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.

February 12, 2020: I have finished most updates. Next, I will revise the Abstract and Conclusions, and clean up the references.

Copyright (c) 2019-2020 by Edwin X Berry

Abstract

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) shows data for the natural and human carbon cycles. However, IPCC uses different rules for human carbon that it uses for natural carbon. Human carbon must obey the same rules as natural carbon because their carbon atoms are identical. This paper identifies IPCC’s rules (or time constants) for the natural carbon cycle and applies these rules to the human carbon cycle. Using data for carbon emissions from fossil fuels and cement production, this paper shows the resulting human carbon cycle differs dramatically from IPCC’s claimed human carbon cycle. IPCC’s natural carbon cycle data require the conclusion that human carbon added only 31 ppm to atmospheric CO2 as of 2019. This means natural carbon added the remaining 100 ppm. Human carbon added only one percent to the carbon in the carbon cycle while nature added 3 percent. And if human carbon changed the rules, as IPCC claims, then it changed the rules for natural carbon as well, so these conclusions would still be valid. If human emissions 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 removal of human-emitted CO2 from the atmosphere by natural processes will take a few hundred thousand years (high confidence).”

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] did not calculate the human carbon cycle. Rather IPCC simply used its core assumption – that human emissions caused all the rise in atmospheric CO2 – to create an image of a carbon cycle.

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 of IPCC’s natural carbon cycle to calculate the human carbon cycle.

The correct human carbon cycle, 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

Harde [20] calculates the complete carbon cycle using a different method than this paper uses.

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.

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. The terms L, Lb, and Te are functions 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. Carbon will not accumulate in the reservoir.

If inflow decreases, the balance level decreases, and the level follows the balance level. The rate of change response is immediate, but the level will lag the balance level. When inflow increases the level, the outflow will immediately increase.

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 14CO2 balance level decreased to the natural balance level 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.

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 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, 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.

This paper uses IPCC [1] estimated data for the carbon cycle. While these numbers will change as new data becomes available, this formulation will likely endure.

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.

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

The following derives the rate equations for each level.

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 the individual outflows:

  • Fga = flow from land to atmosphere
  • Fag = flow from atmosphere to land
  • Fas = from atmosphere to surface ocean
  • Fsa = flow from surface ocean to atmosphere
  • Fsd = flow from surface ocean to deep ocean
  • Fds = flow from deep ocean to surface ocean

Define the individual flows using IPCC “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 = 0.40
  • Ksd = fraction of carbon flow from surface ocean to deep ocean = 0.60

where:

  Kag + Kas = 1 (9)
  Ksa + Ksd = 1 (10)

Define the total outflow from each reservoir:

  Fg = Fga (11)
  Fa = Kag*Fag + Kas*Fas (12)
  Fs = Ksa*Fsa + Kas*Fsd (13)
  Fd = Fds (14)

Define reservoir outflows as levels / e-times:

  Fg = Lg / Tg (15)
  Fa = La / Ta (16)
  Fs = Ls / Ts (17)
  Fd = Ld / Td (18)

where Tg, Ta, Ts, and Td are the e-times for land, atmosphere, surface ocean, and deep ocean.

Define other variables:

            t = time in years

            Hfa = Human-caused flow from fuels to atmosphere

            Hga = Human-caused flow from land to atmosphere

The Hga term is included for completeness but it is set to zero in all the calculations in this paper. Hfa adds new carbon to the carbon cycle whereas Hga does not.

As illustrated in Figure 3, the rate equations for each reservoir equal its inflow minus outflow. Use (11-18) to get:

  dLg/dt = Kag*La/Ta – Lg/Tg – Hga      (19)
  dLa/dt = Ksa*Ls/Ts + Lg/Tg – La/Ta + Hfa + Hga (20)
  dLs/dt = Kas*La/Ta + Ld/Td – Ls/Ts (21)
  dLd/dt = Ksd*Ls/Ts – Ld/Td (22)

If all splits equal 0.5 then (19-22) simplify to:

  dLg/dt = La/2Ta – Lg/Tg – Hga (23)
  dLa/dt = Ls/2Ts + Lg/Tg – La/Ta + Hfa + Hga (24)
  dLs/dt = La/2Ta + Ld/Td – Ls/Ts (25)
  dLd/dt = Ls/2Ts – Ld/Td (26)

This paper calculates the change in the levels with respect to time using (19-22) for IPCC’s splits and (23-26) for 0.5 splits. The results the End% of IPCC splits and 0.5 splits are identical.

The following derives the rate equations for each level.

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 the individual outflows:

Fga = flow from land to atmosphere

Fag = flow from atmosphere to land

Fas = from atmosphere to surface ocean

Fsa = flow from surface ocean to atmosphere

Fsd = flow from surface ocean to deep ocean

Fds = flow from deep ocean to surface ocean

Define the individual flows using IPCC “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 = 0.40

Ksd = fraction of carbon flow from surface ocean to deep ocean = 0.60

where:

  Kag + Kas = 1 (9)
  Ksa + Ksd = 1 (10)

Define the total outflow from each reservoir:

  Fg = Fga (11)
  Fa = Kag*Fag + Kas*Fas (12)
  Fs = Ksa*Fsa + Kas*Fsd (13)
  Fd = Fds (14)

Define reservoir outflows as levels / e-times:

  Fg = Lg / Tg (15)
  Fa = La / Ta (16)
  Fs = Ls / Ts (17)
  Fd = Ld / Td (18)

where Tg, Ta, Ts, and Td are the e-times for land, atmosphere, surface ocean, and deep ocean.

Define other variables:

            t = time in years

            Hfa = Human-caused flow from fuels to atmosphere

            Hga = Human-caused flow from land to atmosphere

The Hga term is included for completeness but it is set to zero in all the calculations in this paper. Hfa adds new carbon to the carbon cycle whereas Hga does not.

