# Preprint #3: Data prove nature caused most CO2 increase since 1750

Download Excel Data and Calculations

#### Here are some comments by scientists:

Ed’s 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 scientists] including myself all failed to make.” – Dr. Richard Courtney

“A proper model must address all CO2 in the atmosphere at once, without discrimination. You do that magnificently from first principles.” – Dr. Gordon Fulks

“Ed does not make mathematical mistakes in solving his rate equations.” – Dr. William Happer

“Dear Ed, Congratulations – a wonderful piece of work.” – Dr. Nils-Axel Morner

#### Author:

Edwin X Berry

- Ed Berry, PhD, Atmospheric Physics, CCM
- Climate Physics, LLC
- 439 Grand Dr #147
- Bigfork, Montana 59911, USA

**The author retains sole right to publish the contents of the preprint.**

Copyright © 2020 by Edwin X Berry, Ph.D.

This Preprint derives a complete carbon cycle model based upon the Physics model that I described in my Preprints #1 and #2.

This derivation is fundamental to all climate research. Yet, the USA government and the IPCC spent hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars on their climate research without ever properly deriving a true carbon cycle model.

This Preprint proves the IPCC core hypothesis – that human emissions have caused all the CO2 rise above 280 ppm – is wrong. As a result, ALL climate publications that claim or assume the IPCC core hypothesis is true, are wrong. The claimed “97 percent support” for the alarmist climate agenda disappears.

The political implications of IPCC’s scientific fraud are significant. IPCC told the world its human carbon cycle was valid. The world trusted IPCC and changed the world economy. The world proposed climate treaties based upon IPCC’s fraud.

Media and government promote the fraud. Schools and universities promote the fraud. Social media “fact checking” promote the fraud. Government funds research that promotes the fraud. Non-profit corporations promote the fraud.

It is time to promote climate truth.

READING NOTE:To make your reading easier, this post uses a PDF editor. Now, you can easily page down, select full screen, and reduce zoom.Quantum Activist, Amit Gotswami, in the everything Answer Book, nails the limits of classical Newtonian physics manifested by the Science of Governance.

Limits of Growth, Supremacy, Nuclear Winter, Peak Oil hoax, the Mickey Mouse IPCC Climate Science Models, Green New Deal Brown-energy and Pandemic Lockdowns are last remnants of Medieval to Classical Science of Governance.

The Genesis of Deep Ecologists Paul Ehrlich and Mechanical Engineer Stephen Schneider’s Single-Parameter CO2 Global Warming Model in 1972 was astrophysicists acceptance of the Malinkovitch Theory, the End of the Modern Interglacial and geological record of Mass Extinctions.

The 1973 Arab Oil Embargo was a Black Swan that threatened the US Petrodollar and International Monetary System.

The Arab League’s Oil Producing States had organized plans to create the first Arab hard currency before the West unified in the First Iraq Gulf War.

Cheap-Fossil Energy remained the primary threat to the Limits of Growth and New World Order.

Sen. Tim Wirth’s Subcommittee was first to hold Government Science Hearings on Global Warming, but only after V.P. Al Gore had reorganized and reset priority of key Federal Agencies.

Sen. Wirth resigned to lead the $1 Billion Ted Turner UN Foundation, one-third was dedicated to UN IPCC Lobbying over ten years.

The UN IPPC is a Science Governance Lobby where Stephen Schneider was the UN IPPC Director of Modeling until death in 2010.

New York City, London and EU Bankers and Financiers members are vested in selling hundreds of Trillions in Bonds to Sovereign Wealth Funds for the Mining and Manufacture of Infrastructure on the obsolete Renewables Tech.

The Greatest Ponzi Scheme the World has seen since the Dutch Tulip Bulbs.

Thank you for this effort. It is clear, reasonable, and soundly based. I look forward to your suggestions to “show you what we can do to restore truth to climate science”.

The material balance is always fulfilled for the system:

Inlets + Produced = Outlets + Accumulated

For the atmosphere there are CO2 inlets mainly natural (land and oceans) and anthropogenic (from fossil fuel combustion, industrial production and land use), so that:

Inlets = Nature_in + Anthrop_in

Produced = 0 (CH4 & CO concentration is ~0)

Outlets = Nature_out + Anthrop_out

Anthrop_out = 0 ppm.

Resulting in:

Nature_in + Anthrop_in = Nature_out+ Accumulated

Giving:

Nature_out – Nature_in = Anthrop_in – Accumulated

The right hand part of the equation is bigger than zero due to that the two terms are well known from e.g. atmospheric analysis (Mauna Loa site) and CO2 emission statistics.

Then the left hand part of the equation also is bigger than zero, i.e. atmosphere’s CO2 flow is net to the nature.

Even if the nature’s flow into the atmosphere is very big and not fully known, the flow out from the atmosphere, into the nature is bigger.

Kind regards

Anders Rasmusson

Dear Anders,

Thank you for your comment. I believe my derivation of the Physics model in Section 3.1 is more accurate and complete than what you present in your comment.

This balance argument is well known. It rests on circular reasoning: By assuming that the natural balance of input and output does not change, the net growth of CO2 must be due to the additional input from humans, which upsets the balance.

The fallacy has been undressed by Professor Salby. He shows from observed changes that the additional human input of CO2 is mostly cancelled by additional removal of CO2 that it causes. The net growth of CO2 therefore follows from changes in the natural balance, changes which this argument ignores.

https://youtu.be/b1cGqL9y548?t=27m42s

Dr Berry,

When will a print copy be available? I like to keep your preprints on my nightstand.

Hi. I am not a scientist, but find this article very interesting. When discussing with other people in climate related discussion forums it often comes out that the arguments against any article comes based on the journal it has been published in. So why is this not published in better journals then? Or what does it tell if the paper has not been good enough to be accepted in other journals?

