Climate Physics

Preprint #3C: Carbon cycle model shows nature controls CO2

Update on June 23 2021, updates Figures 4 and 6

I took the above photo of Flathead Lake from the Montana State Park in Bigfork, a 15 minute drive from my home. – Ed

Notice options: Fullscreen, print, and download.

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 Segalstad, Harde, Salby, and 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


Ed Berry

  • Edwin X Berry, PhD, Atmospheric Physics, CCM
  • 439 Grand Dr #147
  • Bigfork, Montana 59911, USA
  • Climate Physics, LLC

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

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


  1. 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.

    1. 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.

    2. Dr. Ed,
      The one hypothesis that the entire model rests on: “outflow is proportional to level” (2) on page 9/10 … are you sure it’s true? Is it a fundamental law in physics that applies to all systems where something is flowing in and out of reservoirs?
      I’d be grateful if you gave me a reference that supports this hypothesis.
      Thanks a lot

  2. 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”.

  3. 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


    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

    1. 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.

    2. 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.

    3. The mass balance argument is wholesale stupidity — not worthy of an entry on any comment page in the blogosphere. EVEN IF THE ENTIRE MASS OF ACO2 WERE TO SINK OUT, NATURE WOULD STILL BE A NET SINK FOR CO2.

      Let’s say, for example, that aco2 were to have settled into oceanic/atmospheric system at a ratio of 50 (ocean) to 1 (atmosphere). The mass balance argument does not preclude this as a possibility. The atmospheric rise from aco2 would only have been 4 ppm all the while that we would have been observing more co2 going into the ocean than coming out. (Mass Balance = Non Sequitur)…

      “Mass Balancers” are the carbon cycle equivalent of “Sky Dragon Slayers”. (don’t be a “mass balancer”… 😖)

  4. 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?

    1. 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 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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

    1. “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,
      … “about 200 species going extinct every single day” (73,000 per year)
      2009, IUCN,
      … “There are 869 recorded extinctions” … “since the year 1500”
      … That’s 1.7 extinct species per YEAR.
      2004, UN Environment Programme, TUNZA for YOUTH,
      … “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,
      … “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,
      … “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,
      … “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,
      … no mention of extinctions per day as Sepkoski said.
      1989, WV Reid and K Miller, Keeping options alive: the scientific basis for conserving biodiversity,
      … “potential loss of” … “50 to 150 species per day”. Contains “climate change” 27 times.
      1989, Walter V. Reid, How many species will there be?,
      … “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,
      … “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,
      … “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,
      … “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.”

      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.

      1. “… all they know is the game, a thrill from controlling others for fun and profit and power.”
        Love it!
        For a few years, I’ve been saying this…
        “It’s NOT ‘follow the money,’ it’s really ‘Follow the Money, The Power and The Control Over People.”

        Nailed it.

    2. Why would they lie? What is a lie? To say something you know to be untrue. In my opinion, these organizations believe their theories describe how the world works. Therefore, they are not lying, but they may be wrong.

      Continental mobility, until the evidence was discovered on the floor of the Atlantic Ocean.
      For a long time, the germ theory of duodenal ulcers was rejected.
      For a long time, humans were reported to have 48 chromosomes.

      I think it worthwhile to read Thomas Kuhn’s, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. I do not regard Kuhn as a philosopher, but rather as an historian of science. Some of his concepts are vague and variable. But he makes a lot of good points on the politics of science, the role of the leaders in a field as gatekeepers who ensure that a prevailing paradigm is defended and promoted. He defines this as “normal” science, which prevails until another paradigm has sufficient support to be accepted as a new paradigm. That switch is a scientific revolution.

      A point often made is that before a paradigm is overturned there must be phenomena that the paradigm cannot explain. (Such as an aberration in the orbit of Mercury.)

      In climate there are plenty of problems with the accepted paradigm. I name one.

      Tiny variations in Bond albedo could account for global warming estimates based on ocean heat content. A series of estimates of energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere between 2005 and 2012 put the figure at 0.5 Watt per square meter (Wm-2). Source: Loeb et al, 2012. Simple arithmetic gives solar energy of 340 Wm-2 at the top of the atmosphere, of which about 102 Wm-2 is reflected back to space, based on an albedo of 0.30, (30%) and 238 W-m2 enters the troposphere. A 0.5 percent decline in albedo would decrease sunlight reflected back to space by 0.5 Wm-2 and increase the energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) from equilibrium to 0.5 Wm-2. Substantial research by many scientists estimates this is equal to the energy imbalance at TOA.

      The dominant controls for albedo are clouds (high albedo). As the amount of cloud increases, albedo rises. Can albedo be measured to within 0.5 per cent of 0.30 over the period 1960-2020, 0.30 plus or minus 0.0015? In my opinion, based on the literature, the answer is no.

      This does not prove anything, but it does show that the following statement is unsupported, “The observed climate change cannot be explained by natural variation.” I claim that the amount of climate change observed since 1960 can be explained by tiny variations in Bond albedo.

      This justifies testing other paradigms based on variations in cloud cover.

      Hansen, J. et al. 2005: Earth’s energy imbalance: Confirmation and implications. Science, 308, 1431-1435
      Hansen, James, et al. “Earth’s energy imbalance and implications.”Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 11.24 (2011)
      Loeb, Norman G., et al. “Observed changes in top-of-the-atmosphere radiation and upper-ocean heating consistent within uncertainty.” Nature Geoscience 5.2 (2012): 110-113.
      Stephens, Graeme L., et al. “An update on Earth’s energy balance in light of the latest global observations.” Nature Geoscience 5.10 (2012): 691-696.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

    1. 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.

      1. 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.


        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.

  9. 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.

    1. 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

    2. 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.


      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

      1. 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.


        1. 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).

        2. 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.

  10. 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.

    1. 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.

      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.

  11. “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.

    “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.

    1. 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.

  12. 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.

    1. Dear Immortal600,

      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.

      IPCC (1, 2) says its flows are valid to 20 percent. Yet you use IPCC’s (3) to multiply IPCC’s (1, 2) flows by 0.0546 and 0.0006, way outside IPCC’s error bounds.

      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.

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

      You have not shown the carbon cycle system is far enough from equilibrium to justify your numbers. Given that IPCC’s natural carbon cycle (2) is at equilibrium, your Taylor series is negligible.

      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.

      Preprint #3 proves IPCC’s core theory is wrong by showing its human carbon cycle contradicts its natural carbon cycle.

      Thank you again for your comments.

  13. 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.

    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.

    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.

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

    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.

    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.

  14. Dear Immortal600,

    Thank you for your final comment.

    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.

    I think 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.

  15. 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.

    1. And ‘Dave Burton’… don’t forget that he’s also hijacked the name of another skeptic.

      I’ve been drop-kicking that kook up one side of CFACT and down the other for more than two years… he claimed he could refute physicist Dr. Charles R. Anderson, PhD’s radiative physics, claimed he’d read the physics text from which Anderson arrived at his conclusions… when tasked with quoting pages 55 and 225 from that text (proving himself wrong in the process), or admit that he’d been caught in a lie (proving himself wrong in the process and proving himself a liar), he up and ran away.

      That was 4 days ago… you can expect he’ll show up again, spouting the same deluded tripe, under some other skeptics name… but definitely not mine. LOL

    2. And ‘looksquirrel101’ on StackExchange… same guy, always wrong, always twisting everything in often subtle ways to conform to the climate catastrophe narrative.

      My suggestion to Dr. Berry is to perma-block the kook under any of his known ‘nyms, and should he pop his head up again, do the same for any new ‘nyms.

      Do keep in mind that the kook suffers from OCD and he’s a spiteful little kook… he actually attempted to dox physicist Dr. Charles R. Anderson, PhD and do financial damage to his materials analysis laboratory because Anderson proved him wrong once years prior (with the kook socked up as an anonymous coward, no less… which I later forced him to admit was him, hence his years-long obsession with Anderson)… so don’t be surprised if, at some point in the future, the kook uses Anderson’s name in your comments sections, or yours, Dr. Berry, elsewhere on the internet.

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  18. 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/

    1. Dear John,

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

      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.

      1. 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

  19. 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.

    1. Dear Tim,

      Thank you very much for your comment. I apologize for my delay to reply.

      I agree with your equations that show a Taylor expansion of your assumed nonlinear equation for outflow. So, we have no issue with your math. That narrows our discussion to whether the components of the carbon cycle system are best described by linear or nonlinear equations.

      My equation (2) assumes a linear system. By contrast, you have assumed a nonlinear system. You agree that your specific nonlinear equation is not realistic. I understand that you use your example to illustrate how a nonlinear system would behave.