As illustrated in Figure 3, the rate equations for each reservoir equal its inflow minus outflow. Use (11-18) to get:

  dLg/dt = Kag*La/Ta – Lg/Tg – Hga      (19)
  dLa/dt = Ksa*Ls/Ts + Lg/Tg – La/Ta + Hfa + Hga (20)
  dLs/dt = Kas*La/Ta + Ld/Td – Ls/Ts (21)
  dLd/dt = Ksd*Ls/Ts – Ld/Td (22)

If all splits equal 0.5 then (19-22) simplify to:

  dLg/dt = La/2Ta – Lg/Tg – Hga (23)
  dLa/dt = Ls/2Ts + Lg/Tg – La/Ta + Hfa + Hga (24)
  dLs/dt = La/2Ta + Ld/Td – Ls/Ts (25)
  dLd/dt = Ls/2Ts – Ld/Td (26)

This paper calculates the change in the levels with respect to time using (19-22) for IPCC’s splits and (23-26) for 0.5 splits. The results the End% of IPCC splits and 0.5 splits are identical.

The following table shows equations (23-26) as a grid. All diagonal entries are “-1”. The sum of each level is zero as it should be to conserve carbon. 

  Lg / Tg La / Ta Ls / Ts Ld / Td Hfa Hga N
dLg/dt -1 0.5 0 0 0 -1 0.5
dLa/dt 1 -1 0.5 0 1 1 0
dLs/dt 0 0.5 -1 1 0 0 0.5
dLd.dt 0 0 0.5 -1 0 0 0
Sum 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

Figure 4 shows the steps to calculate how the levels change with time.

Figure 4. The step-by-step numerical calculation begins with New L’s. Then calculate the L/Te. Then calculate the rates dL/dt. Multiply by a time step to get the Delta L. Then add the Delta L to L to get the new L’s

3.   The Natural Carbon Cycle

3.1 IPCC natural carbon cycle

IPCC [1] assumes

  1. The natural level of atmospheric CO2 in 1750 was 280 ppm and
  2. Human emissions caused all the increase in atmospheric CO2 above 280 ppm.

Segalstad [5] and Jaworowski [6, 7] present evidence that the natural CO2 level before 1750 was much higher than 280 ppm. Nevertheless, this paper uses assumption (a) because it is necessary to simulate IPCC’s natural carbon cycle data. This paper shows IPCC’s assumption (2) is not compatible with IPCC’s own data.

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 atmosphere sends more carbon to land than to surface ocean, and IPCC’s surface ocean sends more carbon to the deep ocean than it sends to the atmosphere. These differences will be called “splits.” We will show that these IPCC splits make little difference to IPCC’s carbon cycle versus using 50-50 splits.

IPCC’s Figure 6.1 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

The Physics model assigns one e-time to each reservoir rather than separate e-times for each connection. These e-times use the total outflow for each reservoir. The calculations split the outflows from atmosphere and surface ocean according to defined splits. This is simpler than using multiple e-times and it gets the same answer.

IPCC’s flows are only approximations. The e-times take the place of the flows and allow quick testing of the effect of different e-times. Therefore, it is not relevant that Figure 5 shows net outflow from the atmosphere while Table 1 shows the level of the atmosphere increases.

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 last column that shows the atmospheric concentration in ppm.

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’s data for natural carbon to be internally consistent and consistent with its assumption (a), we found slightly different e-times and levels that keep the levels constant. First, we set the level for the atmosphere to equal IPCC’s 280 ppm. Then, we made very small changes in the other levels while keeping the total carbon the same.

Table 2 shows the e-times that keep all levels constant and the atmosphere level at 280 ppm.

  • 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 2 e-times for the surface ocean and deep ocean are 5% and 9% greater than the respective e-times in Table 1. These small changes make IPCC’s natural carbon cycle internally self-consistent.

Table 3 shows the corrected e-times using 0.5 splits rather than the IPCC splits. These e-times also keep all levels and flows 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. But it makes no difference to the End % shown in the tables. 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. Compare the flows in Figure 6 with the flows in Figure 5.

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

Figure 7 shows IPCC’s distribution for natural carbon in 1750 when, according to IPCC, the level of natural CO2 in the atmosphere was 280 ppm. The data are from Table 3, End % to the second decimal place. Only 1.45 percent of natural carbon is in the atmosphere and 91 percent is in the deep ocean.

Figure 7. IPCC natural carbon numbers for 1750, from Table 3 End%.

Figure 7 shows the long-term equilibrium distribution for natural carbon in percent. As discussed in the next section, this natural equilibrium percentage is also the long-term equilibrium percentage for human carbon because natural and human carbon atoms are identical, so nature treats them the same.

The Physics model finds the e-times for IPCC’s data for the natural carbon cycle. Then we use those e-times to calculate the human carbon cycle.

4.   The Human Carbon Cycle

4.1  IPCC’s invalid human carbon cycle

IPCC [1] does not calculate the human carbon cycle. IPCC merely assumes that natural emission remained constant after 1750. Based on this assumption, IPCC further assumes human carbon emissions caused all the increase in atmospheric CO2 after 1750 or above 280 ppm. These assumptions contradict physics.

We define human carbon as the carbon atoms inserted into the atmosphere by burning carbon fuels and producing cement. We ignore the carbon produced by human-caused changes in land use because that effect is not well quantified, and it is much smaller than the effect of burning carbon fuels and cement production. However, the equations in Section 2.5 can be used to calculate the land-use carbon-cycle if desired.

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 8 shows IPCC’s Figure 6.1 data for the human carbon cycle for about 2008 to 2012. IPCC shows 8 PgC per year (from fossil fuel burning and cement production) flows into the atmosphere.

