which can be read here.

      Section “5.1 Why the IPCC carbon-cycle models are wrong” discusses papers reviewed by Archer [29] and shows why they are incorrect. The Gerber paper is simply another of the many papers that base their conclusions on the assumption that human emissions cause all the observed changes in the carbon cycle. Its conclusions are the result of circular reasoning.

      The Gerber paper has no carbon cycle formulation or calculation. It draws conclusions that are not justified by the data. It offers no proof or even an argument to justify its conclusion that the increase in ocean carbon has been caused by human emissions. It could have been caused by nature.

      Gerber et al. and all the Archer [29] papers omit discussion of the natural alternative. Therefore, they cannot show how human emissions change the carbon cycle. This preprint may be the only scientific paper that properly treats both human and natural carbon cycles.

      You ask, “And if the excess CO2 does come out of the oceans, where are the 35 billion tons of CO2 hiding, that come out of stacks and tailpipes every year?

      The carbon cycle model presented in this preprint answers that question. No one else has answered that question.

      Thank you again for your comments.

      1. “[The Gruber paper] offers no proof or even an argument to justify its conclusion that the increase in ocean carbon has been caused by human emissions.”

        Even if the carbon they identified wasn’t from anthropogenic sources, an increase of 34 petagrams over 13 years shows the oceans are gaining not losing carbon. Since the supplemental text with the paper goes into detail on the technique used to determined the percent of anthropogenic carbon in the samples you could explain what was wrong with their findings.
        https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/suppl/2019/03/13/363.6432.1193.DC1/aau5153_Gruber_SM.pdf

        1. Dear Craig,

          Concentrations do not reveal the direction of the flow. If warming causes oceans to release carbon, where do you think the carbon will increase first? Obviously, in the oceans. And if carbon is released in the oceans, it will then add to carbon in the atmosphere.

          The paper assumed, without any proof, that human carbon caused all the rise in atmospheric carbon and then this human carbon flowed into the ocean. The paper excluded alternative hypotheses about what caused the increase in the carbon in the oceans. Not good science.

          The carbon cycle models my preprint presents for natural and human carbon are the only present means to determine which way the carbon flows.

        2. The ocean surface CO2 and atmospheric CO2 are always going to be in equilibrium no matter which way CO2 flows. This argument that because ocean pH is decreasing that CO2 is flowing from atm. to sur. ocean doesn’t seem logical. If flow of CO2 was going from deep ocean to sur. to atm. this would also cause pH to drop. It seems illogical therefore to make bold statements about ocean acting as sink because of pH measurements.

  34. My understanding is that water holds CO2, the colder the more it holds.

    That being the case if the Ocean temperature is rising atmospheric CO2 should also increase? Is this not the case?

    1. Not at the rate it has since the 19th century. A one degree increase might be responsible for a 20 ppm increase at most.

        1. 1. Oceans are becoming more acidic (less alkaline). The opposite would be the case if the atmospheric CO2 increase was due to “outgassing” from oceans.
          2. The correlation between ice core data & temperature changes show a 10 to 16 ppm increase per degree C.

        2. Dear John,

          It is not that simple:

          1. The oceans become equally less alkaline if the CO2 is created in the ocean when carbon becomes CO2.

          2. Ice core data do not reveal the full effect of temperature on CO2 because ice cores underestimate CO2 concentration. Harde presents additional information on how temperature changes CO2.

  35. Thanks Ed, for your careful presentation of the physics and chemistry underlying carbon dioxide which, by your rational treatment that there is no difference between human and natural varieties of this molecule, gives us clear scientific proof that human carbon dioxide comprises only a small part of this trace gas in the atmosphere. Whilst we are dealing with a carefully built belief system, albeit irrational, it is essential that people such as yourself keep presenting scientific arguments to bring reality back to the table.

  36. Dr. Matthew J. Fagan

    I do not understand why there is a debate. Carbon is the one atom which can be dated absolutely using C14. This was understood when radio carbon dating was discovered in 1956. So you have a conclusive way of determining how much CO2 is from ancient fossil fuel and how much from the last 50,000 years. In 1958, after two world wars, it was only 2%

    Reduction of Atmospheric Radiocarbon Concentration by Fossil Fuel Carbon Dioxide and the Mean Life of Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere
    G. J. Fergusson
    Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences
    Vol. 243, No. 1235 (Feb. 11, 1958), pp. 561-574

    Abstract
    It is generally accepted that the combustion of fossil fuels over the period 1860 to 1954 has produced an amount of carbon dioxide, containing no radiocarbon, that is equal to approxi¬mately 13% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The addition of this 4 ‘old’ carbon dioxide to the atmosphere has observably disturbed the steady-state distribution of carbon-14 in nature. In the present paper measurements are described of the carbon-14 concentration in sets of wood samples from the northern and southern hemispheres, and these show that the carbon-14 specific activity of atmospheric carbon dioxide has decreased by 2.03 ± 0.15% over the period 1860 to 1954, and that the present-day difference between the decrease in the northern and southern hemispheres is less than 0.50%.

    and I do not see what has changed except the unproven statements that the increase is all man made and that CO2 stays in the air for a half life of 80 years (IPCC) or for thousands of years (also IPCC).

    It is not a question of where it goes although that is obvious, it is a question of whether the increase in CO2 is man made. Radio carbon dating says it is not true.

    As for the temperature of the ocean, it is only the surface temperature which matters and the amount of CO2 dissolved is agreed to be 50x that in the thin air above so measuring changes in the ocean is pointless. Henry’s Law tells you that even a slight surface warming would dramatically change CO2 levels. What is also completely unproven is that CO2 has any impact at all on temperatures given that it is effectively a constant from year to year and the temperatures in desert areas vary from -40C to +40C winter to summer, which would make CO2 the worst blanket in history.

  37. Dr. Matthew J. Fagan

    The other point is that C14 cannot be destroyed. When it was doubled in 1965 it told us everything about what happens to CO2. That C14 is almost all gone from the biosphere in 55 years but cannot vanish and CO2 levels have no gone down. There is only one place, a sink so large that it dwarfs the biosphere amounts and every one agrees 98% of all CO2 is dissolved in the oceans.

    The sun and the oceans are the controlling factors in all climate. Water. The average depth of the oceans is 3.4km and at 1 atmosphere per 10 metres, that is 340x the weight of the atmosphere and when you add specific heat, 1200x the energy content. Oceans, sun, evaporation, rain, clouds, these things are the weather and all of the major events like El Nino, La Nina, the PDO, the Indian dipole are ocean surface temperature oscillations which dramatically change the weather, against tiny CO2 which has increase so slowly over 120 years. So if you want to predict the climate, the weather, study the oceans and the sun. Then add clouds, evaporation, rain. It’s all about the greatest greenhouse gas, water.

    As Dr. Weiss has shown so conclusively on YouTube, Fourier analysis gives a near perfect fit to temperatures with only two cycles, the De Vries cycle of 260 years and the PDO induced ocean oscillation of 60 years. This was without CO2 and done blind, so it is convincing.

    There is absolutely no evidence that CO2 is not part of an equlibrium system and has rapid exchange with the oceans. Oxygen does or fish would drown. Why not highly soluble CO2?

    Sunshine, CO2 and H2O are the basis of all life on earth. It is fantastic that CO2 is going up, which increases vegetation across the globe by 50%. Unfortunately that also dramtically increases the size of bushfires in Australia, but that is real science not alarmism.

  38. I’m astonished to read the final comments of the Swiss Physicist. The notion that humans have produced all the increase of CO2 from 280 to 410 ppm comes directly from the authority of God and as such needs not to be proved.

  39. Dear Ed, thank you for pointing me to “Section 5.3 Summary.” which I did not see before. Figure 18 is obviously absurd and since it comes from figure 7 there must be an error in figure 7. The Land box is -30 in fig 7, but IPCC fig 6.1 shows -30±45 which means it is essentially unknown. IPCC table 6.1 explains:

    Cumulative 2002-2011
    1750-2011 PgC/yr

    Land-to-atmosphere 30 ± 45 -1.6 ± 1.0
    Partitioned as follows:
    Net land use change 180 ± 80 0.9 ± 0.8
    Residual land sink -160 ± 90 -2.5 ± 1.3

    In figure 7 the arrow Atmos to Land has to be 1.6 (The red arrow “Net land use change” has to be included.) Consequently human should be changed from 9 to 8. The text under figure 6.1 further says: “Note that the mass balance of the two ocean carbon stocks Surface ocean and Intermediate and deep ocean includes a yearly accumulation of anthropogenic carbon (not shown.)” Something not shown in fig 6.1 that should be included in your figure 7 or alternatively you might treat all parts of the ocean as a single box.