      Physics is also decided by Occam’s Razor, or the simplest solution that fits the data wins.

      Arguably, the best data we have on the carbon cycle are in the IPCC natural carbon cycle. These data, remarkably, perfectly fit the linear model. Until data prove it is necessary to use a nonlinear model, Occam’s Razor requires us to use the linear model.

      You wrote, “And due to the buffer chemistry of CO2 in seawater, the outflow to the atmosphere is nonlinear.”

      However, the IPCC carbon cycle data do not reveal this nonlinearity. Further, chemical reaction models use linear equations. Pharmacology models use linear equations that assume the reaction is proportional to level.

      You wrote, “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.”

      Well, it decays back with a different e-time ONLY if the system is nonlinear. IPCC data do not support a nonlinear assumption.

      Humans have added only about one percent to the carbon in the natural carbon cycle. Stomata data and chemical data show that nature changes the amount of carbon in the carbon cycle much more than human carbon has added to the carbon in the carbon cycle.

      Even if the system were slightly nonlinear, we would not expect an additional one percent to provide a measurable signal of nonlinearity.

      You wrote, “This already gives intuition for why natural and anthropogenic carbon may appear to be treated differently in the Bern model.”

      No, the IPCC treats human carbon differently than it treats natural carbon because it assumes – contrary to its own data – that human carbon has caused all the increase in atmospheric CO2 above 280 ppm. That incorrect assumption is IPCC’s major error.

      You wrote, “That is why the lifetime of an isotopic perturbation can differ from the lifetime of the mass perturbation.”

      The 14C in the atmosphere does not contribute enough additional carbon to the carbon cycle to change the e-time under any reasonable assumption of nonlinearity. The much larger error in using 14C to track 12C flows is in the slower chemical reaction time of 14C compared to 12C.

      The following is a digression from my main argument:

      Consider a real nonlinear system of a tall beaker with a faucet at the bottom. Fill the beaker with water and open the faucet. Measure how fast the level decreases. This system is nonlinear because it changes potential energy into the kinetic energy to cause water to flow out of the spout. So,

      Outflow = SQR(2g * Level)

      Its square-root is the reverse of your square. The e-time changes with level. But we understand why the e-time changes because we have the equation to express the nonlinearity. If the level remained within a few percent of its original level, we would need accurate measurements to detect its nonlinearity. We could approximate it reasonably well with a linear equation.

      [end digression]

      In conclusion, to support your argument that the flows in the natural carbon cycle are nonlinear, you must develop a nonlinear carbon cycle model that replicates the IPCC carbon cycle data better than the linear carbon cycle of my equation (2). That will be difficult because the IPCC says its data are accurate to only about 20 percent and my equation (2) replicates IPCC’s mean data to a fraction of one percent.

      Thank you again for your comment.


  20. I agree with your conclusions, Berry. I am no expert and certainly no authority, but below is a small article I put together explaining why I think the CO2 increase could be natural. It’s only an armchair skeptic’s view of the situation and I am sure I have left out important points, but I feel some of the points I bring up are worth consideration.

  21. Sorry, Dr. Ed and everyone else… I lost interest when the First Immortal600 made this statement..

    “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. ”

    As a person with a degree in Electrical Engineering, I considered that, while there might be “countless electrons flying back and forth across that surface,” the point is irrelevant to their assertion. If there is no current flowing down the length of the wire, yes, it IS impossible to measure the wire’s resistance directly, as the Resistance (R) == The voltage difference from one end of the wire to the other end (E), divided by the RESULTING Current Flow (I). [R=E/I].

    So, with not current flowing through a path external to the wire, its resistance is indeterminate, and the electrons scurrying across its surface are irrelevant to any and all ‘issues at hand.’

    … barely even a ‘red herring’… an irrelevant and unnecessary sentence added to an insulting paragraph.

    But it hit my “EE” button. 🙂

    1. Alan Falk,

      The First Immortal600 turns up in many places and uses many false names. His/her/them/it is easily identified by the distinctive ‘style’ and always displays the purpose of casting doubt on valid information which does not support climate alarmism.

      I have had several interactions with him/her/them/it. All were unpleasant and as example I cite one on WUWT where he/she/they/it used the name “Rich Davis” while attempting to disrupt discussion of evidence concerning anthropogenic and natural contributions to the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration. In that discussion he/she/they/it attempted the same erroneous .mass balance closure’ argument which he/she/they/it puts to Ed Berry above.

      The cited example I cite is in the thread at

      That example begins with “Rich Davis” replying to a post of John Shotsky at November 29, 2020 12:03 pm, and ends with these final comments from him/her/them/it and me

      “Rich Davis
      December 1, 2020 4:45 pm

      This is all very basic engineering that I learned more than 40 years ago. And for you to call me rude is quite rich, given your continuous stream of abuse and condescension.

      Do you have any education whatsoever? It is not apparent.

      Richard S Courtney
      Reply to
      Rich Davis
      December 1, 2020 10:20 pm


      You have ignored everything I have told you of our published work.
      I have refuted with evidence each of your attempts to make a point.

      You have accosted me with words and phrases such as “bloviating” and “redundant verbiage”.
      I have patiently explained your errors.

      You said to me, “Kindly address the two points at the top of this comment if you wish to continue the discussion.”
      I replied to you by addressing those points yet again and adding,
      “As for you being willing “to continue the discussion” with me,
      I enjoy sensible debate with those who disagree with me because I learn nothing from debating with a mirror, but so far your only contribution to this discussion has been to demonstrate you have meagre understanding of the subject. So, I suggest that if you want to learn then read what I have written for you and try to be polite instead of trying to hide your ignorance and bias behind rudeness. I am willing to try to answer any sensible questions and to debate any reasonable points.”

      I leave it to others to decide for themselves which of us is “condescending” and which of us knows what we are talking about.



      1. Richard, you make an excellent comment on that fraud who stole my name. My only wish is that you referred to him as the fraudulent ‘Immortal600’ as I am the FIRST and ORIGINAL ‘Immortal600’.

        I want to take this opportunity to thank you for all that you do in combating this AGW madness. May God bless you and your family always!

  22. I posted this update on January 15, 2021.

    The math part is the same. But I improved the rest of the paper based on how I organized my book Climate Miracle.

    Now is your chance to add your review so you can be on my Acknowledgements list.

    I plan to submit this for publication on January 18.

  23. A typo (missing “cause”):
    “The Equivalence Principle requires human and natural CO2 to behave the same. If natural were to ____ CO2 stick in the atmosphere,”

  24. In section 2.5, in addition to Munshi, Chaamjamal (I presume he is not Jamal Munshi?) also published detrended statistical analysis revealing NO correlation between:
    — rate of atmospheric CO2 increase and rate of fossil fuel CO2 emissions;
    — ocean CO2 levels and fossil fuel CO2 emissions;
    — rate of global warming and rate of CO2 emissions;
    — rate of sea level rise and rate of CO2 emissions; and
    — rate of Arctic sea ice melt and rate of global warming.

  25. Loved the entire paper. It presents an entirely logical contradiction of the IPCC CO2 models upon which all of the CAGW alarmist hypothesis is based.

    I would like to see somewhat more detailed discussion of the C12/C13 subject as it relates to alarmists’ fallacious use of the differences to identify anthropogenic versus natural sources of CO2.

    Salby has a limited discussion of it in this youtube, but his presentation is less than optimal IMHO:

    I know this is a scientific paper, but I think the non-scientist readers would also benefit from a short discussion of the many natural causes of CO2, since so much of the public has been indoctrinated to believe that industrial emissions are not only the primary source, but the only source of increasing total atmospheric CO2:

  26. Dr. Berry,
    You say that IPCC’s argument is invalid because it assumes all human CO2 sticks in the atmosphere. I thought they believed only about 50% of human CO2 sticks in the atmosphere which is still invalid?

    1. Dear Stephen,
      The IPCC assumes human CO2 stays in the atmosphere much longer than natural CO2. This does not mean that no human CO2 gets out of the atmosphere.

      When we sum all human emissions up to a specific year after about 1970, the sum is about two times greater than the increase in CO2 above 280 ppm. So, the IPCC simply says that half of the human CO2 moved out of the atmosphere.

      1. I suppose that is what is confusing in your preprint with the statement, “IPCC’s argument is invalid because it assumes all human CO2 sticks in the atmosphere.” Wouldn’t it be better to say IPCC’s argument is invalid because it treats human CO2 differently than natural CO2? IPCC doesn’t assume all human CO2 sticks in the atmosphere; it assumes about half moves out. It assumes all the natural CO2 moves out of the atmosphere but only about half of the human.