Dear Pertti,

I have not yet submitted Preprint #3 to a journal. I am still improving it and readers, like DMA, still find some of my composition errors.

However, this Preprint #3 already has been reviewed extensively by top climate scientists. They approve it. No one has found a fundamental scientific error in Preprint #3. All climate alarmists have had the opportunity to challenge Preprint #3 but no opposing scientists has reported any error. So, it is fair to say that this Preprint #3 is as reliable as any peer-reviewed climate paper in any journal.

The field of climate science has become so politicalized that peer review means little. It amounts to pal review. If the reviewers for a journal are too stupid to understand why the IPCC core theory is wrong, then they will approve papers that support the theory and reject papers that prove the theory is wrong. That is not how science is supposed to work but that is how it works today in climate science.

In science, the message is important, the messenger is not. Many alarmists attack me, the messenger, but such attacks have no bearing on the truth of what Preprint #3 contains. You may wish to read my recent post https://edberry.com/blog/climate/climate-physics/you-are-not-causing-global-warming/ because it explains the results of Preprint #3 in simpler language.

Preprint #3 is not just one more general paper. Preprint #3 PROVES the UN IPCC human carbon cycle is a fraud. That simultaneously proves all IPCC peer-reviewed scientific publications that claim or assume IPCC’s core theory is true, are wrong. That shows how reliable peer-reviewed publication are. They will collapse as soon as someone finds an error in their logic, as Preprint #3 has done.

Thanks for the reply.

Dr. Ed

The last sentence in the abstract says “IPCC’s “real” human carbon cycle shows there is no climate emergency”

I’m being a bit picky but really your paper only shows there is no human caused emergency. There are lots of reasons not to accept the proclamation of “climate emergency” which is postulated on a human cause which implies a human solution but is based on the rising CO2 being dangerous. however,the point of your work and all the others that support yours is that humans aren’t causing CO2 to rise enough to make any difference so we cannot stop the rise.

Dear DMA,

Thank you for that catch. I forgot to add “human-caused” to that sentence in my Abstract. Now I have.

Hey Ed, we spoke over email earlier and I am commenting now after reading. I was just wondering why would these organisations lie? What would they gain from spreading miss information? And why do so many of them agree that we’re in the sixth mass extinction.

I’m really scared for my future and my family. I appreciate your efforts

Thank you

Elan

“And why do so many of them agree that we’re in the sixth mass extinction”.

Hi Elan, I looked into that. Greta Thunberg says 73,000 extinctions per year (200/day) and would like to answer that. The list provides some historical context. The real number of known extinctions is 1.7 per year (IUCN) and none from climate change, instead the crush of humanity. Due to 150 extra new people on earth each minute, hunting, expanding farmlands, new dams for power, pollution, pesticides etc.

From all I’ve been able to gather, it seems like the wild numbers boil down to flawed models that made blanket assumptions about fossil records, number of existing species, Amazon (and other) destruction applying worldwide and the like, all the while keeping their work hidden (I haven’t been able to find one of their formulas laid out clearly including their inputs, if anyone can, please let me know), plus the deliberate desire to motivate the public using large lies to short-circuit the reasoning portion of the brain, engaging fear.

Scientists Fangliang He and Stephen Hubbell wrote a model, and even they, later, realized there were flaws: “No proven direct methods or reliable data exist for verifying extinctions,” they noted in a paper published to the journal Nature in 2011.

“Hubbell’s point is that if you increase a habitat by, say, five hectares, and your calculations show that you expect there to be five new species in those five hectares, it is wrong to assume that reversing the model, and shrinking your habitat, eliminates five species.” –BBC

In the attempt to find a scientific paper backing the 200 per day claim, these are the bread crumbs. Earliest “200” is 1995:

2020, Greta Thunberg, Full Speech | Extinction Rebellion, https://youtu.be/hb4EVVuoggQ?t=200

… “about 200 species going extinct every single day” (73,000 per year)

2009, IUCN, https://portals.iucn.org/library/efiles/documents/RL-2009-001.pdf

… “There are 869 recorded extinctions” … “since the year 1500”

… That’s 1.7 extinct species per YEAR.

2004, UN Environment Programme, TUNZA for YOUTH, https://web.archive.org/web/20040724185618/https://www.unep.org/tunza/youth/What_you_always_wanted_to_know/State_of_%20Environment/biodiversity/key-facts_biodiversity.asp

… “It is estimated that between 150 and 200 species become extinct every day”

… No citation or reference. Page removed in 2009.

1997, Encyclopedia of World Problems & Human Potential, Decreasing diversity of biological species, http://encyclopedia.uia.org/en/problem/142901

… “150 to 200 species”

… “World Bank and Worldwatch Institute, and reported to the Rio+5 conference in 1997, estimated 150 to 200 species of life become extinct every 24 hours”

1997, J. John Sepkoski Jr., Biodiversity: Past Present and Future, https://www.jstor.org/stable/1306574

… “range to 150 species etinctions per day (Ehrlich and Wilson, 1991)” [extinctions typo in paper],

… although Sepkoski adds “[total species] figure is misleading, however, because no official list of described species exists”

1995, Adam Rogers of United Nations, [Book] Taking action: An environmental guide for you and your community, https://books.google.com.sl/books?id=0QZOu-u9HHgC&printsec=frontcover

… “every 24 hours, an estimated 150 to 200 species of life become extinct” (in the preface)

… No citation or reference to any scientific paper.

1991, Paul R. Ehrlich and Edward O. Wilson, Biodiversity Studies: Science and Policy, https://faculty.lsu.edu/kharms/files/ehrlich_wilson_1991.pdf

… no mention of extinctions per day as Sepkoski said.

1989, WV Reid and K Miller, Keeping options alive: the scientific basis for conserving biodiversity, https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Walter_Reid/publication/234604891_Keeping_Options_Alive_The_Scientific_Basis_for_Conserving_Biodiversity/links/5ab06904aca2721710fdf08c/Keeping-Options-Alive-The-Scientific-Basis-for-Conserving-Biodiversity.pdf

… “potential loss of” … “50 to 150 species per day”. Contains “climate change” 27 times.