Figure 8. The IPCC human carbon cycle from the red numbers in IPCC Figure 6.1.

Figure 9 shows the data histogram for Figures 8.

Figure 9. Data from Figure 8 for IPCC human carbon in about 2009.

A simple comparison of Figure 9 for human carbon with Figure 7 for natural carbon indicates something is wrong with IPCC’s human carbon cycle. The human carbon cycle should be somewhat like the natural carbon cycle. There should be much less carbon in the atmosphere than IPCC claims.

The most blatant error in IPCC’s human carbon cycle is that 240 PgC, or about 60 percent, of human carbon remains in the atmosphere. That just happens to be the level IPCC needs to confirm its assumption that human carbon caused ALL the increase in atmospheric CO2 above 280 ppm.

Harde [37] observed that IPCC [1] Figure 6.1 shows human emissions add 4.0 PgC per year out of a total inflow (including land use) of 8.9 PgC per year. That ratio would add only 45 percent of the inflow to the atmosphere. To get IPCC’s 61 percent would require human emissions to add 5.4 PgC per year to the atmosphere.

IPCC did not calculate a real carbon cycle. Rather IPCC simply inserted its assumption – that human emissions caused all the increase above 280 ppm – into its claimed human carbon cycle. If IPCC had calculated a human carbon cycle, it would have found that much more human carbon had flowed into the levels for land and surface ocean, leaving much less human carbon in the atmosphere.

IPCC [1] admits it does not show the human carbon in the land or surface ocean. This admission shows IPCC never calculated the human carbon cycle. If it had, it would been easy to show the numbers.

This fictitious IPCC human carbon cycle, shown in Figures 8 and 9, is now the basis of all climate hysteria.

4.2 Scientific basis for the human carbon cycle

This paper follows the required null hypotheses of climate change:

  • Climate change is natural until proven otherwise.
  • Human carbon acts exactly like natural carbon until proven otherwise.
  • Human carbon does not change the behavior of the system until proven otherwise.

In other words, the scientific burden of proof is upon those who claim human carbon changes the natural flow of carbon through the carbon cycle.

It is necessary to extend IPCC’s assumptions listed in section 3.1:

  1. The natural level of atmospheric CO2 in 1750 was 280 ppm and
  2. Human emissions caused all the increase in atmospheric CO2 above 280 ppm.
  3. Human carbon changes the behavior of the natural carbon cycle.

Regarding IPCC’s assumption (3), this paper argues as follows.

Human carbon atoms are identical to natural carbon atoms. Therefore, 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. As a result, the long-term percentages of human carbon will equal the long-term percentages of natural carbon.

For IPCC to claim (c) is true, IPCC must prove nature has violated the Equivalence Principle. IPCC has not done that.

In January 2020, a reviewer [40] for the journal Climate claimed:

“The author builds on the correct assumption that CO2 molecules from natural and anthropogenic sources behave fundamentally in a similar way in the atmosphere, but he fails to take into account that anthropogenic perturbation of the carbon cycle changes the behavior of the system.”

“The author assumes that lifetime of carbon is unaffected by the anthropogenic perturbation (all lifetimes are assumed constant) and builds his work on that assumption. In text, he even does not explicitly make this assumption. This assumption, which is not supported by the available evidence, makes the all the following calculations invalid.”

The first paragraph of the claim is self-contradictory. If human carbon behaves like natural carbon, then it is almost impossible for human carbon of one percent to change the natural behavior of the carbon cycle.

The second paragraph contradicts the premise of the first paragraph. If human carbon behaves like natural carbon, then the e-times for human carbon must be the same as the e-times for natural carbon.

Reviewer [40] rejects the Equivalence Principle and the null hypotheses. He thinks the Equivalence Principle is an assumption. He does not follow the scientific method that requires the rejection of hypotheses that are proven to be wrong.

Airborne Fraction definition confirms the Physics model.

To understand IPCC’s errors in its evaluation of the contribution of human emissions to atmospheric carbon dioxide, it is necessary to review the use of the “airborne fraction.”

Featured prominently on the ESRL.NOAA website, Jones et al. [bb] define the airborne fraction, AF, as

The fraction of anthropogenic carbon emissions that remain in the atmosphere after natural processes have absorbed some of them.

More precisely, this [39] definition says AF is the dimensionless ratio of human CO2 to natural CO2 when natural CO2 is assumed to be the pre-existing 280 ppm and human CO2 is assumed to be all atmospheric CO2 above 280 ppm.

The equation [39] uses to model how human emissions increase atmospheric CO2, in the terms used in this paper, is

dL/dt = Inflow – (L – 280) / Te

This equation has two fundamental errors. First, the (L – 280) implies that 280 ppm is the balance level of human CO2. But the balance level of human CO2 is zero, not 280 ppm. The 280-ppm level is a property of the natural CO2 level that has no meaning to human CO2.

Second, the balance level does not belong where 280 is. The balance level is in the Inflow according to equation (4). So, there should be nothing where 280 is. With this correction, the [39] equation becomes the Physics model equation (3):

dL/dt = Inflow – L / Te (3)

Therefore, [39] confirms the Physics model and its assumption that

     Outflow = L / Te                                                                        (2)

The importance of equation (2) is that it allows human and natural carbon flows to be calculated independently. Furthermore, the [39] Airborne Fraction equation is not a carbon cycle calculation.

IPCC’s history propagates significant errors.

In 1987, Maier-Reimer and Hasselmann [37] used an ocean circulation model connected to a one-layer atmosphere to reproduce the main features of the CO2 distribution in the surface ocean. They approximated the flow of CO2 from the atmosphere into the ocean by a sum of four exponentials with different amplitudes and time constants, as in today’s Bern model.