  27. Dear Ed:
    Am I glad you came back from politics to science.
    While I agree with you that climate Change is not due to manmade factors but to mother nature, whether it is polar vortex, (See: or solar flares , or volcanic eruptions, (both terrestrial and sub – marine) I am of the belief that since the “manmade hypothesis” is based on GHG (i.e IR spectrum) the whole argument of CO2 being the culprit is wrong.

    While I appreciate your derivation of mathematical equations to support your theory of Equivalence principle, I still simply maintain that H2O is the real culprit.

    Look, there once was a gay poet who was born in Dublin and died in Paris (Oscar Wilde). He said, and I quote: “With age comes wisdom, but sometimes age comes alone”.
    While this is true for too many American voters, the exception is Greta Thunberg of Sweden. This high school dropout kid figured out that the game is not whether the climate changes or not, but rather that fame brings riches to its owner of fame.

    I tip my hat to her, in spite of my vehement disagreement with her.

    As to your book: I recommend you start with the definition of climate, as opposed to weather. Climate is a combination of temperature and precipitation. You might even comment how Global Warming slowly morphed into Climate Change as election day drew near.

    Any way, while your theory spins around CO2 as the culprit, I would proceed with the fact that the claim that it’s due to manmade actions (a “fact” which may be true to between 5 and 10%) cannot be proven, and therefore it’s an “extraordinary claim”.

    Any way, posting to the real problem is only half the issue. Proposing a solution is the other half. Sequestering CO2 has been proposed in many ways and that’s good. But what is the solution if you believe that H2O is the real culprit?

    Here is my theory:

    As the world population continues to grow (in spite of COVID 19 pandemic) water shortages around the world are saved by building more and more desalination plants. To save money, the concentrated brine is dumped back into the ocean, in most cases. This causes less evaporation which “translates” to less precipitation.
    Solution: spend some money to build evaporation ponds, and ultimately sell the salt to states that need salt to melt snow.

    The year 2020, according to NOAA, was the second warmest year since 2016, which was the warmest year. Now, if it is man made and not due to mother nature, 2020 should be warmer than 2016, since the world population grew and the demand for fossil fuels grew also.

    I hope my comments prove helpful in spite of any disagreements we may have. My kudos to you and your wife for your efforts.



  28. Dr. Berry,

    Elon Musk just announced that he is going to give 100,000,000 to the best carbon capture invention. I think you could win 😉

  29. Dr. Ed,
    I think you are right on both counts, Joe biden and his advisors are scientific morons and want to destroy America. Just like Justin Trudeau and his advisors are morons and want to destroy Canada.

  30. Your conclusions are surely correct – but in my eyes primarily for economic reasons. We don´t need to solve all the intricate problems natural scientists are dealing with, because the market provides much better solutions, as far as the decisive matter, POLICY, is concerned.

    For two reasons. 1) Things not broken don´t need to be fixed. 2) If broken, the actions to take are definitely NOT the ones suggested by the UN, IPCC, and most western governments. Because the only effective prescription is a GLOBAL climate tax on CO2 emissions, the same (roughly) in all countries.

    Kyoto – or Paris agreements only ends up with a REDISTRIBUTION of emissions. No global reductions and therefore no climate impact at all.

    A key problem is that even the most respected expert in this field, professor William D Nordhaus, the Nobel laureate rewarded for his writings on climate change, has been silent about this solution. I have personally, as a retired Civil Servant interested in these matters, contacted him about these facts, but he never responded, except for a first polite reply indicating a willingness to consider my questions, but then nothing more.

  31. Let me add that your graph separating human and natural causes is also quite convincing.

    But old estimates, derived from statistics or formulas of unknown quality, are more likely to be questioned than very basic price theori. Wellknown terms like demand and supply are shortcuts to insight, while few voters will ever grasp the rules guiding universe.

    By combining these two approaches, natural science and economics, end of the intellectual disaster called “climate change” is in sight. The sceptics have contributed to the delay, by making natural science their only weapon, when sharper ones are available, especially in the most relevant field, climate policy.

  32. Dr. Berry,
    I’ve read quite a few and have been drilled with quite a few attempts at the discredit of Beck’s excellent work.

    One common claim is that the readings weren’t atmospheric but locale and lower to the ground as if that makes any difference seeing how if it was read it existed? I’ve always been suspicious of the current atmospheric stable levels of CO2 claims, since all older papers I’ve read showed a regional seasonal flux that is never shown in the “official volume” which conveniently never lowers as it would on any standard model.

    This is a link to one of the crits and I’d imagine a standard template, as I am not a scientist I have no idea how legit the processes claimed in the paper are according to scientific experimentation. I have a hard time believing advanced chemists of the age would make those acclaimed errors.


  33. Ed,
    I have a few comments on your preprint. But first, thank you for correcting the mistake you made in your 2019 paper, where you mistakenly took “Delta 14C” to be C14 concentration. And thank you for posting my paper on your blog.

    Your Figure 17 summarizes your model. Reading from the curve, you assert that the concentration of a pulse of carbon injected into the atmosphere will fall by about 90% after 20 years. Harde and Salby’s yet to be published paper which you reference make similar predictions. These predictions are testable with carbon 14.

    The thing you call “14C ratio” in Section 4.5 is the fractional deviation of the 14C concentration from its value in 1970, in parts per thousand, with the 1970 value forced to about 510 parts per thousand, the value of Delta 14C in that year. Your prescription for calculating that quantity is correct. Yours is perhaps an awkward definition, but never mind. It will give the correct shape of the concentration curve over time.

    While you only show the 14C concentration from 1970 on, there is no good reason not to compute C14 concentration all the way back to 1950, or to 1920 as I did in my paper. (I copied you on my recent note to Harde, pointing out that early delta C14 measurements, using specific activity (Becquerels/gm) instead of isotope ratios measured by mass spectrometry, also depend on the 12C concentration at the time of the measurement.)

    With your definition, you would find negative but stable values of “14C ratio” between 1920-1950, in the vicinity of -150 parts per thousand. The Delta C14 curve decreases only slightly with time in this period due to the Suess effect, and the “14C ratio” (C14 concentration) is even flatter.

    Look at the whole range of 14C concentration data. You can save yourself the trouble of converting the years before 1970 to “14C ratio” by looking at the curve in Figure 2 of my paper, the shape of which agrees with your calculation after 1970, the only place you show calculations of it. (My plot is in ppmv instead of being a fractional deviation. I think ppmv is a more easily understood measure of concentration.)

    You see that what you call the “balance level” of 14C concentration around 1995 is about 50% above the quite stable 1920-1950 baseline. In your Figure 17, you predicted that the “bomb pulse” should be almost all the way back to its original baseline after all these years. It is not. In fact, the way that C14 decreased after the “bomb pulse” as displayed in my Figure 2 looks nothing like your Figure 17 plot. My plot is not a model. It is carbon 14 data, properly interpreted. As I said in my paper, the C14 concentration data refute your model.

    Harde and Salby try to explain their higher “balance level” (1995 vs 1950) by speculating that cosmic ray fluxes have dramatically increased since 1950. Their model does not fit the data either unless they make such unwarranted hypotheses. Radiocarbon daters indeed need to invoke small variations in atmospheric C14/C12 concentrations over the millennia, to reconcile their time scale with historical dates, but these variations are at the 1% level, not the 50% level.

    There is no mystery why the C14 concentration changed the way it did. Bomb testing put a lot of C14 into the atmosphere, not into the ocean or biosphere. This created an isotopic imbalance between the sinks. The rapid decrease of atmospheric C14 concentration in the 1970’s (which you were able to fit with an exponential) was accompanied by a corresponding increase in land and sea C14, as carbon in the different sinks mixed.

    That mixing was completed on the time scale that you measured. But the new carbon from the bomb test is not safely sequestered away, as shown by the baseline shift that you, Harde and Salby needed for your fits. It is now added to the cycling carbon. Similarly, the emissions from a gas-guzzling ’55 Chevy moved sequestered fossil fuel carbon into the carbon cycle, raising levels in the atmosphere and oceans in particular, and probably in land sinks as well.

    1. Dear David,

      Thank you for your comment.

      Your 2020 paper does a very good job of calculating the 14C data from the D14C and CO2 data. As you may recall, when you first introduced this subject in a comment on one of my posts, I agreed that ratios do not flow, only quantities flow. So, your physics is good.

      But your 2020 paper does not recognize that I and Harde used 14C data only to derive an upper bound for the 12CO2 e-time. And while it is true that my 2019 paper should have converted D14C data to 14C data, the consequences of this omission turn out to be zero because the 14C e-time is less than the D14C e-time, which strengthens the conclusions of my and Harde’s papers rather than refutes them. You did not calculate the 14C e-time to check this. So, your climate physics was not so good.