1989, Walter V. Reid, How many species will there be?, https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Vernon_Heywood/publication/255718235_Species_extinctions_in_tropical_forests/links/0deec52067f2053cb8000000.pdf#page=76

… “potential loss of” … “50 to 150 species per day”. Included in a larger IUCN report containing “climate change” 11 times.

… “An estimated 25 percent of the world’s species present in the mid-1980s may be extinct by the year 2015”.

1988, Edward O. Wilson Harvard University, Biodiversity, https://www.csu.edu/cerc/researchreports/documents/BiodiversityEOWilson1988.pdf

… “By the end of this century [year 2000], our planet could lose anywhere from 20 to 50% of its species”.

… Ok, so up to all species extinct by 2012, got it.

1979, Norman Myers, The sinking ark : a new look at the problem of disappearing species, https://www.worldcat.org/title/sinking-ark-a-new-look-at-the-problem-of-disappearing-species/oclc/5029035

… “at least 1 million by the end of the century”, contradicting himself.

… That’s 137 per day starting in 1980.

1979, Norman Myers, Conserving our Global Stock, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00139157.1979.9931212

… “present century, about one species per year”

Sometimes they are honest about their goal to be dishonest … “To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest.” –-Stephen Schneider, Discover Magazine Oct, 1989

As to why they lie, it took 60 years for it to sink in with me there are people for whom truth means nothing, they think this life is all there is, all they know is the game, a thrill from controlling others for fun and profit and power.

It appears there are over 130,000 web pages putting the myth of 200 species extinct per day in a blender with climate change as if known fact, even though they can’t name a single species definitively extinct from climate change ever. Believers.

IUCN is the International Union for Conservation of Nature, the authority on species extinctions.

“… over 1400 … organizations. Some 16,000 scientists and experts … 1000 full-time staff in more than 50 countries. Its headquarters are in Gland, Switzerland.”

I want Greta to publicly apologize for buying into that fairy tale and switch her message over to the real, living, IUCN “32,441 species threatened with extinction.” https://www.iucn.org/news/species/202007/almost-a-third-lemurs-and-north-atlantic-right-whale-now-critically-endangered-iucn-red-list

Then let groups do gofundme’s for example, each campaign to save a specific single species, one at a time. We would learn a lot in the process, improve management of our burgeoning world population, save many species, and it would rescue Greta’s future reputation looking back, as she is currently being ridiculed a lot, her wacky claim is harming team climate awareness.

I found pre-print 1 the best of the three and pre print 3 the worst.

It is far harder to ready and seems messy and erratic.

It also has a bunch of minor mistakes in it which make it a bit of a chore to read. Also can you post a PDF link, that reader is annoying and makes cut and pasting from it remove spaces.

For example,

“.IPCCmerely inserteditscoretheoryintoits human carbon cyclewhichcircular reasoning”

This should say ” which is circular reasoning”.

Also whenever you mention IPCC it does not have the word the in front of it which makes reading it feels wrong. It should be proceeded with the word the in almost every instance.

There is a few other minor errors to do with missing words etc.

The first section doesnt feel like you have enough evidence. You just quote a paper but don’t elaborate enough.

Honestly I wish this was a bit more like pre print 1.

I still think the physics model is great and your points are valid it just doesn’t seem to be explained as simply and clearly as the pre print 1.

Have you performed a sanity check on your model? Your model suggests that more CO2 has made its way into the deep oceans than into the atmosphere, land, and ocean surface combined.

This suggests that your coefficients are incorrect, or that neglecting the fact that the coefficients are temperature and concentration dependent is a fatal flaw for your toy model.

You also have no explanation for where the extra 100ppm in the atmosphere comes from. Have you considered the fact that your model is wrong?

One last comment. Do you know that there is a closed form analytical solution for your model? I’ll provide it to you if you like.

Dear Immortal600,

Have you performed a sanity check on your comment?

My calculation of IPCC’s true human carbon cycle uses the same time constants that IPCC uses in its natural carbon cycle. So, there is no basis to claim I used the wrong coefficients.

If you claim my time constants are wrong, then you also claim IPCC’s time constants are wrong. And if IPCC’s time constants are wrong then you help me prove IPCC’s core theory is wrong.

IPCC used vastly different time constants for its human carbon cycle than it used for its natural carbon cycle. That proves IPCC’s core theory is wrong.

I don’t need to explain where the 100 ppm supplied by nature comes from. I address that issue in section 4.6. Did you read that?

Yes, I would like to see a “closed form solution” of my carbon cycle model.

Of course I have done a check on my comment. I solved your model.

Your model is flawed because you do not get the time constants correct. The IPCC’s time constants are not wrong. If you bothered to read the report and understand it then you would have seen that the time scale for sequestration into the deep oceans is at least on the order of 10,000 years. They also discuss the other time scales. You can’t calculate time scales for non-equilibrium processes based on the equilibrium exchanges as you have naively done. Do you understand that across a surface in a metal wire with zero voltage drop across it, there are countless electrons flying back and forth across that surface? However, the current flowing through that surface is zero. Given that information do you think you can calculate the resistance? The fact is that you can’t. You have confused the content of the CO2 in each reservoir with the generalized chemical potential of that content. At equilibrium the chemical potential in each of the reservoirs is equal. Away from equilibrium, the net flux between each reservoir is related to the difference in the chemical potential. The mobility coefficient describing that flux then can be used to set a time scale for non-equilibrium processes. You cannot determine those mobility coefficients by looking at what is happening at equilibrium, just like you cannot determine the resistance of a wire by looking at the electrons flying back and forth when there is no potential drop.

So, it is not the IPCC that is wrong, but it is you who has made a fundamental error in interpreting the information that was given by the IPCC.