    “Question: In Figure 18, how did IPCC get the 66 percent of human carbon in the atmosphere?”
    Answer: The about 1 degree higher temperature is caused by humans according to IPCC and therefore the changed equilibrium between ocean and atmosphere is human. The entire increase of CO2, 133 ppm is therefore human even though a lot of it comes from the ocean.

    The IPCC models must contain a description of how the equilibrium between ocean and atmosphere depends on the temperature. The net result of running the models like a black box gives a temperature and an associated CO2 concentration. It is something non-linear and one can not separate the totals in the different reservoirs in additive parts “Natural” and “Human.”

    The fundamental problem is to what extent CO2 causes the observed warming. I do not think IPCC is describing well what they are doing. Reading many enough of the referenced papers to build a good understanding of what they really do is impossible for me. My life will not last long enough – I am already fairly old…

    There is however something I really would love to see: Someone who is capable of running IPCC models who would add to the models an external forcing that would cause 50% of the observed global warming. Obviously parameters in the models would have to be changed to retain agreement with historical data. Presumably the heating caused by CO2 would have to be made significantly lower for example.

    Question: What projections for the future climate would come out of such a model if the external forcing stops or reverses sign year 2020 and becomes a cooling factor? The purpose of such an exercise would be to see how sensitive the IPCC models are to the assumption on how large fraction of the warming is caused by humans.

  40. Bush fires in Australia are of course very upsetting. But they are still, according to Wikipedia, nowhere near as bad as 1974. The trees and scrub recover; and sequester CO2 as they do so.
    The convincing argument against global warming by human caused CO2 to me has always been that between 1940 and 1980 (half my life) CO2 was rising but the global temperatures were falling. Argument over. Then they rose together for 20 years (IPCC came into being), followed by a time when global temperatures rose and fell, with no net gain for 20 years, while CO2 continuously rose. Again no link between CO2 and temperature. The Bible definitely speaks of climate change coming, (Revelation 8 and 16), but not at random and apparently the agent is the sun. Sounds like that is what is confirmed by many scientists. One area for research for Ed is how fast is CO2 desorbed from seawater at different temperatures. Numbers often help an argument, as you have so well pointed out in your paper. Thanks for your excellent work.

  41. As an interested non-scientist, these discussions are very important. Thank you. We need more of them.

    I’m AMAZED at the lack of knowledge about the Scientific Method among today’s scientists. There should be a requirement placed within new studies and articles that come out for the author’s to demonstrate, up front, their understanding of the Scientific Method generally and then within the context of specific industry assertions that they are addressing in their study/article.

    Imagine the enormous waste of time, energy, and costs we could have saved had this one simple scientific rigor been followed all these decades. But who knew it would be this bad? Ugh!

  42. Monckton of Brenchley

    Dear Ed, – Your approach is most interesting. It has the merit of elegant simplicity and, at first blush, it looks correct. The physicist who has commented has certainly not convinced me that you are wrong.

    Your paper now needs redrafting as a proper scientific paper. If you want a hand with the technical drafting, let me know and I’ll put my team on it (our own paper on the error in IPCC’s definition of feedback is out for review, so we have some time to spare). Then your paper should be submitted to a suitable top-ten journal for peer review. I’d very much like to see the reviews. – Christopher

  43. I believe that the answer is simple. I have looked up (basic research) graphs of the past relationship of temperature and CO2 level The statement I was exposed to at school in Physics and Chemistry was simply CAUSE AND EFFECT. In all the data I was able to view the changes of CO2 followed after Temperature. How could anyone not take that into account and claim to be a scientist.

    1. I put this to our government dept which deals with climate, and they said that yes, the temperature rose before CO2, but then when CO2 became greater, it then caused further heating. You can’t argue with these people. They want their cake and eat it.

  44. H. Douglas Lightfoot

    Carbon dioxide is our good friend and not an enemy

    The Earth is surrounded by a blanket of atmosphere that keeps it warm and habitable. In contrast, other celestial bodies with little or no atmosphere, such as Mars and the Moon are too cold for life as we know it.
    Our atmosphere contains two vitally important parts—water and carbon dioxide (CO2). Energy from the Sun is necessary for both water and carbon dioxide to function. Water through evaporation, precipitation and ocean currents distributes heat from the Sun around the Earth and keeps it from becoming too hot or too cold.
    Through the process of photosynthesis, energy from the Sun in the presence of chlorophyll, the green color in plants, causes carbon dioxide to react with water to form food and release oxygen. The Earth has the right conditions for life as we know it to take hold and to grow and develop. We live in a wonderful world.
    Currently, there is widespread concern that a climate catastrophe is approaching because of rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Scientists writing in the IPCC First Assessment Report for the IPCC in 1990 stated that water vapor amplified warming of the atmosphere by CO2. This led to the belief that life on Earth is headed for dangerous levels of warming. Since 1990, new information has been developed that was not available to the scientists. This is, namely, back radiation measurements and the ability to easily record air temperature and relative humidity at several places around the Earth at the same time.
    Applying this information proves by reproducible evidence that water vapor does not amplify warming by CO2. In fact, warming by water vapor is approximately 8 to 47 times larger than that of CO2 and renders it ineffective as a warming gas.
    CO2 is our good friend and not our enemy. We can continue to enjoy our lives on Earth without fear of a man made climate catastrophe.
    Full paper and Two page summary available at: http://www.thelightfootinstitute.ca/papers.html

    H. Douglas Lightfoot

  45. I’m not a scientist. Even if I don’t understand any detail, I think Ed Berry is doing a good job showing that IPCC is using flawed science for a political agenda. However, whether human emissions cause any increase of atmospherical co2 or not, it matters if we suppose, that co2 has a significant greenhouse effect. Does it at all? I’ve been reading hundreds of discussions about climate change for years, but I never found any convincing explanation of the greenhouse effect co2 allegedly has. It must be work with a kind of back radiation of IR from the earth. The co2 molecule absorbs a certain amount of IR coming back from the earth’s surface. So it will be warmer, expand and rise. It can transfer heat by contact with the other cooler surrounding nitrogen and oxygen molecules. So they will expand and rise too. ( 1 co2 molecule surrounded by 5000 other gas molecules! how tiny will be this heat-transfer?) Contemporaneously it will radiate IR in every direction. But only opaque molecules will absorb it and will further warm if their temperature is lower than the T of the co2 molecule. Can it be the earth’s surface or oceans, lakes, and rivers? Of course not because they are warmer than co2. Neither it can not be atmospherical nitrogen and oxygen because they are not IR sensitive. So it can heat only water vapor. Thus water vapor will expand and rise. We are talking about a minimal amount of energy due to the tiny number of co2 molecules in the atmosphere. Finally, all the thermic effect of co2 IR-radiation absorbency will only cause further micro-convection in the already moving air.
    Did I understand well? Please correct me! Matt

  46. Monckton of Brenchley mentions “peer review.” Although this series of discussions might satisfy that effort somewhat, I am personally skeptical of any modern academic peer review’s value, simply because the suffocating majority of academia globally has been trained in the universal swamp of false assumptions, without scientific verification by the scientific method.

    When honesty is on trial before such a tribunal, history shows the “peers” currently in political power simply burn the deviant. This has been true in all areas of Truth – vs – Tradition: Religion, Science and Politics. “Peers” of modern science-so-called are merely an establishment of co-believers, intoxicated with their accepted, group-think of assumptions. They have converted true science into philosophy.

    For example, in science, a simple crystal of quartz verifies that earth has never had a molten core, hence the academic peer-group’s “big bang theory” is pseudo-science. Similarly, since the replicable scientific method has verified that there are NO intermediate mutant forms in the genealogy of ANY species of life forms in the geologic record, the peer-dominant theory of evolution is below pseudo-science; it is fraud. Prime proof is Smithsonian’s sequence of “pre-men,” all verified as gross frauds!