      If your paper had focused on your 14C calculation rather than as a hyper-focus (invalid) attack on the papers by me and Harde, AGU would have published it. Since I sent a rebuttal to your AGU paper, the AGU editor emailed me that he rejected your paper, and therefore my rebuttal, because you wrote it as a comment on the papers by me and Harde, rather than as an independent article.

      As an independent paper separated from its attack on the papers by me and Harde, your paper would have been a valuable and highly referenced paper.

      There are few scientific papers that do not have errors. Every time I rewrite my preprint, I find an error. Science, like technology, always moves forward after finding new truth but that does not mean the Wright Brothers’ airplanes were mistakes that negate the value of their flights.

      My preprint also updates my review of the Bern model because Tom C. politely showed in his comments that the Bern model coefficients were Green’s function coefficients. Of course, I understand Green’s functions, as do you, but I never found that connection in my review of Bern model papers. So, that may be the most critical error in my 2019 paper, now updated. But it does not negate the value of my 2019 paper because the rest of the paper stands alone.

      Regarding your specific items in your comment above:

      Yes, your Figure 2 is very good.

      Your conclusion that the Suess effect was the cause should be a hypothesis rather than a conclusion.

      Your comment on how I calculated my 14C ratio is valid. Remember, we have different goals. Your goal was to properly calculate the 14C data, and you did it well. Meanwhile, my focus was on my preprint #3, where my interest in 14C data is to derive a 14C e-time without adding another figure and more discussion to my already long paper. So, I chose the short way to do it, which you have kindly approved.

      My use of the balance level in Figure 19 is merely an easy mathematical way to find the e-time for the 14C data from 1970 to about 1990. It is not necessary that I fit the 14C curve beyond even 1980 because the curve will tend to assume longer e-times as the level moves closer to its equilibrium level, as described in Figure 18.

      I agree with your last two paragraphs that describe the physics of the flows. So, we can continue to discuss flows without conflicting our physics.

      Finally, your comment, “As I said in my paper, the C14 concentration data refute your model,” is not valid because I have not used my model to make a C14 prediction that can be tested.

      In fact, such a test is impossible because we do not know the 14C e-times of all six nodes. We do not know the 14C levels in all four reservoirs. And we do not know what changes may have occurred in the 14C inflows to each reservoir.

      If we make assumptions about these unknowns and assume the inflows have not changed since 1950, we could run my model to simulate the 14C pulse beginning 1970. The result might be a curve lying between the 12C and Bern curves in Figure 18.

      But the fact that the 14C data seem to be rising after, say, 1980, is not a contradiction of the model. It is a contradiction of our knowledge of 14C inflow.

  34. Ed,
    You say that you agree with my last two paragraphs. So evidently you agree with my last sentence: “Similarly, the emissions from a gas guzzling ’55 Chevy moved sequestered fossil fuel carbon into the carbon cycle, raising levels in the atmosphere and oceans in particular, and probably in land sinks as well.” Why then have you been saying for a few years that we humans are not responsible for the atmospheric CO2 increase? If you don’t agree with this last sentence, tell me why C14 added to the atmosphere with bomb tests is still with us, but C12 added by fossil fuel burning is not.

    For the third time, read Caldiera, et. al. The 14C data does NOT “contradict our knowledge of 14C inflow.” It confirms a prediction made in 1998, using a conventional carbon cycle model. It is only an anomaly in fringe models such as yours, Harde’s, and Salby’s which are, as you almost admit, contradicted by 14C data.

    1. Dear David,

      Human carbon emissions, whether from a 1955 Chevy or from the manufacture and installation of wind turbines, add carbon to the carbon cycle. The issue in this post, however, is how much the human carbon addition has increased the level of atmospheric CO2.

      I invite you to defend your sentence:

      “The 14C data does NOT ‘contradict our knowledge of 14C inflow.’ It confirms a prediction made in 1998, using a conventional carbon cycle model. It is only an anomaly in fringe models such as yours, Harde’s, and Salby’s which are, as you almost admit, contradicted by 14C data.”

      Please describe the important features of the “conventional carbon cycle model” and tell how it differs from the carbon cycle model described in this preprint, which you call a “fringe model.”

      Since you apparently still assume the Core Theory is true, please tell us how it can be true given the data plotted in Figure 1.

  35. Ed,
    I don’t think it is my responsibility to explain to you the paper: Caldeira, K., Raul, G. H., and Duffy, P. B. “Predicted net efflux of radiocarbon from the ocean and increase in atmospheric radiocarbon content.” Geophysical Research Letters, 25 (20), 3811-3814 (1998). They explain it clearly enough themselves. Here is a link for the convenience of you and your readers:
    By calling theirs a “conventional model”, I mean that it is a model that acknowledges the dominant human contribution to atmospheric CO2 increases during the last century. It is a model put together by physicists at the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, not, as you would like to think, at some liberal think tank or university. As you know LLNL is the premier US nuclear weapons laboratory, and they know a thing or two about modeling fallout from nuclear testing. As you requested, here are some of the differences between the LLNL model and what I will call the BHS (Berry/Harde/Salby) model:
    1. The LLNL model (1998) predicted that atmospheric C14 concentration would rise beginning around 2000, because of the ongoing introduction of fossil fuel carbon into the atmosphere. This is not an obvious result since the fossil fuel carbon contains no C14, but the addition of fossil fuel carbon to the atmosphere has consequences that they explain, and which I echoed in my paper. This prediction is verified in recent data. Meanwhile the BHS modelers cannot fit the C14 concentration the same way they did when the authors misinterpreted DeltaC14 as a concentration. Harde and Salby hypothesize an increase in cosmic ray produced C14 to explain the discrepancy, even though the success of C14 dating verifies the stability of C14 production. You talk of unknown C14 inputs, another way of saying your model doesn’t fit the data as it stands either.

    2. The LLNL model utilizes conservation of carbon, not counting of course the creation of C14 from N14 neutrons from cosmic rays. BHS does not, and before discovering your Delta14C error, that was the focus of my criticisms. If once sequestered fossil fuel carbon is burned, the carbon released from sequestration must be accounted for somewhere. Harde’s earlier papers considered the oceans to be an infinite sink. If the C14 concentration really behaved like DeltaC14, that would be a defensible position. It is not defensible with his new and correct interpretation of DeltaC14. You have always been vague about where most of the fossil fuel carbon ends up, even while you have been adamant that little has ended up in the atmosphere. I guess you think it mostly goes into the ocean, at the same time that “natural carbon” is moving from the oceans to the atmosphere. It appears to me that it is your model, not the IPCC model, that violates what you call the equivalence principle!

    3. The LLNL model was published in Geophysical Research Letters, a peer reviewed journal. The BHS model was published by (or submitted to) Science Publishing Group, known to put out “predatory”, “pay to self-publish” articles without rigorous peer review. The original DeltaC14 error would never have gotten through a peer review process. I would not be the only one criticizing the earlier papers had they been published in more visible journals.
    In defense of you, Harde, and Essenhigh, I think the C14 community was negligent to allow misleading graphs of DeltaC14 to be a proxy for C14 concentration, a practice that continues. I may send my paper to their journal Radiocarbon and ask how they think this issue should be addressed, perhaps as a letter or comment in that journal.
    Let me now address your assertion that your Figure 1, which plots the history of carbon emissions along with the history of atmospheric CO2 concentration, somehow negates the idea that those emissions are the cause of the atmospheric CO2 increase. The two curves are strongly correlated, but not identical, and I suppose that is your point. The fact that in recent decades more carbon has been emitted than remains in the atmosphere is part of every competent model. The increase in carbon in the oceans, making them more acidic, is established. The IPCC has also documented an increase in land carbon, as the higher atmospheric CO2 concentration stimulates some forest growth. I don’t know for sure, but I would guess that CO2 concentration increasing faster than emissions early in the 20th century is related to land use changes. I do not believe that CO2 created by burning down a forest to make room for agriculture would be counted as human emissions in your plot. If I have correctly understood your point about Figure 1, it is similar to one Salby has talked about elsewhere: the lack of “detrended correlations” between CO2 concentrations and emissions. That Salby claims to reach a statistical conclusion on this point is remarkable, since nowhere does he consider data uncertainties! Surely he knows much more about atmospheric science than I do, but he does not appear to be experienced in handling data.
    I hope I have answered your questions. Now I have one for you. You assert that Harde and Salby’s unpublished paper “prove Andrews wrong.” Can you be more specific? It has taken nearly a year, but I am glad we now agree that I was correct on the DeltaC14 definition. I don’t know where you think I am wrong now.

    1. Dear David,

      You have not explained Figure 1 because IPCC’s estimates of carbon emissions from land-use are too small to have significantly changed the data used to plot Figure 1.