You do need to explain where the extra CO2 comes from if you want to be taken seriously. The ocean and land sinks have been measured. Look up Global Carbon Budget 2019. Given that both the oceans and the land have taken more CO2 out from the atmosphere than they have put into it, that means that they cannot be the source of the atmospheric increase.

I generated the following coefficients for your model based on ~10, ~100, and ~10000 year time scales for the land to atmosphere, ocean surface to atmosphere, and ocean surface to deep ocean exchanges respectively. They yield far more reasonable results than your faulty procedure.

T12=2.356

T21=10

T23=100

T32=65.444

T34=6544.44

T43=158.76

The closed form solution looks as follows:

L1 = L1eq + C11 Exp[-a1 t] + C21 Exp[-a2 t] + C31 Exp[-a3 t] + C01 Exp[a0 t]

L2 = L2eq + C12 Exp[-a1 t] + C22 Exp[-a2 t] + C32 Exp[-a3 t] + C02 Exp[a0 t]

L3 = …

L4 = …

Where a1, a2, and a3 are the eigenvalues of a matrix that depends on your coefficients, and the C’s are the associated eigenvectors. The C0 terms are the particular solution for an exponential fit to the human source term. I can provide more detail if necessary, but if you understand math well enough then this should be enough for you to generate it yourself.

Dear Immortal600,

Thank you for your comment. I appreciate critiques.

First, let’s dispense with your “closed form solution.” I purposely wrote my equations to readily be imported into matrix algebra. From there, we can to a relaxation calculation. It turns out the this relaxation calculation produces identical results to the numerical calculations I do in my Excel spreadsheet.

Second, do you agree that IPCC’s numbers for its natural carbon cycle (as shown in my Figure 3) represent an equilibrium situation?

I think IPCC makes it quite clear that its natural carbon cycle is at equilibrium and represents IPCC’s claimed conditions in the absence of human CO2.

If that is true, then any valid e-times must keep IPCC’s levels constant in its 4 reservoirs. However, using your e-times, IPCC’s levels quickly fall out of equilibrium. In fact, your e-times move most of the carbon into the atmosphere. Not very realistic. So, you have a whole lot of explaining to do to justify your e-times.

I put the tabular summary of the results of the calculation using your e-times at the top of these comments. Looks to me like your e-times totally disagree with IPCC’s numbers. Please explain.

First) You are free to not provide readers with an analytical solution to your model. Doing so would make it more accessible to anyone that would want to play around with it. You could probably construct an Excel spreadsheet that anyone can download and play with to see how the coefficients affect the solution.

Second) I’m not an expert on the topic. You are claiming that it is an equilibrium situation with respect to your model and I am happy to go with that terminology for now.

You have ASSUMED that the forward flux from reservoir A to reservoir B is INDEPENDENT of the chemical potential of the species in reservoir B. That is incorrect. That flux can be approximated with a Taylor series expansion that includes a constant term associated with zero chemical potential difference which can be taken from the “equilibrium” IPCCs numbers, and a linear term associated with the difference in chemical potential. Those terms CANNOT be determined from the “equilibrium” numbers that are given, and it is those terms that determine the non-equilibrium rates.

3) “However, using your e-times, IPCC’s levels quickly fall out of equilibrium.”

Indeed, my workbook inverted one of your definitions and I forgot to put it back into the form you use. The corrected numbers for the T’s are:

T12 = 42.4448

T21 = 10

T23 = 100

T32 = 152.801

T34 = 15280.1

T43 = 629881

My apologies for the error, and for causing you to waste time on that.

In any case, you should see that those corrected numbers do not lead to as much CO2 in the deep ocean. If you change the atmosphere to land time scale to ~50 years, then it starts to look even better:

T12 = 212.224

T21 = 50

T23 = 100

T32 = 152.801

T34 = 15280.1

T43 = 629881

Again, my apologies for that prior inversion error. So, here is what happens if I make the atmosphere to land and atmosphere to ocean surface times scales both at ~100.

T12=424.448

T21=100

T23=100

T32=152.801

T34=15280.1

T43=629881

For the simple exponential fit to the human emissions that I used, I get the following ppm changes in the land, atmosphere, ocean surface, and deep ocean:

Land: 1179 to ~1220 -> ~21%

Atmosphere: 278 to ~400 -> ~62%

Surface: 425 to ~460 -> ~18% (roundoff errors evident)

Deep: 17500 to ~17500 -> ~0%

Total input was ~ 196

Dear Immortal600,

Your e-times have my interest. Are the e-times above (5:57 AM) your latest, so I can ignore your previous ones?

Please explain how you calculated these e-times. Provide references if applicable.

I want to follow your derivation.

Thanks

Yes, those are the latest. I think you could play with the numbers more, but I don’t see the point. These do a reasonable job for such a simple model.

Also, my apologies for not looking into your Excel workbook more thoroughly. I now see that folks can play with these numbers and see what happens. In any case, I wanted to generate the solution for myself and we get basically the same story. It’s up to you if you think it is worth your while to generate the analytical solution. It is a 3×3 matrix (since L4 is not independent) and so the algebraic formulas are a bit messy.

My times are very rough estimates to mimic the time scales stated on page 472 Ch. 6 of the IPCC report.

Take these “time scales” for land to atmosphere to be S12, atmosphere to ocean surface to be S23, and ocean surface to ocean depths to be S34. I take the equilibrium concentration in the atmosphere, L2eq, to set the baseline for chemical potential. Then the T’s are calculated as follows:

T12 = L1eq/L2eq * S12

T21 = L2eq/L2eq * S12

T23 = L2eq/L2eq * S23

T32 = L3eq/L2eq * S23

T34 = L3eq/L2eq * S34

T43 = L4eq/L2eq * S34

That first prefactor of L?eq/L2eq ensures that the chemical potentials at equilibrium are each the same and that the equilibrium solution does not change for no human forcing. Then the S12, S23, and S34 scales can be adjusted accordingly (100, 100, and 10000 above).