    Whether it’s CO2, ozone, fossils or carbon 14 dating, false assumptions rule among the peer majority, occupying positions of self-established authority. The same distortion of principle is found in Religion and Politics. Their ultimate goal is control of the minds of men. Too few men are independent thinkers focused on verifiable truth. It is a fact that some assumed facts are not facts.
    Bob Webster websterbob801@gmail.com

  47. Dennis G. Sandberg

    Seems you and Dr. Asbrink areessentially on the same page. You say 31 ppm human added, he’s saying 131 ppm, “even though a lot of it comes from the ocean”. What I understand you to call desporbtion from nature. As a layperson, am I missing something?

    copy:
    Leif Åsbrink January 7, 2020 at 3:39 pm states,

    “Question: In Figure 18, how did IPCC get the 66 percent of human carbon in the atmosphere?”
    Answer: The about 1 degree higher temperature is caused by humans according to IPCC and therefore the changed equilibrium between ocean and atmosphere is human. The entire increase of CO2, 133 ppm is therefore human even though a lot of it comes from the ocean….
    The fundamental problem is to what extent CO2 causes the observed warming. I do not think IPCC is describing well what they are doing….

  48. I don’t know much about the math, but I do know about natural forces like white smokers on the ocean floor emitting liquid CO2. Given the existence of such things, and knowing how little we know about what else is going on under the ocean, the minuscule annual amount of human CO2 emissions cannot – absolutely cannot – be responsible for any part of climate change. We’re just too small.

  49. Try looking at this logically using a simple (slightly imperfect) example. Let’s assume there are 500 units of CO2 in the atmosphere in year n. For the previous n years, during the annual cycle, land and oceans have emitted 100 units and absorbed 100 units leaving a near constant balance of 500 units.

    Now let’s assume if the following happens in year n+1 (and every subsequent year).

    Land + Oceans emit 100 units
    Humans emit (fossil fuel use) 4 units
    Land + Ocean absorb 100 units

    The 100 re-absorbed units will be selected at random and since the proportion of human CO2 will be less than 1% of the total concentration it is highly unlikely likely that any more than ONE unit will be selected. This means the atmosphere will retain 501 units of natural CO2 & 3 units of human CO2.
    Year n+2 will be similar as the human proportion will still only be just over 1%. However, as the years pass, the human proportion in the atmosphere will increase and eventually reach just under 4% – or the same as the proportion of the annual emissions – at which point the proportion (not the amount) will remain fairly constant.

    This is EXACTLY what we now see happening. The atmospheric proportion of CO2 from fossil fuels is virtually identical to the proportion of annual emissions. While the proportion of human CO2 is small, fossil fuel burning is responsible for almost all of the excess since 1850.

    Surface temperature increases cannot explain the increase in atmospheric CO2. Ice core data shows that a 100 ppm increase was in response to temperature increase of at least 5 degrees C over hundreds of years. If CO2 responded to a 1 degree increase in a few years we’d surely see much larger fluctuations in CO2 changes during ENSO cycles (i.e. El Nino to La Nina & vice versa).

    Sorry, folks, there’s no other explanation. We are providing an additional source of atmospheric CO2 which is independent of any fluctuations in earth’s temperature.

    1. John F
      Then why is there no response in atmospheric concentration to changes in rates of fossil fuel emissions? I believe the scenario of equilibrium you postulate for your explanation is not valid and the small part of emissions that is human is lost in the widely variable, unmeasured natural flux. Watch Salby’s videos (all referenced here on Dr. Ed’s site) to get a good feel for the limiting factors and calculations of limits involved.

      1. ” Then why is there no response in atmospheric concentration to changes in rates of fossil fuel emissions? ”

        There is a response. What makes you think there isn’t? I’m using a simple example to show how the proportion of the human contribution in the atmosphere will tend towards the proportion of human emissions. If human emissions increased to 5% then the atmospheric contribution of human emissions would increase (over time) until they reached 5%.

        There’s no mystery to this – it’s simple statistics.

        Regarding Murray Salby’s ‘opinions’, as I recall Salby correlates the derivative (rate of change) of atmospheric CO2 with temperature. So what? He’s simply showing that concentration grows faster when it’s warmer. We know this. This, however, does not address the underlying trend. Year to year temperature changes cause CO2 increases to vary by +/- 1 ppm. This cannot explain the 130 ppm increase since 1850.

        1. John Finn:
          You should do your homework before issuing a torrent of weakly supported opinions. Had you done so, as suggested by DMA, then you would have seen that Professor Salby and Dr. Ed show that the human component of increased CO2 has to be small even without reliance on temperature.

        2. PHILIP JANUARY 8, 2020 AT 4:02 PM

          Philip No-one has shown any such thing. The proportion of human produced CO2 at any time is only about 4% because that is the proportion of total CO2 emitted. That does not mean the accumulated excess is not due to fossil fuel burning by humans.

          It’s quite simple. Humans produce about 9 GtC per year. The atmospheric concentration increases by about 5 GtC per year.

          1ppm = 2.12 GtC

    2. “However, as the years pass, the human proportion in the atmosphere will increase and eventually reach just under 4% – or the same as the proportion of the annual emissions – at which point the proportion (not the amount) will remain fairly constant.”
      If this is correct and all fossil fuel emissions were magically stopped is it reasonable to conclude that the growth rate in the atmosphere will go to zero? That would assume that the 96 % natural emissions are constant enough that the 4% human emissions is the only controlling factor in the concentration growth and as such is the only cause of the increase and would necessarily have to show correlation in the growth rate of the concentration. Look at the no growth period of human emissions from 2011 to 2016 (https://edberry.com/blog/climate/climate-physics/what-is-really-behind-the-increase-in-atmospheric-co2/ at 42:20 min.) and note that there was no change in the growth rate of concentration in the atmosphere. Can you describe a natural mechanism that decided to not continue increasing natural sinks so the concentration growth was unaffected by this plateau in the emissions? I can’t.

      1. I’m not sure what your point is. There doesn’t need to be growth of emissions to produce growth in the atmosphere. The growth is the atmosphere comes from the fact that not all annual emissions can be removed from the atmosphere.

        Year 1

        Start of Yr balance = 500

        IN = 100+4 = 104
        OUT = 100

        End of Yr Balance = 504

        Year 2

        Start of Yr balance = 504

        IN = 100+4 = 104
        OUT = 100

        End of Yr Balance = 508

        … and so on. No change in emissions but an increase in atmospheric concentration.
        The 96% and 4% are not fixed values. They increase as the concentration increases.

        If human emissions stopped atmospheric CO2 would be subject to natural decay and would decline over time. As a guess I’d estimate half the EXCESS (~65 ppm) might disappear after about 40 or 50 years but I’d need to take a closer look before being in any way confident about that figure.

        1. In your post above you state:
          “While the proportion of human CO2 is small, fossil fuel burning is responsible for almost all of the excess since 1850.” Harde’s analysis concludes “The anthropogenic contribution to the actual CO2 concentration
          is found to be 4.3%, its fraction to the CO2 increase over the Industrial Era is 15%”. Berry’s analysis concludes: “The ratio conclusion means human CO2 adds only about 18 ppm and natural CO2 adds about 392 ppm to today’s CO2 level of 410 ppm.”
          I guess I am saying I think their derivation convinces me and yours seems weekly anchored in assumptions I have reason to question.

        2. It occurred to me that my understanding would rewrite the equation you show above:
          IN = 100+4 = 104
          OUT = 100
          to be:
          IN = 100(+- 20)+4 = 104(+-20)
          OUT = 100(+- 20)
          In my equation the resultant figure at the end is uncertain enough that the increase shouldn’t be blamed on the 4 that are not thermally induced.