      You wrote, “You have always been vague about where most of the fossil fuel carbon ends up, even while you have been adamant that little has ended up in the atmosphere.”

      – Your claim is preposterous because Preprint #3 fully describes the flow of human carbon, which neither Caldeira et al. nor LLL have done.

      Caldeira et al. is invalid because their model incorrectly assumes the Core Theory is true, a fact you acknowledge when you say their model “acknowledges the dominant human contribution to atmospheric CO2 increases during the last century.”

      The Caldeira-LLL 14C model does not have or use a valid human carbon cycle model. LLL made a serious scientific error when it assumed the Core Theory is true.

      The LLL model predicted that 14C would increase around 2000, but a valid prediction is not evidence that the model is valid because other possible causes have not been eliminated.

      Caldeira et al. say this increase will happen because “fossil‐fuel carbon diminishes the net flux of 14C from the atmosphere to the oceans and land biosphere, forcing 14C to accumulate in the atmosphere.”
      – But they present no evidence or even physics to support that conclusion.
      – Figure 17 shows how a pulse of 14C in the atmosphere would flow to the land and oceans, according to IPCC 12C data.
      – The conclusion that human carbon “diminishes the net flux of 14C” means the LLL model includes invalid assumptions.

      You say the LLL model conserves carbon. Preprint #3’s carbon cycle model conserves carbon.
      Caldeira et al. do not describe their model, except to say it comes from:

      Hesshaimer, V., M. Heimann, and I. Levin, Radiocarbon evidence for a smaller oceanic carbon dioxide sink than previously believed, Nature, 370, 201-203, 1994.

      The Hesshaimer et al. paper does not describe their model and they openly admit they had to make adjustments to curve fit the data.

      By contrast, the Physics carbon cycle model is the only model that replicates IPCC’s natural carbon cycle data. Then it uses IPCC’s natural carbon cycle data to prove IPCC’s human carbon cycle is a fraud.

      Your attempt to claim the LLL model done two decades ago shows the Physics carbon cycle model is incorrect fails data and logic.

      You wrote, “The increase in carbon in the oceans, making them more acidic, is established. The IPCC has also documented an increase in land carbon, as the higher atmospheric CO2 concentration stimulates some forest growth.” – Preprint #3 fully explains these observations that are consistent with the physics carbon cycle model.

      Your “authority” arguments that refer to LLL and journals are invalid. All arguments in this discussion must be logical scientific arguments.

      Your criticism that the Physics carbon cycle model does not model the 14C carbon cycle is a strawman. I have not modeled the 14C carbon cycle.

      In summary, you have not shown there is an error in the Physics carbon cycle model. And we are long past your D14C argument that has no relevance to Preprint #3.

      (I do not represent the Harde-Salby model. You will have to address that issue with them when they publish their paper or its preprint.)

  36. (Note: To organize this discussion, I bolded Dave’s sentences that are relevant. – Ed)

    The Lawrence Livermore National Lab paper did not assume that human activities caused CO2 to increase. That conclusion followed from the data.

    For you to suggest that any argument which contradicts your theory is invalid, simply because it contradicts your theory, would imply that your field is religion, not science.
    Every scientist I have ever met (myself included) takes very seriously a model with demonstrated predictive ability.

    The LLNL model passes that test, making a non-trivial prediction verified by measurements.

    Every scientist I have ever met asks those whose theories DON’T fit the data “What modifications can you make to fix that?”

    Your present model of C12 transport was, I believe, motivated by your wrong interpretation of DeltaC14. (You may argue that point if you wish, but you once called your WRONG graph of C14 concentration after the bomb tests “the most important graph in climate science.”)

    As far as I know, you made no modifications to your model after I pointed out your mistake, you just avoided mentioning C14. Therefore it is no surprise at all that when your model is applied to C14, IT DOES NOT FIT THE DATA.

    What are you going to do about that Ed? You distance yourself from Harde, whose solution to the same difficulty was to invoke increased C14 production from cosmic rays. Your response so far has been “unknown C14 inputs.” You pay lip service to Feynman’s dictum: “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s WRONG.” Apply that dictum here.

    The contest is not between your model and the LLNL model. It is between your model and DATA.

    You forgot to tell me how the Harde and Salby draft paper, which Science Publishing Group tell me has yet to be submitted to Earth Sciences, proves my paper wrong.

    1. Dear Dave,

      Sorry, I had to bold some of your sentences in your comment above to identify the parts of your comment that were worth a reply.

      You claim the LLL paper determined from data that human CO2 caused all the CO2 increase (above 280 ppm). PROVE IT!

      You claim “The LLNL model passes that test, making a non-trivial prediction verified by measurements.” – You have reversed the scientific method by claiming a good prediction verifies a model.

      You think my Physics model was “motivated by [my] wrong interpretation of DeltaC14.” If you could understand my (2019) paper and my Preprint #3, you would see that my derivation of the Physics model stands alone and has nothing to do with 14C or D14C data.

      You say, “As far as I know, you made no modifications to your model after I pointed out your mistake, you just avoided mentioning C14.” This proves you do not understand Preprint #3, which is a very significant advance over my (2019) paper.

      You say, “The contest is not between your model and the LLNL model. It is between your model and DATA.” No, the contest is between the LLL model and data.

      Please show, in your next comment, how the LLL model uses data that show human CO2 caused all the CO2 increase above 280 ppm.

      Also, please show how the LLL model replicates the IPCC natural carbon cycle data.

      (And to answer your last question, the reason your paper is wrong is that it makes incorrect conclusions about my and Harde’s papers. These incorrect conclusions destroyed the value of your paper.)

  37. Ed,
    Nice try, but I will not be distracted by your highlighted requests for discussion of side topics. There is one and only one issue on the table that you failed to highlight and which you continually duck. That is the issue of the clear conflict between your model and the behavior of atmospheric carbon 14 concentration after the bomb tests. That is the issue which I asserted in my paper refutes your model, and I stand by that claim. The question is: is your model salvageable? I think it is not. Ralph Alexander says basically the same thing in his Oct 19, 2020 post on his scienceunderattack blog.

    I will accept, with considerable skepticism, your assertion that misinterpreted C14 data did not motivate your model. But however you arrived at it, you certainly did proudly show that your model nicely fit the misinterpreted C14 data, and was strong evidence in favor of it. That is why it should be no surprise to you that your model does not fit correctly interpreted data with substantially different features. When the data changes, whether in reality or because of a correction, models which previously fit the data must change or be discarded. Your challenge is not just to explain the small uptick in C14 after about 2000. You must also explain the higher “balance level” in your new fit. Where did all that C14 come from if carbon from whatever source is removed from the atmosphere on a time scale of a decade or two? Harde’s answer is maybe more cosmic rays. What is yours? (Interestingly, the current issue of Science discusses an event about 42,000 years ago during which the earth’s magnetic field reversed. While that was happening and the field was weak for a while, the earth was not so well protected from cosmic rays, and there was a temporary spike in C14 production. Maybe you can argue that is what is happening now.)

    1. Dear David,

      Correction: The issue under discussion in this post is whether Preprint #3 is correct in its conclusion that the Core Theory is false. You have provided NO evidence that the Core Theory is true.

      You wish to test the Physics carbon cycle model with 14C data. Such a test must assume a 14C pulse is added to the atmosphere in 1970, and the natural 14C level, inflow, and outflow all stay constant at their pre-1950 level and flows after 1970 and there are no other inflows. Your desired model test is impossible because you cannot guarantee that these assumptions are valid.

      You claim the observed increase in the 14C level after 1970 proves the Physics model is incorrect. Indeed, under the above assumptions, the Physics model would not predict this 14C increase, nor would any acceptable model. This would not be a test of the Physics model. This would be a test of your assumptions.

      You claim the LLL model predicted the increase based upon the theory that human CO2 somehow jammed up the outflow whereby 14CO2 escapes from the atmosphere. Sorry, that irrational explanation does not fly.

      Therefore, you are not talking about a test of the Physics model. You are talking about a test of the above theory that you cannot explain.

      You claim the LLL model is valid when it (a) cannot simulate IPCC’s natural carbon cycle and (b) assumes the Core Theory is true.

      In your previous comment, you claimed the LLL paper shows data that prove the Core Theory is correct. But now, you refuse to show such data. Why?

      So, you lied! There are no such data. If there were such data, the IPCC would use the data to support its Core Theory but it has not.

      I reject your opinions of my “motives” in developing my Physics model. No wonder you can’t do climate physics. You can’t focus on physics.

      I reject your referrals to opinions of people who will not put their opinions in a comment in this post. Your referrals show you lack confidence in your climate physics and you need emotional support for your opinion. After all, you did blow your climate physics in your paper.