In 1992, Siegenthaler and Joos [38] created the original Bern model. They connected the atmosphere level to the upper ocean level, and the upper ocean level to the deep ocean level. They used 14C data to trace the flow of 12CO2 from the atmosphere to the upper ocean and to the deep and interior oceans. They attempted to fit the three versions of their model to available data.

They assumed human CO2 emissions caused all the increase in atmospheric CO2 above 280 ppm. They justified their assumption on the supporting assumption that,

“The ice core CO2 data from the South Pole indicate a rather stable atmospheric CO2 level in the millennium preceding industrialization.”

They [38] had no way to estimate how much human CO2 really changes atmospheric CO2. They had no model for how CO2 flows through the atmosphere like the Physics Model.

They incorrectly assumed human CO2 caused all the increase in atmosphere CO2 greater than 280 ppm. Therefore, all their conclusions derive from their incorrect assumption that nature stayed constant after 1750 at 280 ppm.

To repeat. The [38] assumption – that human CO2 caused all the increase in atmospheric CO2 above 280 ppm – forced their airborne fraction calculation to artificially increase. IPCC never checked these [38] calculations for this error.

The [38] calculation shows the “airborne fraction” increases over time. They incorrectly concluded their artificially increasing airborne fraction meant human CO2 decreased the buffer capacity of the oceans.

Archer et al. [29] tested all IPCC carbon-cycle models and found they all

“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 mean they are correct. ALL [29] models can be equally wrong. All [29] assumed human emissions caused all the increase above 280 ppm. And all the 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 between the human carbon cycle and the equilibrium natural carbon cycle is human carbon emissions add new carbon to the carbon cycle. Human carbon still flows from reservoir to reservoir with the same e-times as natural carbon.

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 caused by the new carbon added to the human carbon cycle.

The [29] models assume that natural carbon stays balanced while human carbon disrupts the natural balance. The physics Equivalence Principle shows this assumption is invalid.

Human emissions have added about one percent to the natural carbon cycle. If this human addition changed the e-times for human carbon, it would have changed the e-times for natural carbon as well. If this happened, the effect would be sudden and multiplied by about 100. No such effect has been documented.

Joos et al. [39] compared the response of such atmosphere-ocean models to a pulse emission of human CO2. All models predicted a “substantial fraction” of pulse would remain in the atmosphere and ocean for millennia.

The conclusions of [29, 37, 38, 39] are invalid because they:

  1. treat human and natural carbon differently, which violates physics;
  2. incorrectly assume human carbon causes all the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide above 280 ppm;
  3. artificially partition human carbon inflow into four bins, where each bin has a different e-time, which violates physics;
  4. cannot replicate the 14C data.

In summary, IPCC reports and supporting papers make errors in physics. When we correct these errors, the IPCC data and theories confirm the Physics model.

The title of Gruber et al. [43] is “The oceanic sink for anthropogenic CO2 from 1994 to 2007.” Their Abstract begins (bolding added),

We quantify the oceanic sink for anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO 2) over the period 1994 to 2007 by using observations from the global repeat hydrography program and contrasting them to observations from the 1990s. Using a linear regression–based method, we find a global increase in the anthropogenic CO 2 inventory of 34 ± 4 petagrams of carbon (Pg C) between 1994 and 2007. This is equivalent to an average uptake rate of 2.6 ± 0.3 Pg C year –1 and represents 31 ± 4% of the global anthropogenic CO 2 emissions over this period. 

However, [43] does not prove the measured increase in ocean carbon was caused by human carbon. They [43] merely assume the IPCC claim that human carbon caused all the increase. They do not even discuss the possibility that natural carbon may have caused their measured increase.

4.3 Human carbon cycle calculation

IPCC says human carbon is a “perturbation” on the natural carbon cycle. The implication is human carbon disrupts the “perfect” natural carbon cycle.

Perturbation analysis as used in science has another meaning. It means to use the solution to one problem to solve a similar problem. The key is the unsolved problem must have the same fundamental properties as the solved problem.

The Physics model properly simulates IPCC’s estimated data for the natural carbon cycle. Then we use the Physics equations and e-times for IPCC’s natural carbon cycle to compute the human carbon cycle.

It is best to calculate the natural and human carbon cycles independently. After the independent calculations, we can sum the human and natural carbon-cycles to get the total carbon cycle. Independent calculations eliminate the need to track human and natural carbon.

Boden et al. [41] provide human CO2 emissions data from 1750 to 2014. This paper adds 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.

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. Table 4. All human carbon from 1750 through 2019 has added 31 ppm to the level of atmospheric CO2. All levels began at zero in 1750.

Figure 10 shows the Table 4 data for January 2020. Only 15 percent of all human carbon remains in the atmosphere, 37 percent is in the land, 11 percent is in the surface ocean and 38 percent is in the deep ocean. This is significantly different that IPCC’s claimed 60 percent in the atmosphere as shown in Figure 7.

Figure 10. Human carbon cycle data from Table 4 for 2020.

Table 4 shows the human carbon level in the atmosphere can never reach 60 percent as IPCC [1] claims. That is because human carbon flows to the other reservoirs like natural carbon does. These flows are fast enough to keep the human carbon in the atmosphere below 15 percent as of 2020.

Figure 11 shows the Table 4 data for January 2100. If human emissions were to stop in 2020, then by 2100 only 4 percent of all human carbon would remain in the atmosphere.

Figure 11. Human carbon cycle data from Table 4 for 2100.

The rapid fall of human carbon in the atmosphere if emissions were to stop shows human carbon has little long-term effect on atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Given enough time, the distribution of human carbon shown in Figure 11 will be like the distribution of natural carbon shown in Figure 7. There is no significant long-term effect of human carbon emissions.

Figure 12 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 12. 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. .

Figure 13 shows the combined effects of human and natural CO2 on the level of atmospheric CO2.