        3. Would not outflow be proportional to concentration?
          Ocean concentration does not change, but atmospheric does.
          Like this:

          Year 1

          Start of Yr balance = 500
          Average Yr 1 = 501.8

          IN = 100+4 = 104
          OUT = 100*(501.8/500) = 100.4

          End of Yr Balance = 503.6

          Year 2

          Start of Yr balance = 503.6
          Average Yr 2 =505.1
          IN = 100+4 = 104
          OUT = 100*(505.1/500)=101

          End of Yr Balance = 506.6

          … and so on. No change in emissions but an increase in atmospheric concentration up to a point where an equilibrium is reached with the almost infinitely large ocean. The inflow would not remain constant at 100, it would be proportional to the CO2 concentration in the ocean, but that change is negligible in the short time scale and there is not enough fossil carbon on earth to ever change it much.
          Rate of change of CO2 is proportional to the sea surface temperature (https://edberry.com/blog/climate/climate-physics/what-is-really-behind-the-increase-in-atmospheric-co2/ at 31:30 min.) 8 ppm/year/kelvin for inter-annual variation according to this site: https://climategrog.wordpress.com/d2dt2_co2_ddt_sst-2/
          That number 8 ppm/year/kelvin with a time constant of about 15 years as given by 14C data would give something like 13 ppm after 50 years for a single sudden temperature rise of 0.11 degrees. A constantly increasing temperature of 0.11 degrees per decade for 50 years (the change rate we see in satellite data) would give about 50 ppm outgassing from the oceans with the 8 ppm/year/kelvin and a time constant of about 15 years. The temperature rise, 0.2 degrees before 1970 should have caused an outgassing of about 25 ppm. The rest, 410-280-50-25 = 55 ppm should be the anthropogenic contribution to todays atmospheric CO2. All the above is under the assumption that CO2 would not have any heating effect at all.
          If we instead would accept the IPCC standpoint that all the heating is caused by CO2, then, of course, the contribution from outgassing would be caused by humans and all the increase, 230 ppm would be anthropogenic. With that assumption the IPCC projections for future temperatures would be realistic…

        4. LEIF ÅSBRINKJANUARY 9, 2020 AT 9:39 AM

          My example is simply intended to show that the atmospheric concentration will grow even if the emissions don’t grow. I am not modelling the exact process.

        5. Michael Beattie

          Why would the outflow stay constant if the atmospheric concentration was increasing. The outflow should also increase. That’s the first flaw in your argument. If human and natural inputs of CO2 remain constant then atmospheric CO2 will reach a new equilibrium level. It would not keep increasing as you suggest. Otherwise any increase in natural CO2 input would have the same effect, increasing CO2 levels.

        6. That’s not exactly how it works. Outflow is increasing simultaneously as inflow is increasing. Inflow sets the balance level and e time sets the outflow (e time is a function of the size of the hole). Outflow is proportional to level not the balance level.

  50. Sorry Prof Simon I thought god was smarter 🙂 Apologies if my comment looked disrespectful beyond my intention.
    Prof Finn I still can’t understand the “cap” provided by the human inflow concentration (let’s say 4% in your example). I think this is more or less the same question as DMA.

  51. cosmos voutsinos

    Dr. Aegerter: You stated that the implausibility was based on “What we observe in the atmosphere is that part that goes neither in ocean nor in plants”. I wonder if an unaccounted for source of naturally produced CO2 is missing here. Isotopes in the Earth’s core decay following their half life cycles. This produces a variable heat that adds extra heat to the oceans. A warming Ocean releases additional CO2 which, as John Finn describes is small but does continuously accumulate.

  52. cosmos voutsinos

    Are we missing here the geothermal heat produced by isotope decaying? Such a heat will likely release unaccounted CO2 from the oceans to the atmosphere. As John Finn showed it will accumulate and show a difference for non anthropogenic CO2.

  53. There is a wealth of information coming in through these comments. It is also apparent to me that this audience is highly intelligent and almost unanimously rejects the ‘religion’ of the alarmists.
    If only our politicians (especially here in Australia) had the sense and the intelligence to really immerse themselves in the subject and then go about sensible decision-making for the future good of this country.
    Similarly, other countries need to follow the reasoning and reject the ‘Chicken Little’ brigade and its doomsday predictions.
    Unfortunately, however, there appears to be so much money invested in the UN and the IPCC that there are significant forces working hard against true sanity!
    Keep up the good work Dr.Ed.

  54. Dear John
    one question – does your model replicate the 14CO2 data (above ground atomic bomb tests) described in Dr.Ed’s preprint ? I still cannot figure this out.
    Thanks
    Massimo

  55. H. Douglas Lightfoot

    Ed:
    I do not understand Figure 5, IPCC Natural carbon cycle flows. The flow into and out of each sink is the same. This means the sizes of the sinks cannot change.

    How were the sizes of the sinks established in the first place? I suspect the sizes of the sinks have changed over time. If so, then the flows into and out of the sinks must be different.

    H. Douglas Lightfoot

    1. Dear Doug,
      These are IPCC numbers. IPCC’s reports describe how they got their levels and flows. I assume these are the most accurate levels available to us at this time

      The net flows are zero or near zero. This means the levels are near their equilibrium levels. Small differences in the flows will, of course, change the levels over time.

      IPCC’s referenced papers must have used a model something like the Physics model to calculate their flows from their levels because the Physics model “right out of the box” calculates flows that are not too different from the IPCC flows.

      This close approximation also means the Physics model explains the IPCC data for natural carbon. This means IPCC’s data for the natural carbon cycle supports the Physics model. IPCC does not present any alternative to the Physics model. This means the Physics model is the “only game in town” for calculating carbon cycles.

      1. Ed

        Let’s make this even more simple.

        Humans produce about 9 GtC of carbon each year.
        The atmospheric concentration increases by 5 GtC each year (1 ppm = 2.12 GtC).

        Nature doesn’t differentiate between human CO2 & natural CO2. There isn’t a new separate ‘sink’ which sequesters all the human (fossil fuel) CO2.

        1. ” All your points are correct. So, what is your conclusion from your points? ”

          Ed

          My conclusion is that without human contribution there would be no accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere.

          This is in the same way that there would be NO change in my bank account balance if I deposited £500 every week and spent £500 every week. However if my bank account received £10 per week from an additional source (e.g. interest) my balance would increase – even though the extra £10 is only a small fraction of the £500.

          The correlation coefficient between cumulative CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2 since 1900 is 0.999. It’s possible this is simply coincidence , after all, correlations doesn’t necessarily mean causation, but since ice core data suggest CO2 levels varied less than +/- 10 ppm for several thousand years before 1850, you’re going to need to provide a much more convincing argument than the one above to convince anyone that fossil fuel burning is not an issue.

        2. Dear John,

          Your analogy must assume the weekly outflow from your bank account is proportional to the amount in your account. For example, if your outflow = Level / Te and Te = 2.

          Then your inflow of L500 will produce a balance level of L1000, and the L1000 will cause outflow to equal L500. Your account will stay at L1000 so long as your L500 inflow continues.

          Then your additional weekly inflow of L10 will have the same Te and produce a level of L20, to make your account level L1020.

          Your analogy shows that each inflow is independent. The effect of each inflow can be calculated independently and the sum of the results is the same as the total result.

          Suppose you were to measure the level of your bank account and your new inflow of L10 but you found your bank account level increased to L1080, not L1020. This means the total inflow must equal L540. But you know your smaller inflow is only L10. Therefore, your larger inflow must have increased to L530.

          That is how the Physics model computes the relative effects of human and natural inflows. It finds IPCC’s Te for natural levels and flows. Then it applies the same Te to human inflows. The known human inflow with this Te adds only 31 ppm to the CO2 level. Therefore, natural inflow had to to add 100 ppm to the level.

        3. John
          You might find the post at : https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/12/14/climateaction/
          interesting as is looks at the computation problems in the production of the correlation between cumulative CO2 and temperature and concludes “We conclude from these results that no empirical evidence exists to support the rationale for costly climate action that assumes a causal relationship between the rate of emissions and the rate of warming. The evidence does not show that reducing emissions will lower the rate of warming.” Also: https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/12/19/co2responsiveness/
          that concludes: “We conclude that atmospheric composition specifically in relation to the CO2 concentration is not responsive to the rate of fossil fuel emissions. This finding is a serious weakness in the theory of anthropogenic global warming by way of rising atmospheric CO2 attributed to the use of fossil fuels in the industrial economy; and of the “Climate Action proposition of the UN that reducing fossil fuel emissions will moderate the rate of warming by slowing the rise of atmospheric CO2. The finding also establishes that the climate action project of creating a Climate Neutral Economies, that is Economies that have no impact on atmospheric CO2, is unnecessary because the global economy is already Climate Neutral. Because climate research subsumes human cause other sources of CO2, both geological and from the oceans are missed or minimized in importance.”

  56. Even as a non-climatologist I find the hypothesis of Dr. Berry (the minimal contribution of anthropogenic emission to the post-industrial rise of CO2) not surprising, based on the following considerations.

    Abbreviations:
    t = time
    V = Volume of the atmosphere
    T = elimination half life of CO2 in the atmosphere
    ke = ln2/T (the FRACTION (not the amount) of CO2 that is removed from the atmosphere per unit of time)
    ki = the rate of inflow of CO2 into the atmosphere
    Ct = concentration of CO2 at time t
    Css = concentration at steady state

    Suppose there is no CO2 in the atmosphere at t=0; then natural emission starts and also the elimination. The concentration of CO2 will increase (if ke<1).

