More people sign up to support climate truth

by Ed Berry, Ph.D., Physics

Visitor statistics for the past 3 months show about 1000 people visit each day. [Note: In January 2020, the number off visitors per day is about 2000.] The number of subscribers to my email list continues to grow very fast.

My paper is submitted.

Yesterday, I submitted my preprint to a professional scientific journal. I retitled it to “Human CO2 has small effect on atmospheric CO2.

I added some neat new stuff about the Bern model and “residence” times that will be new to you.

No, I won’t say which journal because I am wary of the power of the climate-religion elite to block papers they don’t like as they did for Hermann Harde’s reply to a comment on his paper.

Here is my paper’s Abstract

A simple physics model makes only one assumption: outflow is proportional to the level (or concentration) of CO2 in the atmosphere. This model replicates the decay of 14CO2 after 1970 using a constant e-time of 16.5 years. This replication has significant theoretical consequences.

Human and natural CO2 inflows set independent balance levels in proportion to their inflows. The total balance level is the sum of the human and natural balance levels. The level moves to its total balance level until outflow equals inflow. Then the level remains constant if inflow remains constant.

Continued, constant human emissions do not add more CO2 to the atmosphere. Neither human nor natural CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere.

Human CO2 has not caused all the increase in atmospheric CO2 since 1750, or above 280 ppm. Present human CO2 adds only 18 ppm to the balance level. Natural CO2 adds 392 ppm.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) model cannot reproduce the decay of 14CO2 after 1970. Therefore, the IPCC model is wrong. IPCC assumes human CO2 reduced the buffer capacity of the carbonate system. However, the 14C data show e-time is constant, which means the buffer capacity has not changed.

Here’s a 200-word letter I sent to several Montana newspapers on January 15, 2019:

The real solution to climate change

Those who work hard to address climate change do so because they sincerely believe (1) Our CO2 emissions cause the increase in CO2; (2) More CO2 warms the planet; (3) If the planet warms, bad stuff will happen.

I just returned from presenting a scientific paper at the Annual Meeting of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) in Phoenix, Arizona, on January 8. My paper focused on the first point. It shows our CO2 emissions have so little effect on atmospheric CO2 that our CO2 emissions cannot possibly cause climate change.

About 80 percent of the reviewing scientists agreed with my paper. Ten percent said they would think about it. No one rejected my paper. In addition, many climate scientists worldwide support my paper.

Most of all, the physics in my paper is so simple that high-school students can understand it. It should be taught in all our schools. The real solution to climate change is better education.

So, if you are serious about the science behind your efforts to save the planet and want to learn some simple physics, email me at I will be happy to talk to your group.

Ed Berry, Ph.D., Physics, AMS Certified Consulting Meteorologist

The results of my letter

Only the Missoulian printed my letter. Many people emailed me that they want to learn more and possibly have a meeting in Missoula.


My preprint paper is finally done and submitted to a scientific journal for review and publication. I thank all those whose comments helped me improve my preprint.

In the next month, I will improve my public presentation and complete my climate book for the public.

10 thoughts on “More people sign up to support climate truth”

  1. ‘A simple physics model’: Interestingly this (kinetic) model is not only applicable to climatology but also to other fields such as pharmacokinetics where its validity has been tested hundreds of times.
    And indeed, if e-time is constant, this means not the same amount but the same fraction of the athmospheric CO2 is reabsorbed per unit of time. As a result only a temporary accumulation occurs when the inflow increases, until a new equilibrium is reached (99% of the new equilibrium is reached after 7 times the elimination half-life of CO2 in the athmosphere).
    As a non-climatologist I conclude that this paper at least argues in favour of more investigation in the role of natural causes of climate change rather than to focus on CO2 alone.
    Thank you Edwin Berry for your scientific contribution to the criticism of CO2-based climate alarmism.

  2. Jacques-Marie Moranne

    I don’t completely agree with your reasoning : the fact that human CO2 represents only 5 to 6% of the total exchange rate (which I agree upon) does not proove that man is only responsible for those 5 to 6% in the 400+ ppm concentration (which I would like to agree upon).
    … all the more I have no other explanation : ocean temperature increase cannot explain this 100+ ppm increase in atmospheric concentration, but just a few ppms (less than 10).
    … all the more vegetation absorbs more and more.

    1. Dear JACQUES-MARIE,

      Please see my preprint, Section 2.2 for an explanation of how the confirmation of the Physics Model by the 14C data, proves the ratio of human to natural CO2 in the atmosphere equals the ratio of their inflows.

      Please see Appendix C for an explanation of how temperature can make a larger change in atmospheric CO2 than a simple calculation using Henry’s Law.

      1. Jacques-Marie Moranne

        Again, I agree with you upon your assertion (and the fact that IPCC is wrong) ; but it only proves that human CO2 is replaced, in the atmosphere, by natural CO2, mostly from the Oceans considered as an infinite natural CO2 stock.
        This replaced human CO2 does not disappear : it is only replaced
        If you add this remaining atmospheric human CO2 + the human CO2 replaced by natural oceanic CO2, this can justify a part of this 300 to 400 ppm increase.
        … and I don’t feel very comfortable with that.