Dear Immortal600,

Thank you. I will look at that IPCC page and get back to you.

By the way, I understand that for equilibrium, we need (where F = flows):

F12 = F21

F23 = F32

F34 = F43

Both your values for Te and my values for Te satisfy those constraints. If we assume we agree on IPCC’s reservoir levels, then our key disagreement is in the equilibrium flows between the reservoirs. My flows equal the IPCC flows in Figure 3. Your flows do not equal the IPCC flows.

Please explain why your flows do not equal the IPCC flows.

I have tried to explain this already. The forward flow from reservoir a to reservoir b can be expanded into a Taylor series as:

Fab = Fab0 + kab (mu_a – mu_b)

the forward flow from b to a is then

Fba = Fab0 + kba (mu_b – mu_a)

Fab0 is the equilibrium forward flux (and must be the same for Fab and Fba) and does not enter into a proper thermodynamic interpretation of your model. It is Fab0 that is essentially given in the IPCC report, but what is needed for the model are the kab and kba terms.

The chemical potentials can be linearized about the equilibrium state. So, your formulation has all that is needed for such a linearized model, but your interpretation of Fab0 is incorrect.

The point is that the forward fluxes from the equilibrium state shown in the IPCC report DO NOT set the time scales for non-equilibrium processes. The k’s do this, and those are discussed qualitatively in Ch. 6 of the IPCC report.

P.S. mu is chemical potential

Dear Immortal600,

Thank you for your explanation of how you calculated your e-times.

Here is my interpretation of IPCC’s Chapter 6, pages 467-472.

IPCC explains its Figure 6.1 (my Figure 3) as follows:

(1) “Numbers represent reservoir mass, also called ‘carbon stocks’ in PgC (1 PgC = 1015 gC) and annual carbon exchange fluxes (in PgC yr–1).”

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

Your numbers come from:

(3) “Box 6.1, Table 1. The main natural processes that remove CO2 consecutive to a large emission pulse to the atmosphere, their atmospheric CO2 adjustment time scales, and main (bio)chemical reactions involved.”

Items (1) and (2) are very clear. The numbers in IPCC’s Figure 6.1 represent IPCC’s best estimates of the reservoir levels and the annual flows between the levels at equilibrium. IPCC’s core theory says its natural carbon cycle data is valid after 1750. This means its flows keep its levels constant, which they do after I make very small adjustments to IPCC’s flows.

Item (3) does not override items (1) and (2). Item (3) is about how a fictitious large pulse of CO2 would flow out of the atmosphere. It is based upon the assumption that IPCC’s core theory is true. This assumption invalidates the papers that made these calculations.

Not even IPCC claims these (3) numbers apply to its natural carbon cycle.

IPCC applies these numbers only to its human carbon cycle. This, of course, contradicts the Equivalence Principle.

Given that IPCC’s natural carbon cycle (2) is at equilibrium, any second order terms are negligible.

Human carbon emissions do not drive the total carbon cycle far enough from equilibrium to make any second order effects relevant.

So, in summary, I stand by my e-times derived from IPCC’s natural carbon cycle. I conclude your e-times apply only to IPCC’s model for a theoretical carbon pulse that first assumed IPCC’s core theory is true.

Nevertheless, I thank you very much for your very useful comments.

“Items (1) and (2) are very clear. The numbers in IPCC’s Figure 6.1 represent IPCC’s best estimates of the reservoir levels and the annual flows between the levels at equilibrium. IPCC’s core theory says its natural carbon cycle data is valid after 1750. This means its flows keep its levels constant, which they do after I make very small adjustments to IPCC’s flows.”

I have no problem with your adjustments. Again, these flows are the Fab0’s that I explained in my prior comment.

You will note that the Fab0’s do not enter into your model because your model always has Fab – Fba.

Fab – Fba = [Fab0 + kab (mu_a – mu_b)] – [Fab0 + kba (mu_b – mu_a)] = (kab + kba) (mu_a – mu_b)

Hence, it is the (kab + kba) that sets the time scales for non-equilibrium processes in your model. The equilibrium flows, Fab0, cancel one another out.

“Item (3) does not override items (1) and (2). Item (3) is about how a fictitious large pulse of CO2 would flow out of the atmosphere.”

No, it does not override (1) and (2), it supplements them. Item (3) explains what the time scales are for non-equilibrium processes, which is exactly what is needed in your model.

“Not even IPCC claims these (3) numbers apply to its natural carbon cycle.”

Of course they do. They are explaining the time scales involved when the system is perturbed from equilibrium.

“Given that IPCC’s natural carbon cycle (2) is at equilibrium, any second order terms are negligible.”

Indeed, and I have only included the terms up to first order. As I explained to you, the zeroth order term cancels out of the net flux near equilibrium.

“Not even IPCC claims these (3) numbers apply to its natural carbon cycle.”

That’s because they don’t apply to the zeroth order equilibrium term Fab0, they apply to the first order term associated with non-equilibrium processes. Do you understand that yet?

“IPCC applies these numbers only to its human carbon cycle. This, of course, contradicts the Equivalence Principle.”

I have no idea what you mean by this. It sounds like gibberish to me. The Equivalence Principle is something from general relativity. I have explained the proper interpretation of your model and the correct numbers are applied to the entire cycle, including human emissions.

“Human carbon emissions do not drive the total carbon cycle far enough from equilibrium to make any second order effects relevant.”

They don’t have to. The first order effects are sufficient. You did not get the first order effects correct.

“So, in summary, I stand by my e-times derived from IPCC’s natural carbon cycle.”

That is your error. Your “e-times” come from Fab0, where they need to come from (kab+kba). Your thermodynamics is wrong.