Figure 13. The dashed line is the measured atmospheric CO2 level. The human effect on atmospheric CO2 is the area under the dotted line and above the 280-ppm horizontal line. Atmospheric CO2 above the dotted line and below the 280-ppm line is caused by nature. This assumes human emissions stop in 2020. The human-caused increase by 2100 is 8 ppm

Figure 14 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 14: Human carbon moves from the atmosphere to the land and deep ocean.

IPCC [1] data prove human carbon added only 25 percent to the carbon cycle while natural carbon added 75 percent to the carbon cycle since 1750.

If nature were to remain constant after 2020 and all human emissions stopped, atmospheric CO2 would never fall below 380 ppm plus about 3-ppm due to the human carbon added to the carbon cycle. There would be no significant long-term effect of human carbon emissions.

4.4 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 15 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 15. The dashed line is the measured atmospheric CO2 level. The human effect on atmospheric CO2 is the area under the dotted line and above the 280-ppm horizontal line. Atmospheric CO2 above the dotted line and below the 280-ppm line is caused by nature. This assumes constant human emissions beginning in 2020. The human-caused increase by 2100 is 52 ppm.

Figure 15 shows the continuation of constant human emissions after 2020 would cause a total increase in atmospheric CO2 of 52 ppm by 2100.

4.5 Effect of added human carbon

Figure 12 shows human carbon emissions add about 31 ppm to atmospheric CO2 as of the end of 2019. But Harde [19, 20] and Berry [23] estimated the human effect is 17-ppm and 18 ppm, respectively. Harde and Berry assumed human carbon flows out of the atmosphere as natural carbon flows out of the atmosphere. They did not account for the human carbon added to the carbon cycle because nature in equilibrium does not add carbon to the carbon cycle.

To model the direct inflow effect calculated by [19, 20] and [23], we set the carbon cycle model to prevent outflows from land and deep ocean. Flows out of the surface ocean remain unchanged because that is part of what sets the flows in the natural carbon cycle.

Figure 16 shows the two independent effects of human emissions on atmospheric CO2. The first is the effect of the human carbon that flows directly into the atmosphere. The second is the effect of the carbon added to the carbon cycle which recycles back into the atmosphere. Figure 16 shows these two effects and their total, assuming human carbon emissions remain constant after 2020.

The dotted line in Figure 16 is the simulated increase in atmospheric CO2 due to inflow without the effect of added carbon. The dashed line is the simulated increase caused by the added carbon.

The Inflow effect (dotted line) matches the 17 ppm when Harde [19, 20] was published and the 18 ppm when Berry [23] was published.

These carbon cycle calculations support the conclusions of [19, 20] and [23] when human carbon does not add new carbon to the carbon cycle.

We conclude that human carbon emissions have increased atmospheric CO2 through 2019 by two means. The annual inflow caused an increase of 19 ppm. The new carbon added to the carbon cycle caused an increase of 12 ppm. The total human effect is 31 ppm as of 2020.

If human emissions were to stop, the human-caused increase in atmospheric CO2 would decrease in a few years, not to zero, but to the increase caused by the added carbon.

5. The General Carbon Cycle

5.1 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.

Table 6 shows a summary of the pulse calculations.

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

Figure 17 compares a simulated pulse of human carbon with the Bern model. The Bern model, which simulates the [29] models, incorrectly calculates 15% of human carbon will remain in the atmosphere forever. The Bern model is wrong because its originators did not properly calculate the human carbon cycle.

Figure 17. Physics carbon cycle model predicts much faster decay than the IPCC Bern model.

The Physics model – that simulates IPCC’s natural carbon cycle – 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.

Figure 18 shows how a pulse of carbon moves from the atmosphere to the other reservoirs.

Figure 18. Human carbon moves from the atmosphere to the other reservoirs. The total carbon is constant.

Human carbon in the atmosphere moves rapidly to the land and the deep ocean because percentagewise it flows between the reservoirs exactly like natural carbon.

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.

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

5.2 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 net flows are zero. When net flows are zero, the levels are constant, and the L/Te are equal:

            Lg/Tg = La/2Ta = Ls/2Ts = Ld/Td                                             (27)

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                      (28)

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 19 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 19. In year zero, all the carbon is in the atmosphere.

Figure 20 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 20. In year infinity, the L/Te are the same in all reservoirs.

Figure 21 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 21. 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.

5.3 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 21 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 21, 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).

6.   Discussion

6.1 The effect of temperature on CO2

This paper shows how IPCC data require the conclusion that natural emissions increased after 1750. Construction of theories to explain what caused the increase in natural emissions is outside the scope of this paper. This paper stands on its own.

Nevertheless, to benefit those who wish to construct such theories, we offer the following possible connection of temperature with the rate of change of CO2 in the atmosphere.

There are only three ways to increase atmospheric CO2: (a) add new carbon to the carbon cycle, (b) increase carbon inflow, and (c) 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, which eliminates (b). The 14C data show the e-time for the atmosphere has not changed since 1970 [23], which eliminates (c). So, this paper suggests that any significant natural increase in atmospheric CO2 is likely to be caused by nature adding carbon to the carbon cycle. Indeed, this paper concludes that nature has added 3 percent to the carbon in the carbon cycle since 1750.

The continuity equation (1) shows the rate of change of carbon in a level equals the Inflow minus Outflow. If surface temperature increases the Inflow, which may come from carbon otherwise not in the carbon cycle, then such temperature increase will increase the rate of change of the level. Fixed carbon can be released in any of the 4 reservoirs and it will make its way to the atmosphere.

Kuo et al. [46] shows changes in atmospheric CO2 lags temperature by five months. MacRae [47] found the rate of change of CO2 follows increases in surface temperature. Salby [14-17] shows the rate of change of CO2 follows increases in surface temperature. Salby’s conclusion is compatible with the continuity equation (1). Harde [19, 20] shows how atmospheric carbon dioxide increases with surface temperature.