    The concentration of CO2 in function of time is given by:
    Ct = ki/Vke . (1 – e^-ket) (1)

    CO2 concentrations do not increase infinitely, but a steady state is reached (after 7xT, about 99% of the steady state is reached). At steady state the equation can be simplified (t=>infinity) :
    Css = ki/Vke (2)

    This situation is comparable to the pre-industrial period: CO2 concentrations rather constant (280 ppm), an equilibrium between natural emission and natural elimination.

    Then anthropogenic emission adds CO2 to the natural emission (let us say 5% of the yearly natural emission). The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will increase and after again 7xT a new steady state is reached. According to equation 2, ki increases with a factor 1,05 and consequently also Css (if ke remains constant).

    Conclusion : if ke remains constant, the anthropogenic emissions cannot explain the increase from 280 to 410 ppm.

    Even when ke decreases by a factor 2, the anthropogenic contribution remains small.

    The foregoing calculations are based on principles used in pharmacokinetics, which studies the fate of a drug in the body.
    https://pharmacy.ufl.edu/files/2013/01/5127-28-equations.pdf

    This approach may seem an oversimplification, but it has been tested many times (which cannot be done in climatology) by observations. The two situations are comparable: the distribution and elimination of a drug is very complicated (different compartments in which the drug is distributed, all with different distribution rate constants and different organs that eliminate the drug).

    With the foregoing in mind I have also difficulties to accept statements like ‘ half of the yearly anthropogenic CO2 emission is eliminated from the atmosphere and half cumulates in it’ .

    1. Dear Andre,

      Your equations derived from pharmacology are the same as my equations for the Physics model. We only need to relate your terms to my terms to see that they are the same:

      t = time
      V = Volume of the atmosphere
      T = elimination half-life of CO2 in the atmosphere = Th
      ke = ln2/T = 1/Te

      Let V = 1, then
      Ki = Inflow
      Ct = Level = L
      Css = Balance Level = Lb

      Your “Suppose there is no CO2 in the atmosphere at t=0” is my
      Lo = 0

      Your (ke < 1) is the same as my (Te > 1).

      Your (Ki / Vke) is the same as my (Inflow * Te) = Balance Level = Lb

      Your concentration of CO2 as a function of time is:
      Ct = (ki/Vke)(1 – exp(-ket) (1)

      This is the same as my equation (8) when Lo = 0:
      L(t) = Lb (1 – exp(– t/Te) (8)

      When t goes to infinity, then (8) becomes
      L(infinity) = (1 – 1) = 0

      Otherwise, when Lb is not zero
      L(infinity) = Lb

      You say your equations have “been tested many times (which cannot be done in climatology) by observations.”

      Your equations show the Physics model is supported by pharmacology. I did write that the Physics model is the same as used in many engineering applications.

      So, I wonder why so many physicists cannot understand the Physics model. I studied engineering as an undergraduate at Caltech. We used equations like this many times. But maybe those who study only physics never learn to use models like the Physics and pharmacology models.

  57. https://edberry.com/blog/climate/climate-physics/human-co2-has-little-effect-on-the-carbon-cycle/?

    Hello Dr Ed Berry,

    Thank you for your latest paper. I have been pondering this subject for ~12 years and am still doing so. I wonder if the following close relationship of dCO2/dt vs Temperature from my 2008 paper is helpful to your hypothesis. Please consider and advise.

    In my January 2008 paper, the close correlation of the velocity dCO2/dt and delta Temperature proves that atmospheric CO2 changes lag atmospheric temperature by ~9 months in the modern data record, and this observation suggests Climate Sensitivity to Atmospheric CO2 must be very small, and may not even exist in measureable reality.

    This plot approximates the dCO2/dt vs T correlation. Major volcanoes El Chichon (1982) and Pinatubo (1991+) disrupt the relationship.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/mean:12/derivative/plot/uah6/from:1979/scale:0.22/offset:0.14

    Best personal regards, Allan MacRae

    Carbon Dioxide Is Not The Primary Cause Of Global Warming, The Future Can Not Cause The Past
    By Allan M.R. MacRae, January 2008
    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2vsTMacRae.pdf
    Excel: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2vsTMacRaeFig5b.xls
    [excerpt]

    The IPCC’s position that increased CO2 is the primary cause of global warming is not supported by the temperature data. In fact, strong evidence exists that disproves the IPCC’s scientific position. This UPDATED paper and Excel spreadsheet show that variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration lag (occur after) variations in Earth’s Surface Temperature by ~9 months. The IPCC states that increasing atmospheric CO2 is the primary cause of global warming – in effect, the IPCC states that the future is causing the past. The IPCC’s core scientific conclusion is illogical and false.

    There is strong correlation among three parameters: Surface Temperature (“ST”), Lower Troposphere Temperature (“LT”) and the rate of change with time of atmospheric CO2 (“dCO2/dt”). For the time period of this analysis, variations in ST lead (occur before) variations in both LT and dCO2/dt, by ~1 month. The integral of dCO2/dt is the atmospheric concentration of CO2 (“CO2”).
    ___________________________________

    CO2, Global Warming, Climate and Energy
    by Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., June 15, 2019
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/15/co2-global-warming-climate-and-energy-2/
    Excel: https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Rev_CO2-Global-Warming-Climate-and-Energy-June2019-FINAL.xlsx
    [excerpt]

    Global warming alarmism, which falsely assumes that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes catastrophic global warming, is disproved – essentially, it assumes that the future is causing the past. In reality, atmospheric CO2 changes lag global temperature changes at all measured time scales.

    Nino34 Area Sea Surface Temperature changes, then tropical humidity changes, then atmospheric temperature changes, then CO2 changes.

    The velocity dCO2/dt changes ~contemporaneously with global temperature changes and CO2 changes occur ~9 months later (MacRae 2008).

    The process that causes the ~9-month average lag of CO2 changes after temperature changes is hypothesized and supported by observations.

    The ~9-month lag, +/- several months, averages 1/4 of the full-period duration of the variable global temperature cycle, which averages ~3 years.

    Based on the above observations, global temperatures drive atmospheric CO2 concentrations much more than CO2 drives temperature.

    1. Alan,

      The correlation between d[CO2]/dt and T (temperature anomaly) can be written :
      d[CO2]/dt = aT + b

      aT explains the local variations (puffs) in the CO2 curve (due to CO2 desorptions/absorption from the ocean with varying temperature (anomaly)), but do you have an explanation for b (the heavy tendancy) ?

      1. Hello Jacques-Marie. You wrote:
        “The correlation between d[CO2]/dt and T (temperature anomaly) can be written :
        d[CO2]/dt = aT + b
        aT explains the local variations (puffs) in the CO2 curve (due to CO2 desorptions/absorption from the ocean with varying temperature (anomaly)), but do you have an explanation for b (the heavy tendency)?”

        As I stated elsewhere on this page, I am agnostic on your question because I have not studied it in detail – and that is because it is conclusive based on observations that climate sensitivity to increasing atmospheric CO2 is far too low to cause catastrophic global warming or dangerous climate change – both those scary hypotheses have been falsified numerous ways.

        Berry stated in this paper:
        “Human emissions through 2019 have added only 31 ppm to atmospheric CO2 while nature has added 100 ppm.”

        Sounds about right to me – humankind’s contribution to atm. CO2 is not zero, neither is it significant nor harmful – it fact it is highly beneficial. Atm. CO2 is too low for optimal plant and crop growth, and far too low for the continued survival of carbon-based life on this planet – see my 2020Jan10 paper..

        Note also that the changes in atm. CO2 are not just due to solution/exsolution of CO2 from seawater – there is also a huge biological component.

        Regards, Allan

    2. Note: Annualized Mauna Loa dCO2/dt “went negative” a few times in the past (calculating dCO2/dt from monthly data, by taking CO2MonthX (year n+1) minus CO2MonthX (year n) to minimize the seasonal CO2 “sawtooth”.)

      All these events occurred during the global cooling period that occurred from ~1940 to 1977. Note that fossil fuel combustion strongly accelerated starting circa 1940, at the beginning of WW2. This observation is one of many that falsifies the CAGW hypo.