        BTW, I would be very interested by the Harde article (your Appendix C) : do you have a copy ?

        1. Dear JACQUES-MARIE,
          Nothing “proves that human CO2 is replaced.” Let’s go back to simple physics that I describe in Section 2.1 and elsewhere in my preprint. Inflow and outflow are two different, independent processes. The 14C data prove outflow equals level divided by e-time.

          The physics equations apply independently to both human and natural CO2. They show the inflow of human CO2 increases the human CO2 balance level by about 18 ppm. That increase in level makes the outflow of human-produced CO2 equal to the present inflow of human CO2.

          Similarly, natural CO2 inflow increases the level by about 392 ppm. This increase in level makes the outflow of natural CO2 equal to its inflow.

          There is no such thing as “replaced.” No one can measure it. It makes no prediction that can be tested. The concept is irrelevant to the physics that describes how outflow always balances inflow of CO2 into the atmosphere.

          The links to Harde’s two paper are found in References [21] and [22] of my preprint.

  3. Jacques-Marie Moranne

    When you input 85% natural CO2 + 15% human CO2, when equilibrium is reached, the output is necessarily a mix of 85% natural + 15% human CO2 (i.e. 15 ppm human vs 85 ppm natural (roughly)), as well as in the atmospheric content : this proves nothing : it is simple maths ; it just enables the calculation of the quantity (in GtC) corresponding to the 85% natural, since the human 15% are well known in quantity (e.g. from BP stats). At this stage, I completely agree with you.

    But the global CO2 amount in the atmosphere is increasing, so, 15% represents more and more (global thus also human) CO2 in quantity in the atmosphere.

    As far as I understand, Harde 2017 (that I finally could read) tells that this amount increase is due to a residence time increase (which in fact tells us that the 14C decay rate is actually not constant) : I am ready to admit : it is also simple maths.

    But Harde also assumes that this residence time increase is due to temperature (1.1 year/°C), which, to my opinion is just an assumption : Harde does not give any good physical explanation … which is what I miss : I am turning around.


      The difference between the Physics Model and the IPCC Bern model is in their predictions. The Physics Model predicts that the ratio of human and natural CO2 in the atmosphere equals the ratio of their inflows, independent of e-time. This is, of course, a common sense result.

      But the IPCC Bern model assumes that natural CO2 inflow remained exactly the same as it was in 1750 and all the increase in atmospheric CO2 since 1750 was caused by human CO2. So, how do we tell which model is correct?

      Common sense is one way. The other way is to see if the models can replicate the 14C data after 1970. This test confirms the Physics Model and rejects the IPCC Bern model. Yet the whole politics of climate change is based totally on the IPCC Bern model that the 14C data prove is invalid.

      So, as the level of CO2 increases, how do we know how much of the increase is caused by changes in human and natural inflows? We can measure the changes in the inflow of human CO2 from available energy data. This lets us account for the effect of changing human CO2 emissions. Then we must estimate the necessary increase in natural inflow to account for the difference needed to produce the measured increase in atmospheric CO2 under the condition that the ratio in the atmosphere equals the ratio of the inflows.

      Regarding Harde’s suggested increase in residence time, the 14C data show the e-time has not increased since 1970. Therefore, the e-time has not likely increased from 1750 to 1970. I use e-time because, as my paper shows, the IPCC definition of residence time is invalid.

      So, what do we learn from the temperature versus CO2 data in Harde’s paper? We learn that temperature change can increase the level of CO2 much more than we would calculate from Henry’s Law alone. We also learn that there is a long time delay from temperature change to changes in CO2 level. So, the increase in CO2 that we measure today can be the result of the earth coming out of the little ice age.


          Section 2.1 of my preprint includes a physical explanation. If you have a better idea, please tell me. Here is the quote from my preprint:

          The level of CO2 in the atmosphere behaves like the level of water in a lake where water flows into the lake and then out over a dam. Inflow sets the balance level. The lake level changes until the level equals its balance level. Then outflow equals inflow. No water “accumulates” in the lake.

          The level of CO2 in the atmosphere also behaves like water in a bucket where water flows into the bucket and flows out through a hole in the bottom. As the level increases, outflow increases. When outflow equals inflow, the level remains constant. No water “accumulates” in the bucket.

          The bucket analogy provides insight into e-time. If the hole in the bucket gets smaller, e-time increases. If the hole in the bucket gets larger, e-time decreases.

        2. Jacques-Marie Moranne

          Dear Dr Ed,

          I have no problem with what you say : I confirm that I agree : that’s maths.

          My question is : why and how the CO2 atmospheric concentration increases so much, while it is (should be) in equilibrium between vegetation (which consumes more and more of it (greening planet)) and the ocean (whose temperature increase cannot justify such an atmospheric concentration).

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.