      You want me to explain the observed increase in the 14C level after 1970, but even you cannot explain it.

      In summary, you so dearly believe the Core Theory is true even though you cannot produce any data or present any valid argument to support your belief. That, David, is called religion, not science.

    2. I assume people are pointing to the above ground atomic weapons tests as a source of C14.

      I also assume people think there were no more above ground atomic weapons detonated in the atmosphere, since 1970.

      But, what if I were to report there were more atmospheric detonations of atomic weapons, since that year? Would such detonations effect the C14 data people are using in attempting to track the reduction of atmospheric C14 levels?

      Has anyone calculated the amount of C14 created by a single device, of any specific yield?

      No need to puzzle about C14 levels not being predictable, or increasing, as it seems your data does not include all the input sources.

  38. Ed,
    I will choose a religion that explains data and anticipates trends, over one that is falsified by data, every time. The LLNL group did not need to make a lot of assumptions about C14 sources to explain the data. They simply assumed C14 production by cosmic rays since 1960 was unchanged from what it had been the last 1000 years, and that isotopic ratios in the various sinks were identical, before the bomb tests put C14 in the atmosphere. It is yours, Harde, and Salby’s models that cannot fit the data without making a lot of unjustified assumptions about changing C14 sources. I take your comments above as acknowledging that fact. The LLNL model wins by Occam’s razor.

    Of course, C14 is only about a trillionth of the atmospheric carbon. What we really care about is what it says about the fate of fossil fuel generated C12. The initial rapid change in atmospheric DeltaC14 and in C14 concentration after the bomb tests was caused by the initial isotopic imbalance between atmospheric and land and sea carbon. We do not expect C12 concentrations to track C14 concentrations during that period, which has a time scale some call the “residence time”. But after a couple of residence times when the bomb carbon and the carbon cycle carbon are thoroughly mixed, the only difference in C14 and C12 behavior are the small fractionation differences. (As you note, lighter C12 diffuses a little more quickly than C12. Those differences are in the LLNL model.) Thus the situation AFTER about 1990 is key in telling you what has become of carbon injected into the atmosphere much earlier. A model that gets C14 wrong in that period certainly gets C12 wrong.

    But I fear our posts are getting repetitious, and I will sign off with this one, and go enjoy a nice spring day.

    Best regards,

  39. Dear Reader,

    Now, it is up to you to review the arguments presented by Dave and my replies.

    Has Dave presented any argument that makes you believe the Core Theory is true?

    Has Dave presented any argument that makes you believe the conclusions of Preprint #3 are incorrect?

    In the next few weeks, we will review how Dave’s arguments reject physics and logic.

    Here is a start:

    Dave cannot find any fault in Preprint #3. So, he argues that another theory is true, namely, that somehow human CO2 emissions jammed up the outflow of 14C from the atmosphere, causing more 14C to accumulate in the atmosphere.

    Of course, if that happened, it would also slow the outflow of natural and human 12CO2. Reference [31] says that did not happen.

    Dave misses these key points:
    (a) you cannot prove a theory is wrong by proposing another theory,
    (b) Dave’s theory has no replacement for the Physics model hypothesis (2),
    (c) Dave’s theory is not a real theory because it cannot make a prediction that can be falsified,
    (d) Dave’s theory violates physics because it assumes the Core Theory is true, and
    (e) Dave’s theory assumes human CO2, but not variations in natural CO2, blocks the outflow of 14C.

    Dave has a Ph.D. in physics and is an expert climate alarmist. So, Dave has proved that climate alarmism is a scientific scam.


  40. Dr. Ed,
    The one hypothesis that the entire model rests on: “outflow is proportional to level” (2) on page 9/10 … are you sure it’s true? Is it a fundamental law in physics that applies to all systems where something is flowing in and out of reservoirs?
    I’d be grateful if you gave me a reference that supports this hypothesis.
    Thanks a lot

  41. Dear Renate,
    You are correct, my hypothesis (2) is the basis of my model, as I state. This is the same hypothesis IPCC uses for its natural carbon cycle model. IPCC’s “turnover time” is the same as my Te. My model using (2) exactly replicates IPCC’s natural carbon cycle data.

    What are the alternatives? IPCC offers none. There are no data that support any other hypothesis. Until there are data to support that outflow is some nonlinear function of level, then we should use the simplest hypothesis, which is (2).

    The units of outflow are mass / time, which in the model translates to level / time, which supports (2).

    Pharmacology models use (2) because chemical reactions are linear functions of level. Dalton’s law of partial pressures is linear.

    In addition, suppose outflow is a nonlinear function of level that we do not know. Then it is still proper to use the linear function in models because a nonlinear function will be near “linear” when the level is near its balance level. Human CO2 has added only about one percent to the carbon in the carbon cycle, meaning human carbon will not change the linear behavior of IPCC’s carbon cycle.

    Most important is that the IPCC uses the linear model and I use IPCC’s own data to prove my point. In other words, I do not need to do the research to prove outflow is linear. That is IPCC’s job. My job is only to show that IPCC’s linear natural carbon cycle data prove IPCC’s claimed human carbon cycle is wrong.

  42. Dear Dr. Ed,

    thanks a lot for the reply! I understand your approach. You were more concerned in proving the IPCC wrong than in discovering the truth. That’s fine.

    Assuming that the hypothesis is true, it’s clear that one of the the conclusions – the IPCC’s or yours – must be wrong because they are very different. But what if the hypothesis isn’t true? Then both conclusions may be wrong. Do you agree?

    I found a hint that the hypothesis is NOT a universal law in physics. Here’s a counter-example:

    In this circumstance, the outflow is proportional to the square root of the level (provided that the tank holding the fluid has a constant cross-section). The speed at which the fluid escapes may be expressed in the unit [mass/time] which translates to [level/time], so the consideration of the units you gave does neither support nor reject the hypothesis.

    What do you think about the hypothesis now after learning about a counter-example? Should the IPCC consider a different relationship between flow and level?

    1. Dear Renate,

      First, there are many examples in physics where outflow is not linear in level. Torricelli’s well-known law is only one of them. It is based on the transfer of potential energy (mgh) into kinetic energy (1/2 mv^2). Also, irrigation engineers design weirs to produce a desired relationship of outflow to level. But these are not chemical reactions or reactions that transfer molecules between states, like from vapor to liquid. So, these examples are unrelated to our subject.

      Second, and most important, is your comment: “You were more concerned in proving the IPCC wrong than in discovering the truth.”

      The philosophy of science says the way we learn truth is to prove a hypothesis is wrong. So, my proof that the IPCC human carbon cycle is wrong is a discovery of the truth. When we prove a hypothesis is wrong, we identify what is fiction. Then the truth is lies outside that fiction.

      My paper shows that IPCC’s human carbon cycle does not use the same physics as IPCC’s natural carbon cycle. IPCC’s natural carbon cycle is based on data but IPCC’s human carbon cycle is based only on the (incorrect) assumption that human CO2 has caused all the increase in atmospheric CO2. Therefore, we must reject IPCC’s human carbon cycle.

      Torricelli’s law will not to replicate IPCC’s natural carbon cycle, so we must reject Torricelli’s law for this application. But suppose it did. Then, we would still find that IPCC’s human carbon cycle uses different physics that its natural carbon cycle.

      If we follow the scientific method, we must reject IPCC’s human carbon cycle. If anyone wishes to support IPCC’s human carbon cycle, the only way is to postulate another hypothesis that replicates the data in IPCC’s natural carbon cycle, and then recalculate the new IPCC human carbon cycle. No one has done this. So there is no alternative hypothesis to test.

      Therefore, your argument does not prove my paper is wrong.

  43. Dear Ed,

    You say “my hypothesis (2) is the basis of my model, as I state. This is the same hypothesis IPCC uses for its natural carbon cycle model. IPCC’s ‘turnover time’ is the same as my Te.”

    However, the IPCC does not specify the dependence of outflow versus level. They only specify a single point: outflow at the current level. Graphically, this looks like this: . The turnover time is just the outflow divided by the level, regardless of the full dependence — it is specified by a single point.

    Now, there are an infinite number of possible functions for outflow versus level that go through this point. Again, graphically, here are a few examples: . You have chosen to make outflow proportional to level, which is the red curve. This is the simplest choice, and Occam’s razor is often useful, but there is no good reason to believe the oceanic carbon cycle follows the simplest possible dynamics.

    You also say this: “In addition, suppose outflow is a nonlinear function of level that we do not know. Then it is still proper to use the linear function in models because a nonlinear function will be near “linear” when the level is near its balance level.”