      These 12-month periods when CO2 decreased are (Year and Month ending in):
      1959-8
      1963-9
      1964-5
      1965-1
      1965-5
      1965-6
      1971-4
      1974-6
      1974-8
      1974-9

      Data Source (2008 version of):
      ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt

    3. Dear Allan,

      Thank you for your comments.

      In my opinion, you have done an excellent job of showing how temperature drives CO2 concentration. Your 2008 paper predates Salby’s video presentations where he also shows how the rate of change of CO2 is a function of temperature.

      By the way, it appears that you and Salby used different mathematical approaches to show the same result. If you would like to explain how your approach differs from Salby’s, you are welcome to do so.

      You wrote, “I wonder if the following close relationship of dCO2/dt vs Temperature from my 2008 paper is helpful to your hypothesis. Please consider and advise.”

      I think our papers together help form a consistent argument. My paper shows that human emissions are, at most, an insignificant contributor to the increase atmospheric CO2 based on carbon cycle calculations. Your paper shows that temperature change is the dominant cause of changes in atmospheric CO2.

      Here is the Physics model equation (2):

      Outflow = Level / Te (2)

      Applied to the surface ocean, (2) says outflow will increase when Te decreases, which it will do if the surface temperature increases, according to Henry’s law. This Outflow becomes Inflow into the atmosphere. Here is the Physics model equation (1):

      dL/dt = Inflow – Outflow (1)

      The shows how the rate of change of CO2 is a function of the Inflow, which is a function of temperature. So, the physics model supports your paper and your paper supports the Physics model.

      When Inflow increases, it sets a higher balance level. Then the level will move toward the new balance level. If the balance level oscillates, the level will also oscillate as it follows the balance level.

      My carbon cycle calculations show there are two ways that temperature increase can increase atmospheric CO2. The fast response way is likely Henry’s law which lowers the Te of the surface ocean and sends more CO2 into the atmosphere.

      The slow response way is the release of stored carbon into the carbon cycle. I calculate human carbon has added about one percent to the carbon in the carbon cycle. But nature has added about 3 percent since, say, 1750, likely due to the warming out of the Little Ice Age.

      1. Thank you for your reply Ed. This is very interesting and enjoyable!

        A simplified version of my analysis is approximated by this formula from woodfortrees:
        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/mean:12/derivative/plot/uah6/from:1979/scale:0.22/offset:0.14

        A more detailed description is included in the spreadsheets attached to the two papers (2008 and 2019) referenced in my first post today at 6:14am:
        http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2vsTMacRaeFig5b.xls
        https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Rev_CO2-Global-Warming-Climate-and-Energy-June2019-FINAL.xlsx

        It is late here – I’ll try to revisit this question in more detail tomorrow.

        I don’t know how my friend Murry Salby did his analysis.

        1. Hi again Ed,

          This explains the December 2007 genesis of my dCO2/dt vs. Temperature close relationship.

          I did my original work “longhand” in Excel, but using woodfortrees is easier to explain.

          Start with the Keeling Curve at Mauna Loa (the Global average CO2 curve works just as well)
          http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979

          Smooth out the “seasonal sawtooth” by one of several methods – I used a different method in 2007-8 as I recall, but no matter.
          http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/mean:12

          Take the derivative of the smoothed curve
          http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/mean:12/derivative

          At this point I saw a familiar curve with the 1998 El Nino spike, and soon added the global temperature curve, using UAH5.6 at that time – here I use UAH 6.0 and scaled and offset it vertically to fit.
          Voila! Imagine my surprise!
          http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/mean:12/derivative/plot/uah6/from:1979/scale:0.22/offset:0.14

          I wrote the paper and it was published in January 2008 on Joe D’Aleo’s icecap.us. I revised it to prove a point and it was re-published in February 2008.
          http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2vsTMacRae.pdf
          Excel: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2vsTMacRaeFig5b.xls

          Best, Allan

        2. Hi Ed,
          There are a few details we should discuss offline.
          You can contact me through my email address, which is included in my Contact to you send days ago.
          Best, Allan

  58. Let’s put it this way :

    What Dr Ed demonstrates can be hold in one line : Since the human share of the input is 4%, then the human share of the stock is necessarily also 4%, whatever the output.

    But, if (for unknown reasons) the output is limited and cannot increase, then, the stock will increase, due to the human supplementary input.

    And then, in this case, even if the human share of the stock remains 4%, the responsibility of the stock increase is actually human.

    In reality, everything looks as if the supplementary output was limited to 50% of the supplementary (human) input : current human CO2 input represents 4 ppm/year while the stock increases by 2 ppm/year : not human, but from human responsibility.

      1. Stephen,
        It is only maths, I recognize ; and not a proof (and I confirm “unknown reasons”).

        (BTW, there was no supplementary input (thus also output), when the concentration was stable (i.e. before man massively used fossil fuels), let’s say around 1950. But it’s just a correlation, not a proof, and, indeed, not a physical explanation either)

        But, anyway, I currently have no physical explanation regarding the current atmospheric increase in CO2. And I would be happy to have one.

    1. Hello Jacques-Marie. You wrote in part:
      “In reality, everything looks as if the supplementary output was limited to 50% of the supplementary (human) input : current human CO2 input represents 4 ppm/year while the stock increases by 2 ppm/year : not human, but from human responsibility.”

      This is called the “mass balance argument” and it has been ably debated on blogs for about a decade by Ferdinand Engelbeen and Richard S Courtney. While I remain agnostic, I also recognize that highly intelligent people are persuaded by Salby, Berry and Harde. Your debate is with them.

      Part of the reason I have not spent much time on this important scientific question is because I do not need it to falsify the CAGW and the “Wilder Weather” hypotheses. My recent paper does so ~25 times, but as Albert Einstein famously stated “One would be enough”.

      “The Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) and The Humanmade Climate Change Crises Are Proved False”
      By Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc.(Eng.), M.Eng., January 10, 2020
      https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/the-catastrophic-anthropogenic-global-warming-cagw-and-the-humanmade-climate-change-crises-are-proved-false.docx

      Regards, Allan

        1. Thank you Stephen for your kind words.

          For clarity, my degrees are in Mining Engineering (Queens U) and a Masters in Geotechnical Engineering (U of Alberta), plus a few years of Biology at McGill. Mining is probably the most general of engineering degrees, and we did take some good courses in thermodynamics. We also studied geology which includes paleoclimatology.

          My interest in the CAGW hypothesis started in ~1985 and I was highly skeptical from the start, based on my understanding of the prehistorical and historical climate records. I studied CAGW and climate for 17 years and wrote my first papers starting in 2002. The following two statements were published by my co-authors and me in 2002 and are clearly correct-to-date:

          “Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”

          “The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”

          In contrast, all the CAGW alarmists’ scary climate predictions have failed to materialize. The global warming/climate change alarmists have a perfectly negative predictive track record, and thus perfectly negative credibility.

          Also in 2002, I published a prediction of global cooling starting by 2020-2030, modified about five years ago to “starting about 2020 or sooner”, primarily driven by low solar activity, not CO2 – and that prediction is now materializing. I’d prefer to be wrong, because humanity suffers during cold periods, but the early signs point to a cooling world, and it may have already started.

      1. Hi Alan,

        I do not need it to falsify CAGW either : I completely agree with you on this point.

        My concern is just curiosity : even if it is useless regarding CAGW, what explains the current CO2 concentration increase ? Where does this extra CO2 come from ? Why and how ?

        I confirm that I agree with you : especially when you write :
        “Scientists including Salby, Berry and Harde have hypothesized that the increase in atmospheric CO2 from the alleged “pre-industrial” concentration of ~250ppm to more than 400 ppm is largely natural and not mostly humanmade. I have considered this question for ~12 years, and am still agnostic on the conclusion, so I have not included it in my above falsifications of the CAGW hypothesis. Regardless of the cause, the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 is hugely beneficial to humanity and the environment.”

        I have also considered this question for years and I have no explanation either.

      2. Dear Allan ,

        My Preprint #1 discusses the “mass balance argument ” in its section 4.1. It concludes this argument fails because it assumes natural CO2 emissions have stayed constant since 1750.

        It also concludes IPCC’s “net carbon sink” argument fails because this argument assumes outflow is a function of inflow, which is untrue.

        1. Dr Ed one question : according to the physics model, humans have added 32 ppm while nature has added 100 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere. But the 100 ppm added by nature from land / oceans due to the temperature increase, may again come partly from human CO2 molecules that are already stored in such reservoirs. The “worst case” (unrealistic) would be to consider that the 100 ppm come only from land/surface ocean “evaporation” (sort of) where humans “share” of CO2 is around 7%. In such case shouldn’t we add 0.07*100 =7 ppm on top of the 32 ?