Conclusions

This paper shows how IPCC’s data for the natural carbon cycle require these conclusions as of 2020:

  1. Human CO2 added only 31 ppm to the atmosphere.
  2. Natural CO2 added 100 ppm to the atmosphere.
  3. Natural emissions increased after 1750, contrary to IPCC’s assumption.
  4. If human CO2 stopped in 2020, only 8 ppm of human CO2 would remain by 2100.
  5. No human efforts can reduce the 2020 natural CO2 of 380 ppm.

The calculations in this paper used constant e-times and splits. However, this paper is a basis to run other scenarios that might modify the results shown here.

This paper is a physics-based deduction from IPCC’s data for the natural carbon cycle. It does not depend on external data. Unless someone shows this paper is wrong, then all scientific papers must use this result for the human carbon cycle to interpret their scientific data.

Scientifically, this paper stands on its own. It does not need to explain what caused natural carbon emissions to increase since 1750. That is another problem. External data cannot prove this paper is wrong. Only proof of an internal error can prove this paper is wrong.

Are IPCC’s claims only marginally wrong?

Figure 9 shows 61 percent of human emissions remain in the atmosphere according to IPCC’s unsubstantiated claim. Figure 10 shows that only 15 percent of human carbon remains in the atmosphere according to IPCC’s data for the natural carbon cycle.

The difference is not a small mistake or clerical error. The difference, unless someone proves this paper is internally wrong, shows IPCC’s 61 percent is a fraud because IPCC’s 61 percent is the foundation of IPCC’s climate change political agenda.

Acknowledgements

The author thanks those who reviewed the Preprint of this paper: Hermann Harde for his excellent review and suggestions, 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.

Author’s Contributions

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

Downloads

Download Excel File

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. Hurai, V., M. Huraiova, M. Slobodnik, R. Thomas. 2015. Chapter 9 – Stable Isotope geochemistry of geofluids. 9.1. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-803241-1.00009-5. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128032411000095
  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. Harde, H. 2020. Personal communication.
  38. Reviewer. 2020. Climate, January 21, 2020. Personal communication.
  39. Jones, C., P. Cox, C. Huntingford. 2013? The atmospheric CO2 airborne fraction and carbon cycle feedbacks. https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/co2conference/posters_pdf/jones1_poster.pdf
  40. Maier-Reimer, E. and Hasselmann, K.: Transport and storage of CO2 in the ocean – an inorganic ocean-circulation carbon cycle model, Climate Dynamics 2(2):63–90; 1987. DOI: 10.1007/BF01054491
  41. Siegenthaler, U. and Joos, F.: Use of a simple model for studying oceanic tracer distributions and the global carbon cycle. Tellus, 44B, 186-207; 1992. CrossRef
  42. Joos, F., R. Roth, Fuglestvedt, J. S., Peters, G. P., Enting, I. G., von Bloh, et al.: Carbon dioxide and climate impulse response functions for the computation of greenhouse gas metrics: a multi-model analysis. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 13(5), doi: 10.5194/acpd-12-19799-2012. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 13, 2793-2825; 2013. CrossRef CrossRef
  43. Gruber, N., D. Clement, B. Carter, R. Feely, S. van Heuven, M. Hoppema, M. Ishii, R. Key, A. Kozyr, S. Lauvset, C. Lo Monaco, J. Mathis, A. Murata, A. Olsen, F. Perez, C. Sabine, T. Tanhua, R. Wanninkhof. 2019. The oceanic sink for anthropogenic CO2 from 1994 to 2007. Science, 15. March 2019, (363) pg. 1193. https://www.sciencemagazinedigital.org/sciencemagazine/15_march_2019_Main/MobilePagedArticle.action?articleId=1472451#articleId1472451
  44. Boden, T., B. Andres. 2017. Global CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel burning, cement manufacture, and gas flaring: 1751-2014. CrossRef
  45. Joos, F. 2002. Parameters for tuning a simple carbon cycle model.CrossRef
  46. 46. Kuo, C., C. Lindberg, D. Thomson. 1990. Coherence established between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature. Nature 343, 709–714 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1038/343709a0 https://www.nature.com/articles/343709a0
  47. MacRae, A. 2008. Carbon dioxide is not the primary cause of global warming, the future cannot cause the past. http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2vsTMacRae.pdf Excel: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2vsTMacRaeFig5b.xls

205 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?

  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.

    1. Michael Beattie

      Worst bushfire in Australia in terms of area of land burnt was 1974/75. Very severe bushfires occurred in 1851 & 1939. This predates large increases in CO2 levels. Intensity and severity of bushfires are dependent of fuel loads present. White settlement disrupted Aboriginal practices of frequent burning of the land to reduce undergrowth (and fuel loads) resulting in devastating fires. Current “Green” philosophy of protecting nature and locking up natural areas of bushland to be untouched has again resulted in dramatic increases in fuel loads and hence more devastating fires. 2019 was also a year of very low rainfall. Blaming Australia’s bushfires on Climate Change is Alarmist nonsense. CO2 fertilisation in all probability has little to do with the problem. Lack of responsible land and forestry management is the major cause for devastating bushfires in Australia

  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 ?

        2. Dear Massimo,
          The Physics model allows independent calculations of the natural and human carbon cycles. Therefore, the 32 ppm is the total contribution of human carbon to the atmosphere. This includes all the recycling of human carbon between the reservoirs.

          Also, human carbon emissions through 2019 have added about one percent to the total carbon in the carbon cycle. Meanwhile, nature has added about 3 percent to the carbon in the carbon cycle because of the carbon release due to warming since the Little Ice Age.

  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. Yes Stephen – and Murry Salby is my friend.