“I conclude your e-times apply only to IPCC’s model for a theoretical carbon pulse”

They apply to ALL non-equilibrium situations for your model. Otherwise you are apparently violating your own “Equivalence Principle”.

I see there may be some confusion on my response to:

“Not even IPCC claims these (3) numbers apply to its natural carbon cycle.”

To clarify, the numbers in (3) apply to all situations when the system is out of equilibrium, and those numbers do not play a role when the system is in equilibrium. I read ‘natural carbon cycle” in two different ways. I think a less confusing terminology is equilibrium and non-equilibrium, as the natural effects are occurring is both scenarios.

Ed,

To summarize, the point of contention is on the kinetic relationship between the flows, F12 …, and the L’s (which I will refer to as concentrations).

You ASSUME that the form is as follows:

Fab = La/Tab

I make NO assumptions, but I expand about the equilibrium state. I also invoke the thermodynamic restriction that the flow must depend on the difference in the chemical potential. I’m not sure if you are aware of this or not. This means that

Fab = Fab0 + kab (mu_a – mu_b) + 1/2 m_ab (mu_a – mu_b)^2 + …

I then linearize by taking the first two terms. Furthermore, I can expand the chemical potentials about the equilibrium state as well in terms of the concentration in reservoir a, as follows:

mu_a = mu_a0 + ca La + 1/2 da La^2

Again, I linearize and keep only the first two terms. Note that at equilibrium mu_a = mu_b, and so we have after linearization:

mu_a0 + ca Laeq = mu_b0 + cb Lbeq

Plugging back into the linearized expansion for the flow we have:

Fab = Fab0 + kab (mu_a – mu_b) = Fab0 + kab (mu_a0 + ca La – mu_b0 – cb Lb)

= Fab0 + kab [ ca (La-Laeq) – cb (Lb-Lbeq) ]

This is the most general form linearized about the equilibrium state.

Your form does not even respect the thermodynamic restriction that the flow from one reservoir to the other must depend on the chemical potential difference between the two reservoirs.

Dear Immortal600,

You don’t get it that (3) is not data. You don’t get it that (3) is not a correction to (1, 2) for an out of equilibrium scenario. (3) is an invalid IPCC theory of how human carbon, introduced as a pulse into the atmosphere, will flow to the other reservoirs. This IPCC theory is the Bern model. It assumes IPCC’s core theory is true. Therefore, it cannot be used as proof that IPCC’s core theory is true. That would be circular reasoning.

See Section 4.3. Preprint #3 proves (3) is wrong before you even get to use (3).

(3) is not only wrong, it does not apply to the natural carbon cycle. IPCC does not apply (3) to its natural carbon cycle. IPCC applies (3) only to its human carbon cycle.

This IPCC idea contradicts the Equivalence Principle, which you don’t understand because you are not a physicist and you even did not read Preprint #3, Section 1.1. The Equivalence Principle means nature treats human carbon and natural carbon the same. IPCC assumes differently.

IPCC (1, 2) says its flows are valid to 20 percent. (For the reader, this means you can multiply IPCC’s flow values by the range from 0.80 to 1.20) Yet you use IPCC’s (3) to multipy IPCC’s (1, 2) flows by 0.0546 and 0.0006, way outside IPCC’s error bounds. You have gone to where even IPCC does not go. Even IPCC would argue against your calculation. You are a Lone Ranger.

If IPCC (1, 2) were that far off, don’t you think IPCC would have put different numbers (1, 2)? Of course, IPCC would have changed its numbers in its Figure 6.1.

Similarly, all qualified physicists would reject their calculation if they got your numbers. Yet you imagine that your recalculated flows represent reality. And you think your virtual reality proves my Preprint is invalid. You have gone way out on a limb and sawed off your connection with the tree.

You do not understand that IPCC’s (1,2) is an equilibrium scenario. You do not understand that even the addition of human carbon to IPCC’s (1,2) is not enough carbon to make any significant difference to this equilibrium. You imagine that a Taylor expansion will change its primary number by those factors, even when the system is close to equilibrium.

You do not understand that adding a Taylor series is not physics. It is good math but it contains no basic physics.

You do not understand that your argument fails because you have not shown the carbon cycle system is far enough from equilibrium to justify your numbers EVEN IF your Taylor series argument were true. Given that IPCC’s natural carbon cycle (2) is at equilibrium, your Taylor series is negligible.

You have simply proposed your own carbon cycle model by adding additional terms to my hypothesis equation (2). All theories must be supported by data. IPCC’s flows are good only to 20 percent. That is not accurate enough to measure or justify even your first order term. Available data does not justify adding additional terms to equation (2).

Physics does not justify adding additional terms to equation (2). Physics and chemistry show outflow is proportional to level to the first power. If you add additional terms then the perfect gas law fails, standard pharmaceutical models fail, Dalton’s law of partial pressure fails, etc.

Occam’s Razor favors the simplest solution to a problem. You present a more complicated solution. You have not justified your more complicated hypothesis with data (like Einstein did with relativity).

You don’t see the big picture. Preprint #3 proves IPCC’s core theory is wrong by showing its human carbon cycle contradicts its natural carbon cycle. Nothing you write revives IPCC’s core theory.

Judging by your comments, I assume you are a good engineer. But you are not a theoretical physicist. Not all physicists are theoretical physicists. Many very good physicists have carefully reviewed my Preprint and all of them endorse its physics.

Thank you again for your effort. But if you continue to argue for your nonsense science, I will need to close your access to further comments.

Yes, I do get that (3) is not data.

Do you understand what a Taylor series expansion about equilibrium is?

Do you understand that the equilibrium flows do not tell you anything about the non-equilibrium rates?

“Preprint #3 proves (3) is wrong”

It does no such thing. Preprint #3 makes an invalid interpretation of the information provided by the IPCC. This has now been explained to you with equations and you still do not understand it.