    I agree that it is right to approximate the full outflow v level dependence with a linear function. This is equivalent to approximating the full function by its derivative, as shown by the green lines here: . But there are still an infinite number of choices, and your choice of the red line is arbitrary.

    To summarize: you say that you have shown that the IPCC’s carbon cycle model can’t explain the CO2 rise. But really, you have only shown that the “red curve” model can’t explain the CO2 rise. The IPCC numbers you used specify the one starred point, but the IPCC never endorsed the red curve model. In fact, other papers cited by the IPCC specifically calculate a different dependence — see, for example, the Revelle factor.

    1. Dear Tim,

      The IPCC does specify the dependence of outflow on level. IPCC [2, p 948] defines turnover time:

      “Turnover time (T) is the ratio of the mass M of a reservoir (e.g., a gaseous compound in the atmosphere) and the total rate of removal S from the reservoir: T = M / S. For each removal process, separate turnover times can be defined.”

      The IPCC further says T for atmospheric CO2 is about 4 years, which itself rejects the core theory and IPCCs human carbon cycle.

      Nowhere does the IPCC present a nonlinear outflow with respect to level. Since Te is the same as T, Preprint #3 uses the same hypothesis (2) that IPCC uses. To reject hypothesis (2), we need data. There is no such data.

      IPCC’s Figure 6.1 adds levels and flows for natural and human carbon cycles. Such an addition requires that outflows are directly proportional to levels.

      So, yes, the IPCC uses linear e-times or turnover times.

      Preprint #3 uses the six linear Te’s found in IPCC’s natural carbon cycle data to calculate a “true” human carbon cycle. This “true” human carbon cycle is not compatible with IPCC’s human carbon cycle. Therefore, IPCC’s human carbon cycle and the core theory are wrong because they contradict IPCC’s natural carbon cycle.

      The Revelle effect does not save the core theory. To save the core theory, it will take a whole new hypothesis for how outflows depend on levels. Such a hypothesis does not exist.

      Human carbon emissions have added only one percent to the carbon in the natural carbon cycle, and IPCC’s human carbon effect began way back when total human carbon was very small.

      So, can you propose a substitute for (2) that can explain how IPCC’s natural carbon cycle, human carbon cycle, and core theory can be true?

  44. So now that Tim C has explained what I attempted to explain to you in a different manner, do you understand it yet?

    [This “Immortal600” is using a dynamic IP address based in Austin, Texas. – Ed]

    1. Dear (fake) Immortal600:

      You should know what my reply to Tim C’s comment would be. It is very simple.

      The problem is that I am very busy with updating my website software and with publishing my paper.

      Tim C is rational. You are not. So, don’t try to associate your comments with Tim C’s comment.

    2. You are a loser. Using my moniker to mask your insecurities is there for the world to see.

      [This “Immortal600” is using a static IP address based in Delaware. – Ed]

  45. Ed,
    You continually misrepresent the IPCC position. Yes, they do define a turnover time. But they repeatedly warn against simple models, such as yours, which assign simple one time constant descriptions of carbon exchange between reservoirs. As you are well aware but refuse to admit, such models are contradicted by the C14 bomb pulse data. EVERY ONE OF THE SMALL COHORT OF AUTHORS WHO CONCLUDED THAT THE HUMAN CONTRIBUTION TO ATMOSPHERIC CO2 WAS SMALL (YOU, HARDE, ESSENHIGH) GOT ON THE WRONG TRACK BY NOT KNOWING THE DEFINTION OF “DELTAC14”. You yourself called your misinterpreted C14 bomb pulse plot “the most important plot in climate physics.” It was not the most important plot on climate physics. It was a mistake. Scientists make mistakes. But you turned your mistake into an outright lie, showing us all that you are no scientist.

    1. Dear David,

      The issue is the IPCC core theory that says human CO2 emissions are the primary cause of the increase in atmospheric CO2. Preprint #3 proves this IPCC core theory is false.

      But you continue to believe the core theory is true. So, you attack those who disagree with your incorrect position on climate.

      No, I did not call a “misinterpreted 14C” plot “the most important plot in climate physics.” I called the D14C plot “the most important plot in climate physics” because D14C moves back to its original zero value with a constant e-time of 16.5 years.

      Your paper does an elementary calculation. It multiplies D14C data by 12C data to plot the 14C curve. Big deal. You should have stayed with that part and taken your bows. You could have done a separate publication, but you made your publication an attack on the scientists that you hate.

      You could have mentioned that many papers, on both sides, loosely call D14C data “14C” data, and you would have been correct. But you concluded this language error invalidated the conclusions of these papers, which is incorrect. You did not follow the logic in these papers.

      Your publication did not unwind any proof that the core theory is wrong, as you think it does. So, in net, your paper produced more errors than you resolved.

      Your plot of the 14C data has nothing to do with the Preprint #3 proof.

      Your 14C plot shows 14CO2 has an e-time of about 10 years which clearly supports the Preprint #3 proof that the IPCC core theory is wrong. You don’t get that connection. You don’t get climate physics.

      You missed the point Preprint #3 makes that the D14C data show the increase in atmospheric CO2 is dominated by a source that has its D14C ratio near zero, which suggests the primary source of the CO2 increase is the ocean (or nature) and not human CO2 emissions.

      Your comment misinterprets IPCC’s position about the natural carbon cycle and you present NO evidence to support your incorrect positions on climate physics.

      The IPCC does not “warn against simple models” like mine, meaning the outflows are linear functions of their levels. IPCC’s Bern model is based on an outflow that is linear with level. The Bern model differs from my physics model, so far as is evident, only in its Te values.

      IPCC’s natural carbon cycle uses outflows linear with levels. Nowhere does the IPCC use a complex nonlinear relationship for its natural carbon cycle model.

      Please use facts in your future arguments rather than using your grandiose, handwaving, numberless, invalid arguments.

  46. Ed,
    Here is a simplified IPCC statement about carbon exchange, from your reference 1, p 540:

    “Carbon dioxide (CO2), after it is emitted into the atmosphere, is firstly rapidly distributed between atmosphere, the upper ocean and vegetation. Subsequently, the carbon continues to be moved between the different reservoirs of the global carbon cycle, such as soils, the deeper ocean and rocks. Some of these exchanges occur very slowly. Depending on the amount of CO2 released, between 15% and 40% will remain in the atmosphere for up to 2000 years, after which a new balance is established between the atmosphere, the land biosphere and the ocean. Geological processes will take anywhere from tens to hundreds of thousands of years—perhaps longer—to redistribute the carbon further among the geological reservoirs. Higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations, and associated climate impacts of present emissions, will, therefore, persist for a very long time into the future.”

    Your model is nothing like the IPCC model described above. You talk only about what IPCC calls “the rapid part”, as if it were the only thing happening. You muddle together fast processes and slow ones. In your model, for example, the rate at which carbon moves from “land” to “atmosphere” [F12] depends on how much carbon is in a coal seam deep underground [a component of L1], effectively isolated from the atmosphere. Does that make sense to you? It doesn’t to me, nor to the IPCC. But forget about arguing with your critics whether flow is proportional to level. The problems with your model are deeper as discussed below.

    Even if we do assume linear dependence between flow and level, let us be clear that there is nothing unphysical about multiple time constants describing the flow between two sinks. You have made wrong statements about this point elsewhere. Those statements may stem from Harde’s 2019 paper (your Ref 38), Section 5.5. Harde writes: “Oceans and continents consist of an endless number of sources and sinks for CO2 which act [in] parallel”. Harde is correct when he goes on to argue that PARALLEL paths between sinks combine to produce one effective time constant. But he is dead wrong that all exchanges between sinks are in parallel. It is easy to think of a counter example: Let sink 1 be the atmosphere and sink 2 the ocean and its contents. Imagine a pulse of CO2 is put into the atmosphere, increasing the atmospheric “level”. Here it makes sense that this will increase the flow of carbon to the surface ocean, perhaps linearly, raising its level in seawater until a new balance is reached. Your model and the IPCC agree that this happens quickly, on a several year time scale. In the meantime, suppose that there is another much slower process that removes carbon from seawater, say the growth of clam shells, which is perhaps stimulated by higher carbon levels. If this process is slow, the initial partial absorption of the CO2 pulse by seawater will hardly be affected. But over time, as carbonic acid is turned into clam shells, the seawater carbon level will fall, upsetting the balance and causing the atmospheric carbon level to also fall. So after a pulse of new CO2 into the atmosphere, the atmospheric CO2 concentration will fall rapidly until it equilibrates with the rising ocean concentration, then more slowly at a rate dependent on clam biology. The reason the curve is not a simple exponential with one time constant is that the physical processes are now in SERIES rather than parallel. Ironically, Harde attempts to use the bomb pulse carbon 14 curve to validate his insistence on parallel paths and a single time constant! He does not yet realize that “Delta C14” is NOT concentration. While “DeltaC14” did follow a simple exponential following the bomb tests, C14 concentration most certainly did not. Don’t worry too much about the radiation doses we are getting, but a substantial portion of the bomb fallout is still with us.