          But I wrote my relevant paper in January 2008.
          http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2vsTMacRae.pdf

          That was 3+ years before Salby’s first presentation – I think to the Sydney Institute in August 2011.
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrI03ts–9I&feature=youtu.be

          Salby, Berry and Harde have developed the hypo that increasing atmospheric CO2 is not primarily humanmade, but is natural. That is a rational outcome of the observed lag of CO2 after temperature.

          I have written that increasing CO2 is partly humanmade and partly natural but have not attempted to quantify the components as these fine gentlemen have done. I struggled with the data provided by Ernst Beck and still feel that he was badly treated by those who just KNEW that CO2 was the primary driver of temperature – pseudo-religious nonsense in my opinion (“imo”).

          I have pondered this important scientific question since early 2008 and am still agnostic – I can’t seem to find the time to study it properly.

          One reason is because I don’t need it to falsify the CAGW hypothesis – because climate sensitivity to increasing atmospheric CO2 is so low that there can be NO catastrophic global warming, regardless of increasing atmospheric CO2. The upper bound of climate sensitivity to CO2 is ~1C/(2xCO2), but the real number is probably near-zero or even non-existent, imo.

          Regards, 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.

  62. Nice Job Dr Berry. I have read your revised Preprint #2. While the first comment of the reviewers seems very difficult to be supported, I expect that they will make a strong battle on the second one (e-time constant, and relatively short, is something Bern model advocates do not digest). I have seen that you intend to expand on this topic, and I think this is good. Any other reviewers comments (good or bad…) ?

  63. Ed,
    I pointed out several issues with your analysis on this site some months ago, but I always had an uneasy feeling about the C14 plots, not only in your paper but also in Harde’s. They seemed to verify your argument that carbon put into the atmosphere by whatever process would exponentially disappear into one of the sinks, with a time constant of about 15 years, and would then stay put. On Sunday I dug out Turnbull, your reference 34, and tried to figure put what “delta14C”, the vertical axis on the key plots, means. Neither you nor Turnbull nor Harde define it, but Harde’s analysis explicitly make clear that he takes it as the excess concentration of C14 from bomb tests, over and above that produced by cosmic rays, and your comments indicate that is your interpretation as well. That interpretation is wrong. A little research shows that isotope specialists use it as a measure of the deviation of the C14/C12 isotope ratio from a standard value

    delta14C(per mil)=1000{[(C14/C12)(measured)]/[(C14/C12)(standard)]-1}

    [sorry I can’t use subscripts and superscripts here to make this formula more readable]

    As this quantity approaches zero, as it appears to be doing, it means that the isotope ratio is approaching the old, standard value that preceded the bomb testing. But that does NOT mean the C14 concentration in the atmosphere is returning to its old, pre-bomb-testing value, as you and Harde both erroneously conclude. You must multiply the isotope ratio by the quantity in the denominator to get the quantity of C14. Since total carbon in the atmosphere is up about 30% since 1950, then the quantity of C14 is also up by about 30% from its 1950 value. The bomb tests raised the quantity about 60%. We must conclude that as much as half of the bomb C14 is still in the atmosphere. If you worked out the true time dependence of the C14 concentration using the correct definition of “delta14C”, and the Mauna Loa data, you would get a curve at least roughly similar to, and maybe identical to, the Bern model that you disparage.
    Of course the CO2 increase in the atmosphere is the result of human activity.

    Dave Andrews

    1. Dave
      See page 142 of Harde 2019 for a chart of the measured data on reduction of C14 perturbation vs Bern model. It does not purport to be a plot of C14 percent in the atmosphere. If C14 is approaching the prepurturbation level I would conclude that the C14 in the atmosphere now is nearly all natural. Sure, more CO2 means more C14 but not that the extra above the early ratio is left from the bomb.

      1. DMA
        Harde’s (and Berry’s) misinterpretation of the C14 data led them to believe that carbon in the atmosphere is absorbed by the land and sea sinks with a time constant of ~15 years and held there indefinitely. This honest error was the basis of their wrong conclusion that human produced CO2 is similarly sequestered in the land and sea sinks indefinitely, and that the absorption could be described by a simple one-time-constant process.
        All C14 originates in the atmosphere, whether from cosmic ray interactions with nitrogen, or from atmospheric nuclear testing. Indeed it does flow back and forth between the atmosphere and the land and sea sinks, like carbon in the atmosphere from other sources. But when “delta C14” is correctly interpreted as the C14/C12 ratio, and not as the amount of C14, accounting for the amount of C14 in the atmosphere cannot be done with the sort of simple one time constant models that Harde and Berry make. If you want to argue that the measured increase in atmospheric C14 from 1950 to the present, is from oceanic outgassing or something, when you know that that C14 was in the atmosphere in the past ~6000 years (the C14 lifetime) then how can you avoid concluding that carbon which humans produce is similarly not safely gone forever?

        1. Dear Dave,

          You make a good point. Indeed, ratios do not “flow”. Only quantities flow. The only way to resolve how 14C flows through the reservoirs may be with a 14C carbon cycle model.

          Until that happens, we have an approximation of how 14C would move out of the atmosphere in Figures 12 and 17. Both represent how a pulse of 12C would flow out of the atmosphere according to this carbon cycle model that uses IPCC data to calculate e-times. And, we can see that neither Figure shows a constant e-time. The e-time appears to increase as the level approaches its balance level. That is the effect of carbon recycling back into the atmosphere. As you note, my previous paper does not account for this recycling.

          So, to make further progress on this subject, I think we need data on other sources of 14C inflows into the atmosphere. Something, so far unexplained, is happening that has caused the 14C ratio to decay with a constant e-time. Maybe it is the fact, as you noted, that this is a ratio and not a level.

          Thank you for your comment.