  59. Also, to rephrase as you did what Berry is saying, “man might be causing the warming” but it ain’t because of carbon dioxide. Temperature is causing carbon dioxide, not the other way around. Murry Salby says man isn’t even causing the warming. He’s saying it’s random.

  60. Thanks Allan,
    one questions : doesnt it look like in the very recent years the two curves seem to diverge (uha6 pointing upward while c02 derivative going down) – at a closer look there seem to be a few anomalies.
    max

    1. Hi Max,
      Yes, I noticed this divergence some time ago and wrote John Christy about it recently. He usually responds quickly, but has not yet replied to this email.
      Regards, Allan

      From: Allan MacRae
      Sent: January-04-20 12:17 AM
      To: John Christy
      Subject: . The close relationship seems to break down starting about 2017..

      Hi John and Happy New Year. I think we corresponded on this subject a few years ago.
      I wrote in January 2008 that the close correlation of the velocity dCO2/dt and delta temperature proves that atmospheric CO2 changes lag temperature changes by ~9 months in the modern data record.
      Observing the most recent data in this dCO2/dt vs UAHLT plot raises an interesting question:
      1. The close relationship holds quite well except for periods of major volcanic activity, such as El Chichon 1982 and Pinatubo 1991+.
      2. The close relationship seems to break down starting about 2017, where temperature spikes above dCO2/dt twice; also note that dCO2/dt is now declining, typical of cooling, even as temperature increases. I have studied this data back to 1958 and never seen this pattern before. [I do suspect we are seeing early sporadic signs of a new cooling trend.]
      There could be a few explanations for this change in a consistent multi-decadal pattern – do you have any suggestions as to what is happening?
      Thank you for your thoughts, Allan MacRae
      _____________________________
      From: Allan MacRae
      Sent: January-05-20 10:02 AM
      To: John Christy
      Subject: RE: . The close relationship seems to break down starting about 2017…

      OK John – maybe this explains the divergence of dCO2/dt from UAHLT noted in my earlier email below:

      The warming is happening at the North and South Poles NoPol and SoPol and also in the SoExt area from 90S-20S and that is causing the global average temperature to increase.

      Cooling IS occurring in the Tropics area Trpcs and that is where the “temperature changes drive atm.CO2 changes ~9-month later” happens.

      The probable mechanism is described here:
      CO2, GLOBAL WARMING, CLIMATE AND ENERGY
      by Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., June 15, 2019
      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/15/co2-global-warming-climate-and-energy-2/
      Excel: https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Rev_CO2-Global-Warming-Climate-and-Energy-June2019-FINAL.xlsx

      Your thoughts?

      Best, Allan

    1. Dear “then there’s physics”,

      In section 2.1, I wrote:

      “The only way external processes can change a reservoir’s level is by changing the reservoir’s inflow, outflow, or e-time. Therefore, the Physics model INCLUDES ALL EFFECTS OF EXTERNAL PROCESSES (chemical, biological, etc.) on the level of carbon in a reservoir.”

      1. Ed,
        I think this is wrong. The carbonate chemistry of seawater suggests that there is a limit to how much CO2 can be dissolved in the oceans. If you haven’t considered this, then it seems likely that your analysis is missing an important process.

        1. Dear “then there’s physics”,

          Every hypothesis must be anchored to data. The IPCC natural carbon cycle data is the best data we have. My Preprint merely finds the e-times for the IPCC carbon cycle data.

          Therefore, IPCC’s data and my e-times for the IPCC data include the effects of the Revelle factor.

        2. Ed,
          If you’re using the bomb test data, then you’re almost certainly confusing residence time and adjustment time. It’s well known that that individual molecules will only spend a few years in the atmosphere before cycling into one of the other sinks. This doesn’t mean that an enhancement in atmospheric CO2 will decay on the same timescale.

        3. Dear “then there’s physics”,

          If you want to learn physics, let me be your teacher.

          First, “IPCC natural carbon cycle” data means the data from reference [1] in this preprint. Carbon cycle data are NOT the 14C data from the bomb tests.

          Second, please read my first preprint that you can find by clicking “ALL” in the menu above and selected the second preprint.

          Its section 4.2 explains why the claim you refer to as “It is well known” may be the most incorrect popular illusion in the subject of climate science. The so-called difference between residence time and adjustment time is a result of very poor physics.

          The idea that the “exchange of molecules” properly describes the way a level approaches its balance level is very poor physics. It is such a poor idea that it may cause brain damage to those who try to “understand” it.

          Just use the Physics model. Its e-time describes how a level approaches its balance level with no need to change the definition of e-time during the approach.

          If you can’t get this point correct, then you will never understand atmospheric physics.

        4. Dear “then there’s physics”,

          Section 4.2 of THIS post shows the calculation of the human carbon cycle. Yes, it shows only 14.7 percent of human carbon emissions remain in the atmosphere at the end of 2019.

          But in my previous comment, I referred to Section 4.2 of my previous preprint, not this preprint. That is where I explain about the different time constants.

        5. Ed,
          Well, it seems to me that you are confusing residence and adjustment times (or assuming they’re the same, which they aren’t) and aren’t taking into account the Revelle factor which does limit how much of our emissions can be taken up by the ocean.

          Remember that the C14 was introduced by the bomb tests. This means that when a C14 is taken up by one of the natural sinks, it isn’t necessarily replaced by another C14 molecule. Hence, using the decay of C14 might reasonably represent the residence time of a molecule, but it doesn’t properly represent the adjustment timescale of an enhancement, which has to be longer than the residence time of a molecule.

        6. Dear “then there’s physics”,

          How can you think I confuse residence time and adjustment time when I quote IPCC’s definitions of each, and summarize as follows?

          In summary, IPCC uses two different time constants where it should use only e-time:
          When the level is far from its balance level (which can be zero), IPCC thinks e-time is an adjustment time because the level is moving rapidly toward its balance level.
          When the level is close to its balance level, IPCC thinks e-time is a residence time because “molecules” are flowing in and out with little change in level.

          And then I show in Figure 11 how these IPCC definitions are irrational. It is nonsense to apply two different time constants to different parts of a curve, especially when e-time covers the whole process. Your continued use of residence and adjustment times to attempt to explain the physics is not physics.

          I have already addressed your Revelle claim and you have made to attempt to disprove my argument.

          Then you argue:

          Hence, using the decay of C14 might reasonably represent the residence time of a molecule, but it doesn’t properly represent the adjustment timescale of an enhancement, which has to be longer than the residence time of a molecule.

          I submit that your argument above is so far outside of physics that it is irrational. To do real physics, simply use the Physics model. It not only explains the physics, it exactly replicates the 14C data from 1970 to 2014 using only one e-time.

          The explanation you propose does not explain the physics. It is so complex that it loses by Occam’s Razor. It is so complex that you cannot even explain it. And it cannot replicate the 14C data. I think it is time you dumped the ideas you are proposing.

        7. @then there’s physics:

          “the decay of C14 might reasonably represent the residence time of a molecule, but it doesn’t properly represent the adjustment timescale of an enhancement, which has to be longer than the residence time of a molecule.“

          This is a claim pushed by the IPCC to argue that human emission is what’s causing CO2 to increase. In addition to Dr. Ed’s response that it’s irrational, Professor Salby shows that the claim is a joke. See:

          https://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/agw-hypothesis/what-is-really-behind-the-increase-in-atmospheric-co2/ at times 58:00 to 1:08:00

          After all, the only way that CO2 in the atmosphere can adjust to an enhancement is thru its removal by absorption at the earth’s surface. That’s the same process that determines how long CO2 resides in the atmosphere.

        8. Ed,
          Maybe I can ask you a question here. Let’s consider a scenario where we add a particular isotope of carbon into the atmosphere that isn’t present in the other reservoirs (ocean and biosphere). We then observe the decay of this isotope in the atmosphere and use this to estimate the decay timescale. Does this represent the residence time, the adjustment time, or both?

        9. Dear “then there’s physics”,

          Thank you for your question.

          As you know, the Physics model allows individual calculation of all definitions of carbon. That is why we calculated the carbon cycles for natural carbon and human carbon independently. So, we will treat your hypothesized carbon isotope independently from all other carbon.