“This IPCC idea contradicts the Equivalence Principle, which you don’t understand because you are not a physicist”

Are you sure about that Ed? Have you taken the time to understand the physics that I have explained to you?

“Yet you use IPCC’s (3) to reduce IPCC’s (1, 2)”

So, you do not understand whaat I have written to you. Here it is again.

Fab = Fab0 + kab (mu_a – mu_b)

Fab0 comes from the IPCC’s (1) and (2).

kab comes from the IPCC’s (3).

Both apply to ALL scenarios including equilibrium and non-equilibrium. Address the equations Ed. Answer this Ed, what other physicist uses the terminology “Equivalence Principle” as you are using it?

“You have gone to where even IPCC does not go. Even IPCC would argue against your calculation. You are a Lone Ranger.”

No, I have not. I am explaining the IPCC’s document to you. Address the equations Ed.

“Similarly, all qualified physicists would reject their calculation if they got your numbers.”

So, now you are relying on a fallacious argument from authority. Address the equations Ed. According to Google Scholar, I have published more papers in physics journals than you have. All qualified physicists would understand what chemical potential is, and would understand how to carry out a Taylor series expansion about equilibrium. Qualified physicists would reject the numbers that you have gotten for the deep oceans and question why. I have explained to you why.

“You do not understand that adding a Taylor series is not physics. It is good math but it contains no basic physics.”

The physics of the terms in the Taylor series has been explained to you Ed. You making an unjustified ASSUMPTION about the kinetics is not physics.

“You do not understand that your argument fails because you have not shown the carbon cycle system is far enough from equilibrium”

You are demonstrating that you do not understand basic physics. Obviously the Taylor series that I gave you is only valid near equilibrium and only near equilibrium. Address the equations Ed.

“You have simply proposed your own carbon cycle model by adding additional terms to my hypothesis equation (2).”

Your ASSUMED equation (2) is incorrect as I have explained.

“You don’t see the big picture.”

Actually I do. You have created a toy model and interpreted its terms in a physically incorrect manner. Furthermore, you are ignoring the data analyzed and published in the Global Carbon Budget 2019 that shows that both the land and oceans have taken more CO2 out from the atmosphere than they have put in over the last 100 years. Those facts alone show that the land and oceans are not the source for the atmospheric increase. Those facts alone show that humans are responsible for the increases in each of these reservoirs. Even your faulty model shows that each of the reservoirs INCREASES in CO2 content due to human emissions.

“But you are not a theoretical physicist.”

Now you are on to an ad hominem fallacy. I’d wager that I understand theoretical physics better than you do. Address the equations Ed, not the commenter.

“If you add additional terms then the perfect gas law fails, standard pharmaceutical models fail, Dalton’s law of partial pressure fails, etc.”

Where are you coming up with this nonsense? Go ahead and try to use equations to prove this contention of yours. The kinetic equation in question is an approximation for a highly complex system. The oceans emit CO2 in the tropics and absorb CO2 near the poles. The kinetic equations in this toy model are lumping all of those processes into one equation. The most general analysis of that lumped system is what I have described for you by using a Taylor series expansion about equilibrium. That is how dynamical systems are analyzed.

“Many very good physicists have carefully reviewed my Preprint and all of them endorse its physics.”

Argument from authority fallacy. Did any of them mention that your ASSUMPTION about the kinetics may be wrong? Did any of them talk to you about the concept of chemical potential?

Dear Immortal600,

Thank you for your final comment. You have had a fair opportunity to argue your case. Now, we will leave it to the readers to judge your argument.

Since your argument produces flow numbers that are way outside IPCC’s stated 20 percent error bounds, no one is going to believe you, not even the IPCC.

Figure 8 explains how IPCC’s slow processes affect the outflow of CO2. Figure 8 assumes all human CO2 emissions stop in 2020. Once stopped, the scenario is like a pulse of human CO2 of 33 ppm was added to the atmosphere.

The curve after 2020 shows how fast human CO2 in the atmosphere flows to the other reservoirs according to IPCC’s fast processes as shown in Figure 3. But the human-caused increase will never return to zero in the Physics model. That is because the fast processes do not remove carbon from the carbon cycle. They only redistribute carbon among the reservoirs.

Only IPCC’s slow processes remove carbon from the carbon cycle and the Physics carbon cycle model does not include IPCC’s slow processes. The Physics carbon cycle model leaves more carbon in the carbon cycle than the IPCC model does.

Figure 8 says, if we allow the fast processes to distribute the human carbon added as of 2020 without calculating how IPCC’s slow processes would remove the carbon, the long-term effect is to add about 5 ppm to atmospheric CO2.

Your big fat error is you assumed, incorrectly, that IPCC’s slow processes slow down IPCC’s fast processes. They do not because that is impossible. You simply do not understand IPCC’s carbon cycle model. Your assumption is right up there with claiming if you poke a small hole in the bottom of a bucket this small hole will prevent water from flowing out through a larger hole. Good luck with that one.

As I said, you are not a physicist. But you demonstrate how good people in other disciplines make a mockery of climate physics.

You incorrectly revised IPCC’s fast flows to become very small flows according to IPCC’s slow processes. IPCC’s fast and slow processes are independent. So, your model and your argument are junk science.

Now we know why you use a fictitious name. You are ashamed of your own argument.

Sorry I have to block you from further comments but I have more important things to do than to entertain you.

I want everyone on this site know that I AM the REAL ‘Immortal600’ who posts elsewhere using that moniker. I am mostly on cfact but do post elsewhere. I don’t want to be associated with that clown above who stole my handle so he could post here. He posts as ‘Straight Flush’ and ‘evenminded’ elsewhere.

Don’t be confused! I agree with Dr. Berry’s model and tout it everywhere I go. It is logical and clear. I admit I do not understand the deep math (calculus) but I know others do. If there were errors in the formulas someone would have pointed that out.