        2. Ed,
          I too have been puzzled that the C14/C12 ratio appears to be approaching its pre-bomb-test value. If you put in values for the total C14 from bomb testing (1.3t per Wikipedia) and the total (C14 free) fossil fuel carbon emissions since 1950 (I estimate 660 Gt from various sources), you get a C14/C12 ratio for the “new “ carbon put in circulation since 1950 that is about 2x the 1950 value. Yet the observed ratio came almost all the way back to its original value. The resolution seems to be that atmospheric carbon is less than 2% of the total carbon in circulation between land, sea and air. So as new and old (pre1950) carbon get mixed, the old carbon dominates, and the isotope ratio in the atmosphere eventually changes very little. Exactly what dynamic or balance sets the CO2 level in the atmosphere, after all the important question, remains unclear to me. But I am certain that the system is too complex to be modeled by single time constant flows. And the injection of 660 Gt of carbon from human activity into the system must have something to do with the observed rise in atmospheric carbon, even though it is but a small part of the total in circulation.

        3. I recently read a paper discussing the bomb C14 deposited in the deep ocean trenches measured in the sediments. That author stated that there is a massive biological flux of dead phytoplankton that absorbed CO2 from the ocean surface that he did not think the IPCC included in their carbon cycle estimates. I have not had time to check on his claim but assume it could be part of the decay you are concerned about.

  64. David Andrews

    Dr Ed,
    Thank you for acknowledging your error in interpreting the quantity “delta C14” in your Figure 2. It represents the C14/C12 isotope ratio rather than a quantity of C14 as you had assumed. Therefore its return to its pre 1950 value, while C12 has gone up by about 30%. means that much of the C14 put into the atmosphere by bomb tests over 60 years ago remains in circulation between the atmosphere and land or sea sinks. It does NOT get permanently removed with a 15-16 year time constant. We infer from this that CO2 put into the atmosphere by fossil fuel burning similarly remains in the atmosphere for much longer than you had estimated, and that the back and forth exchange with land and sea sinks cannot be described by a model using single time constants. We can conclude that CO2 emissions from human activity are very much responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2.
    Scientists make mistakes. Hermann Harde made the same mistake you did in interpreting how the C14 data were presented by those who did the measurements. (In defense of both of you, the paper you both cited did not explicitly define “delta C14”, because evidently it was standard terminology in the carbon 14 business, which none of us are in.) But science advances because the process of science is self-correcting. When mistakes are found, wrong conclusions are retracted. Please be part of the process of advancing science by making a prominent retraction of your conclusions about human responsibility for atmospheric CO2.

    1. Dear Dave,

      Thank you very much for your contribution to this discussion. In science, we win some and we lose some. We can never win them all. In fact, we learn the most when we have to acknowledge an error.

      (Hey, in my competitive sailboat racing past, I did not win every race. No one does. But, I ended up winning the US National, the North American, and the 1974 Canadian Olympic Regatta which was the effective World Championship.)

      At the moment, I am tied up doing my income tax data for my accountant and I am upgrading my accounting software to Quickbooks Online. So, outside forces prevent me from immediately making a longer reply to your comment.

      Here is where I think this is going. First, we have to learn more about what the 14C data that I use really represents. We will have to identify the best known or estimates of other sources of 14C inflow. Then, I plan to run a 14C carbon cycle model using the same formulation I describe in this post. I think this is a necessary step in understanding how 14C itself has changed since 1970.

      In addition, while your comments on 14C are very important to this subject, the loss of fitting the 14C data does not invalidate my Physics model or my related carbon cycle model. It merely removes one check point that supported the Physics model.

      The carbon cycle model I describe in this post stands on its own. It is the only carbon cycle model I know of that exactly fits the IPCC natural carbon cycle data.

      Also, I now have significant updates to the derivation of this carbon cycle model that I have not had time to post. So, hang tight until I have time to provide a lot more information on this subject.

      Thanks again, Ed

    2. Between 1964 and 1984, amplified Delta C14 that was measured
      at Vermunt Austria decreased by almost 80%.
      During the same period, CO2 increased by 7%.

      You’re dreaming.

      1. Dear Dave and Ian,

        Do we agree that we can calculate the concentration of 14C as follows?

        14C = D14C * 12C

        If so, then I will run this calculation because I already have the data for D14C and 12C. I should be able to run this and post the result here by tomorrow.

        1. David Andrews

          Ed,
          Since D14 is the deviation of the isotope ratio from a standard value, that formula will give you the excess C14 over the (presumed constant) cosmic ray produced amount, not the total amount. I believe that you will find that this excess cannot be fit by a single time constant exponential. Harde gave an argument that the process had to be represented by a single time constant, but his argument hinged on the wrong assumption that the flow between atmosphere and (sea plus land) was one way. It is not. I am about to send some carbon that vegetation has removed from the atmosphere, back into the atmosphere by burning some slash on my property.
          Dave

        2. Dear Dave,

          Good point about the “standard value.” Since the standard value is 1000 points above the actual ratio (the way I read the references on 14C) then the formula should be:

          14C = (D14C + 1000) * 12C

          since the definition of D14C is:

          D14C = (14C / 12C) – 1000

  65. David Andrews

    Ed,
    No that’s not right.
    Let Rm be the ratio of C14 to C12 in some sample
    Let Rs be the “modern carbon standard” ratio. I have not been able to find an exact value for this; it is somewhere around a part per trillion. It gets complicated because of fractionation. Think of it as what you would have measured for atmospheric carbon in 1950, before the bomb tests. Then by definition
    delta C14 = ( Rm/Rs-1)* 1000
    The 1000 is there just to express the usual numerical value more conveniently in “parts per thousand” rather than as a small number with a couple of zeros after the decimal point. So for example if
    Rm=Rs then delta C14 is 0 but if
    Rm=1.1*Rs, then delta C14 =100 parts per thousand

    Dave

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.