          Section 4.4 shows the result of your scenario. Figure 12 plots how your carbon isotope in the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide would decrease with time. This calculation uses the e-times found to best represent IPCC’s natural carbon cycle.

          Notice that the curve for the decrease does not go to zero because the total carbon added remains in the reservoirs. The curve goes to the level where the carbon in all the reservoirs is in equilibrium. Figure 13 represents how the carbon, initially all in the atmosphere, moves to the other reservoirs with time.

          You desire to use the Physics model decay curve of Figure 12 to estimate the decay timescale.

          Although each reservoir in the carbon cycle follows the Physics model equation (2) with constant e-times, the final result for the decay of atmospheric carbon begins with a shorter e-time and ends with a larger e-time. That is because of two things.

          First, the carbon cycle model is a complex, interactive model. As the land and reservoirs begin to fill, they send carbon back to the atmosphere. And the surface ocean is the pathway to the deep ocean.

          Second, the scenario begins with all reservoirs but the atmosphere empty. This is not a realistic scenario. That is why the decay is very fast for about the first 5 to 10 years and then slows as the other reservoirs approach their equilibrium levels. For example, the 14C data curve shows the e-time when the deviation from its balance level is less than two times its balance level. This would be somewhere after 30 years in Figure 12.

          Back to your question. We get nowhere if we attempt to explain pulse decay by trying to fit the decay curve with a formula or explain it with imprecise definitions. We get nowhere if we try to explain the time factor during the first 10 years as an “adjustment time” and then, somewhere after 10 to 30 years, change to call it a “residence time.” Doing so avoids using physics to explain what is happening.

    1. No, hence my question. It’s quite a key factor that illustrates why there is a limit to how much of our emissions can be taken up by the ocean. Would seem important to either demonstrate that this has been taken into account, or (if Ed thinks it isn’t important) why it doesn’t need to be taken into account.

  61. Some comments on Simon Aegerter’s note from January 7:

    What we can learn from the paper of Gruber et al. is: Despite the increasing anthropogenic emissions over the period 1972 to 2012 apparently the oceans absorb the same relative amount of extra CO2 from the atmosphere as over the period from pre-industrial times to 1972, which was 31%. Gruber’s global ocean sink estimate is consistent with the expectation of the ocean uptake having increased in proportion to the rise in atmospheric CO2, which is in full agreement with a first order absorption process (or here called physics model), and which is a clear indication that the oceans and also the whole biosphere by no means show any saturation in the uptake of CO2. This is also a clear indication that the Revelle factor is of no relevance.

    Only surprising is that Gruber et al. believe to have measured the pure human caused carbon changes. So, they claim that with an extended multiple linear regression approach they can separate anthropogenic carbon changes from any natural CO2-driven change in dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC). Apparently they can distinguish between molecules coming from a volcanic eruption, from permafrost, outgazing oceans or soil due to global warming and on the other hand between molecules from fossil fuels or land use change. To my knowledge no isotope selective measurements were evaluated and cannot be used to differentiate between the different sources, and no one is measuring fluxes from one reservoir to the other. All studies are based on concentration measurements from ships or buoys in different depths, and the main data they employed are coming from measurements of DIC, total alkalinity and related parameters.

    Better would have been to measure the temperatures and partial pressures of the oceans in different depths. From such data reliable information about the solubility and exchange fluxes between the oceans and the atmosphere under conditions of increasing temperatures could have been derived. Actual studies of Cheng et al. (https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs00376-020-9283-7.pdf) in Advances in Atmospheric Sciences, February 2020, support the further warming of the oceans, from which the Southern Ocean with about 40% has taken up most of the global warming heat since 1970.

    Unfortunately Cheng et al. try to explain their calculated increase of the ocean heat content only by greenhouse gases and forget the Sun with a modern Grand solar maximum during solar cycles 19–23 (1950–2009) (see Usoskin et al.: https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pdf/2014/02/aa23391-14.pdf or Soon et al.: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0012825215300349).

    Aegerter’s comment also contains the question, if the environment acting as a net sink at the same time can be responsible for a higher CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. This question has already been discussed in Ed’s previous paper and also in my Earth Sciences paper (ES-paper: http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/journal/paperinfo?journalid=161&doi=10.11648/j.earth.20190803.13, Subsection 5.3).

    It can simply be answered by looking at the balance equation, the conservation law. With anthropogenic emissions the atmospheric concentration increases, and thus, the uptake by extraneous reservoirs rises. At the same time the flux from the adjacent reservoirs to the atmosphere may increase, e.g., caused by an inclining solar irradiance or by internal oscillations, which change the total balance. Particularly temperature variations, independent from concentration changes, significantly affect this balance. This is discussed in Subsection 5.6 of the ES-paper, not only affecting the temperature induced native emissions, but also reducing the solubility of CO2 in oceans and the uptake by the biosphere.

    The seasonal variations on the Mauna Loa curve reveal the strong solar and thermal influence on the atmospheric CO2 concentration.
    – These oscillations, in amplitude and shape, are in good approximation independent of the absorption (or residence) time, but are almost exclusively molded by the seasonal emissions.
    – On the other hand is the average CO2 concentration at a given total emission rate almost only determined by the absorption time.

    From the first item it follows that the additional seasonal emissions from August till April have to be 27 ppm/yr to reproduce the modulation amplitude on the Mauna Loa curve, this in a regular rhythm already over millions of years. These seasonal emissions are part of the total native emissions, which in AR5 were specified as about 93 ppm/yr.

    Comparison only of these seasonal emissions of 27 ppm/yr together with the actual anthropogenic emissions of 5.3 ppm/yr (fossil fuel and land use change) already shows a 5 times larger natural emission, and as average over the last 270 yr this is even 24 times larger than all human contributions. The seasonal emissions could not have cumulated over this period, also not with an airborne fraction of 50% as assumed by IPCC models. Then we would already experience a CO2 concentration of 4 ‰ (27.4×270/2+280 ppm) and together with the human emissions 4.13 ‰. These seasonal emissions demonstrate the strong solar and thermal influence on the observed CO2 concentration, and they explain, why also in pre-industrial times this concentration could never have been constant.

    From the second item we can conclude that the true absorption time cannot be larger than 11 yr. So, without any additional natural emissions – only the seasonal emissions of 27 ppm/yr and the anthropogenic emissions of 5.3 ppm/yr – the observed CO2 concentration of 400 ppm can only be reproduced for an ‘apparent’ absorption time of 12 yr, and with a further correction due to global warming this reduces to 11 yr.

    This analysis of the Mauna Loa measurements allows a second, independent approach, in full agreement with the 14C-decay observations, to hedge the true absorption time to be shorter than 11 yr. And when the estimated natural emission rates as presented in AR5, Fig. 6.1, which by the way are not better known than ± 20%, are not completely unrealistic, the true absorption time can only be 3 to 4 yr (see Earth Sciences paper, Section 4: http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/journal/paperinfo?journalid=161&doi=10.11648/j.earth.20190803.13).

    By the way: A larger decay time for the 14C than for 12C or 13C isotopes cannot be explained by a faster absorption of lighter molecules. Such fractionation correction is in the per mil regime (‰) and makes no difference in the absorption process. But after an uptake a CO2 molecule can be re-emitted from the surface layer of the ocean or by decomposition of plants. While for 12C and 13C isotopes a direct re-emission is indistinguishable from all other molecules of a reservoir, which may be released after hundred or thousand years, 14C is identified by its radioactivity. The re-emission of the 14CO2 isotopologues is proportional to their concentration in the upper layer, and this concentration passes off with a decay time determined by the sequestration time or dilution and mixture process with the other molecules in the reservoir. This represents the apparent absorption time, while the true absorption time can only be shorter. For details see Subsection 5.7.3 and Appendix B of the ES-paper.

    Regularly for the analysis of the 14C-decay smoothed and fractionation corrected data are used, yielding e-times between 15 and 16.5 yr, depending on the authors. When directly using the original un-smoothed data, which still show clear seasonal oscillations on the decay, the same apparent absorption time of 11 yr as derived from the Mauna Loa curve can be found. So, an absorption time smaller than 11 yr is confirmed by two independent methods.

    Concerning the observation of a higher CO2 concentrations in the northern hemisphere than in the southern hemisphere the reader may look to Subsection 5.7.4. of the ES-paper and also remember that warmer water stores less CO2 than colder. So, one °C warmer water already reduces its solubility by about 85 mg/l.

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.