The Taylor Series explanations used by the imposter ‘Immortal600’ are incorrect usage and give results, as Dr. Berry has pointed out, out of the range of IPCC figures. I am told this by other math majors whose expertise far outshines my own.

To be fair on mathematics, Taylor polynomials are an excellent tool if used correctly to tweak or finite your math or verify your work. However, as an infinite series it can be used to misinterpret the work. Like everything in science, it’s not the math tool that’s wrong it’s the tool using that math that can be wrong. Using any infinite series with a slightly wrong calculation or deliberate change can create an exponentially incorrect value.

Just as an example if you input a single temperature data for a 12 month year, use the coolest temp and average that out for the year you can make older years look cooler than newer warmer years. You can manipulate values to coerce a desired outcome and by using any infinite series you can hide those values more easily. The best way to hide a lie is to cover it with more data.

I’d love to crack open these “climate models” and see how older temperature data has been treated in them. I did it once and the code -37268 showed up about 90% of the time on older temperature data. That code was for a null set. I did inquire about the data I did not receive a response other than a generalized nothing to see here move along.

I am not an expert on climate models and would have been willing to hear an explanation, they were not want to give one. You see for an infinite series like climate models you can cheat by using that code and bury it in over 3,624,768 entries and some neurotic individual like myself would find the pattern and wonder why they were there.

I am just a computer scientist and a mechanical engineer so I am not an expert in this field but I find your observations and analysis very interesting. This worldwide economy slowdown because of covid has provided us with a significant worldwide reduction in CO2 emission but still the level of CO2 in the atmosphere continues to rise at the same speed as before. That seems to support your analysis.

I am not a scientist either. Just an interested observer.

Dr Ed, have you seen this?

David Evans Andrews. Correcting an Error in Some Interpretations of Atmospheric 14C Data. Earth Sciences. Vol. 9, No. 4, 2020, pp. 126-129.

doi: 10.11648/j.earth.20200904.12

Dear John,

Yes, I am aware of it. Thank you for adding the reference for the readers.

First, even if Andrews is correct, his paper has no bearing on this Preprint #3 because Preprint #3 does not use any argument that depends upon 14C data. Also, his paper has no bearing on the conclusions of my 2019 paper as Andrews claims because I can remove, or even revise, the 14C discussion without having to change the paper’s conclusions.

Second, I have communicated with three different experts in 14C. They all tell me Andrews’ paper is wrong. I will wait for a real expert in 14C to reply to Andrews’ paper.

Dr Ed,

Your response is much appreciated.

I am not an American but I pray for all Americans and Presidents Donald’s Trumps success for a second term.

I think he has identified the evil intent of the NWO

Dear Dr. Berry,

Now that your book is out, I wonder if you have had time to address this post from a while ago (reproduced here with minor edits):

The following simple model explains the apparent different behavior of natural and anthropogenic carbon. It is not meant to be an actual model of the oceanic carbon cycle, but it will demonstrate the relevant mathematics. Also this model will show, at least in principle, how the lifetime of CO2 concentration perturbations can differ from the lifetime of isotopic tracers like carbon-14. For both of these questions, the key is nonlinearity.

Consider a system containing a mass m of some substance (maybe CO2). There is a constant inflow of 1 kg/s. The outflow is O=-C m^2 (we will just write C=1, but really C=1 kg^-1 s^-1). Then

dm/dt = 1-m^2 (1)

Clearly an equilibrium is reached when 1-m^2=0. This occurs at the value m=meq=1 kg. Also, the outflow is equal to 1 kg/s. Thus at equilibrium the e-time for a given molecule to leave is (1 kg)/(1 kg/s)=1 s.

What happens when a small amount of mass x is added? We could solve the full nonlinear equation (1), but nonlinear equations are difficult and unintuitive. Instead we write m=meq+x and examine the outflow term, m^2. The outflow becomes O=-(meq+x)^2=-meq^2-2 meq x-x^2. We can ignore the term in x^2 because x is small — of course this is just a Taylor expansion. Then O~-meq^2-2 meq x. The differential equation becomes

d(meq+x)/dt = 1-meq^2-2 meq x

d(meq+x)/dt = 0-2 meq x

dx/dt = -2 meq x

dx/dt = -2 x

Notice that the equilibrium inflows and outflows canceled out, leaving just the added mass x. Now, this equation looks like a decay of x with e-time 0.5 s. Here is the key point: we already determined that the e-time for a given molecule to leave is 1 s. However, if a small perturbation from equilibrium is added, that perturbation decays with a different e-time of 0.5 s. There are two different sorts of e-times at play here. This only occurs in a nonlinear system. In a linear system, the two e-times are the same.

This already gives intuition for why natural and anthropogenic carbon may appear to be treated differently in the Bern model. Natural carbon dominates the total flows of carbon, and the total flows set the e-time for individual molecules to move between reservoirs. These are the e-times you have calculated from Figure 3 in your preprint 3. The equilibrium is perturbed only when new carbon is added, which is done by humans. Such a perturbation decays back to equilibrium with a different e-time.

The point of this was to show that, for nonlinear flows, there are two types of e-times. The story becomes slightly more complicated when moving from this simple one-reservoir model to the full, 4-reservoir model. Then there are also the decay times in the Green’s function, which are different still.

But sticking with the simple model, there is one more interesting conclusion. If a few molecules of isotopic tracer like carbon-14 are added, the total mass will decay back to equilibrium with an e-time of 0.5 s. But if we keep track of a given tracer molecule, it will leave with an e-time of 1 s. That is why the lifetime of an isotopic perturbation can differ from the lifetime of the mass perturbation. I have thought of a nice way to formalize this, but the post is already quite long.

This is far from a realistic model of the carbon cycle — I don’t pretend to know exactly what the flow rates are, or to have modeled the nonlinearities well. But I believe this shows the important effects which are added by any nonlinearity, and cannot be captured by a fully linear model like the one in your Preprint 3.