Below are the first two sections of the Introduction to my definitive paper on why IPCC’s core hypothesis is invalid. All the math and physics are done, but I am expanding the Introduction because too many people with PhD degrees still get confused. They don’t understand the basics of science because they have little or no background in the philosophy of science and logic. But this is really simple stuff that we can teach to high school kids. – Ed
by Ed Berry, PhD, Atmospheric Physics, CCM
1.1 IPCC’s claims are based on invalid hypothesis
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)  bases all its climate claims on its core hypothesis. This hypothesis has three parts:
- Natural carbon emissions remained constant after 1750.
- Natural carbon emissions support a CO2 level of 280 ppm.
- Human carbon emissions caused all the CO2 increase above 280 ppm.
IPCC claims its core hypothesis is true and concludes without scientific validation:
“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 truth is IPCC’s “high level of confidence” vanishes because it assumes incorrectly that IPCC’s core hypothesis is true.
1.2 What this paper does
Simple observation of IPCC’s report  shows IPCC’s human carbon cycle does not agree with its natural carbon cycle. IPCC’s own Figure 6.1 shows something is wrong with IPCC’s human carbon cycle.
To test the above observation, this paper derives a “Physics” carbon cycle model that uses only one simple hypothesis:
Outflow equals level divided by response time, herein called e-time.
This hypothesis is used in many scientific and engineering models. Even IPCC uses this hypothesis in several places. It is the simplest possible hypothesis for carbon cycle models.
This simple hypothesis is compatible with all applicable physical and chemical laws. This simple hypothesis shows it is possible and preferable to calculate the natural and human carbon cycles separately. The results of the separate calculations can be added together to produce the total carbon cycle.
IPCC’s carbon cycle model has four key reservoirs: land, atmosphere, surface ocean, and deep ocean. IPCC’s data show carbon levels for each reservoir and the flows between the reservoirs for both natural and human carbon cycles. IPCC’s data for its natural carbon cycle is not perfect but it may be the best data we have. IPCC says its natural carbon cycle data is good to about 20 percent accuracy.
This paper calculates the six e-times for IPCC’s natural carbon cycle data by simply dividing levels by their outflows. Why six? Because the atmosphere and surface ocean have two outflows while the land and deep ocean have only one. With these six e-times, the Physics carbon cycle model is complete, and it exactly replicates IPCC’s data for its natural carbon cycle.
Then this paper calculates the human carbon cycle model. This model begins with all reservoirs empty and inserts IPCC’s data for annual human carbon emissions into the atmosphere. In each model year, the Physics model lets human carbon flow between the reservoirs according the e-times defined by IPCC’s natural carbon cycle.
This simple calculation shows the “true” human carbon cycle because it requires human carbon to obey the same physical rules as IPCC’s natural carbon cycle. However, this “true” human carbon cycle differs significantly from IPCC’s claimed human carbon cycle.
The fact that IPCC’s human carbon cycle is significantly different from the true human carbon cycle – that corresponds to IPCC’s natural carbon cycle – proves IPCC’s human carbon cycle is invalid. IPCC treats human and natural carbon differently, which is unphysical.
Inspection of IPCC’s data shows IPCC did NOT derive its human carbon cycle from its data for the natural carbon cycle or from any data at all. IPCC forced its human carbon cycle to match its core hypothesis without any consideration of IPCC’s natural carbon cycle data.
Therefore, IPCC’s human carbon cycle has no basis in science. Put politely, IPCC’s human carbon cycle is a fraud.
This conclusion is independent of whether IPCC’s natural carbon cycle or the Physics natural carbon cycle properly represent the unknown true natural carbon cycle. All models are approximations to reality.
All that matters here is that the Physics model properly represents IPCC’s natural carbon cycle. Therefore, the Physics model properly calculates IPCC’s true human carbon cycle. This is sufficient to prove IPCC’s human carbon cycle is a fraud and that IPCC’s core hypothesis is false.
All three parts of IPCC’s core hypothesis listed in Section 1.1 are false. There is no other testable hypothesis to replace IPCC’s failed core hypothesis.
The political implications of IPCC’s scientific fraud are significant. IPCC told the world that its human carbon cycle was valid. IPCC’s fraud negates all its claims about human-caused climate change. IPCC’s fraud negates all IPCC’s so-called scientific papers that incorrectly assume IPCC’s core hypothesis is true. All such “scientific” papers are wrong.
Henceforth, no true scientist can claim or assume that natural carbon emissions stayed constant after 1750 and human carbon emissions caused all the increase in atmospheric CO2 above 280 ppm.
- IPCC. 2013. Carbon and other biogeochemical cycles. Fig. 6.1, p 471. CrossRef