    I note that you do have one serial process in your model: the transfer of anthropogenic carbon from the atmosphere to the surface ocean, and then to the deep ocean. But your model remains far too simple, and to say that it “proves the IPCC wrong” is laughable.

    1. Dear David,

      Thank you for your reply because it shows at least one place where you are all mixed up. You are trying to add the slow domain to the fast domain. When we use IPCC Figure 6.1, we are using only the fast domain. The slow domain does not change the conclusions we draw from the fast domain. Read what the IPCC says.

      Here are the relevant quotes from the IPCC: (I bolded the more important sentences.)

      IPCC (2013, p 470) introduces IPCC’s carbon cycles:

      “Atmospheric CO2 represents the main atmospheric phase of the global carbon cycle. The global carbon cycle can be viewed as a series of reservoirs of carbon in the Earth System, which are connected by exchange fluxes of carbon. Conceptually, one can distinguish two domains in the global carbon cycle. The first is a fast domain with large exchange fluxes and relatively ‘rapid’ reservoir turnovers, which consists of carbon in the atmosphere, the ocean, surface ocean sediments and on land in vegetation, soils and freshwaters.

      Reservoir turnover times, defined as reservoir mass of carbon divided by the exchange flux, range from a few years for the atmosphere to decades to millennia for the major carbon reservoirs of the land vegetation and soil and the various domains in the ocean.”

      IPCC’s statement applies to its Figure 6.1. The reference to “turnover times” clarifies that the IPCC intends that outflows are directly proportional to the reservoir levels and that these data include IPCC’s biogeochemical processes for the carbon cycle.

      IPCC (2013, p 470) says of IPCC’s Figure 6.1:

      A schematic of the global carbon cycle with focus on the fast domain is shown in Figure 6.1. The numbers represent the estimated current pool sizes in PgC and the magnitude of the different exchange fluxes in PgC/year averaged over the time-period 2000-2009.

      Therefore, I am not only justified in applying the turnover time to my modeling of IPCC’s fast domain carbon cycles, I am required to do so in order to properly interpret IPCC’s data.

  47. So you are standing by your model’s assertion that a kg of carbon in a buried coal seam effects the exchange of carbon between “land” and “atmosphere” as much as a kg of carbon in leaves?

    1. Dear David,

      That is not exactly what my model asserts. My model asserts two things in this regard:

      1. Human carbon derived from carbon fuels adds new carbon to the fast carbon cycle. (More precisely, it moves carbon from the slow carbon cycle to the fast carbon cycle.) My model keeps track of this added carbon. As of 2020, human carbon has added about one percent to the carbon in the fast carbon cycle.

      2. Once this new carbon is added to the fast carbon cycle, it behaves physically and chemically exactly like all the other carbon in the fast carbon cycle.

  48. What does it matter if a Human burns a lump of coal, or a Volcano belches CO2 drawn from the Earth’s depths? Both are “new” carbon and utterly meaningless in regard to CO2 having climatic effects.

    No matter the “newness” or “oldness” of any CO2 source, CO2 does not drive our Climate in ANY meaningful sense, and is basically MOOT.

    When the entire Human Race can vanish, taking with them their entire CO2 production, and the Climate remain exactly the same…having removed their 18 ppm of CO2 annual contribution…the entire argument for “Man Made Global Warming” becomes comedy.

    1. Dear Ision,
      While your general conclusion is correct for public consumption, there is a need for scientists like me to address the formal structure of IPCC’s climate claims. Therefore, when I am responding to professional scientists like Dave, I must use the physical formalities and definitions that IPCC uses.

      The IPCC divides the overall carbon cycle into two parts, the fast cycle, and the slow cycle. Actually, it makes sense to do this because it does approximate reality.

      The bottom line of my preprint is that it uses IPCC’s data to prove human carbon emissions do not cause all the increase in atmospheric CO2. That is the breakthrough that people like you need to make scientifically sound arguments in your public debates.

      1. I do not mean to put you out of work, nor to demean your efforts to address the issue in kind with those attempting to defraud the public, and manipulate government action, via deliberate and carefully considered lies.

        I do not need to address these lies in terms only experts may fathom, as it is my experience this is completely pointless. After all, your own experience attempting to explain the scientific realities of the topic, and to point out the inaccuracies and contradictions to alarmists, in great detail, has not resulted in their conversion…but an ever higher and hardening wall to keep out contrary data, complete with same being erased from memory, as never existing. They shall reset their intellects, then make the exact corrupt posits again and again, ad infinitum. As these people believe for emotional reasons…and not Rational…else, they are deliberate manipulators.

        Debates require at least two parties defaulting to Reason, and strict mutual honesty, in order to be of any merit…and I have found both Reason, and Honesty, lacking in public exchanges with Climate Alarmists.

        I only seriously address the lay public, who lack in depth scientific understanding, but yet are rational and not seriously emotionally conditioned. Others, I just slam…hard.

        I love what you do and I am grateful for your efforts. But, all the BS stops immediately, when it is pointed out that Man’s 18 ppm of CO2 is meaningless to our Climate…and ALL the facts demonstrate this. Let alone the total absurdity of attempting to REMOVE CO2 from the atmosphere.

  49. Ision,
    You give me nothing to argue about since you state your beliefs without any evidence. I am a physicist but not a long-time climate scientist. I started reading the work of climate skeptics a few years ago to see if there was anything there. I agree with some skeptics that a few “alarmists” may well be overstating the certainty and/or magnitude of the problem. For example, I do not think our species will go extinct any time soon. But I find no holes in the consensus scientific argument that we have a problem that needs to be addressed with some urgency, before it becomes even more urgent.
    I deplore the fact that a scientific question has become, in the US at least, a partisan issue. We should be arguing what to do about climate change from our differing political viewpoints, instead of arguing whether there is a problem. I fear that because the Republican party has been duped by the likes of Ed Berry and others on this issue, there has been insufficient attention paid to creating incentives for private industry to address the problem. Entrepreneurs with ideas about removing CO2 from the atmosphere, for example, are having trouble raising capital since there is no profit in that without a carbon tax. You can’t complain about the Green New Deal if you don’t propose something else.
    In the process of reading and sometimes debunking skeptics, I have become an expert on their culture. Their logic usually goes as follows:
    1. It is not getting any warmer. The “alarmists” fudged the 19th century temperature data to make it seem like it is.
    2. But if it is getting warmer, it is a temporary trend, soon to be followed by a cooling period. It has nothing to do with CO2. CO2 increases will not affect climate.
    3. But if warming does have to do with CO2, there is nothing we can do, because the CO2 increase is not from human activity. It is naturally caused.
    You are at stage 2. Ed is at stage 3. I think Ed is right that his blog is the place to discuss the causes of CO2 growth, not the effects of CO2 growth. But if you want to make your case, do it.

    1. David,

      So, what do you needs to be “proven” to you? The obvious? What “case” needs to be put forth, so you may comprehend what I have stated in my comment?

      You need to be shown that CO2 produced by a lump of coal, is the equivalent of the CO2 burped up from volcanic activity…and visa-versa? Both add sequestered CO2 to the atmosphere, neither being more, or less, significant than the other in regards to climate alteration.

      You need me to make a “case” demonstrating that reducing atmospheric CO2 by 18 ppm, from its current level, would result in no significant change to Earth’s climate? This is quite easy, since you and I have both lived on this planet when the average CO2 content was, not only 18 ppm less…but even lower.

      But, we are not talking of removing the ENTIRE Human contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere, but a just a fraction of the total18 ppm involved. If the removal of 18 ppm is moot, so too…is the removal of any smaller percentage.

      You are merely a propagandist, invested with political interests, who plays the confusion game, and has a long history of doing so.

      I love CO2 and think we should not care a bit about creating it, as this trace gas does not drive the climate, is great for plants and plankton…and life.

  50. Dear Ision,

    David Anderson’s reply to you supports your contention. He begins with,

      You give me nothing to argue about since you state your beliefs without any evidence,”

    which is exactly how David does climate science.

    David “believes” without any evidence that human CO2 has caused all the increase in atmospheric CO2.

    You described Dave’s response when you wrote:

      They shall reset their intellects, then make the exact corrupt posits again and again, ad infinitum. As these people believe for emotional reasons…and not Rational…else, they are deliberate manipulators.”

    Dave does not understand that preprint Figure 1, which is pure data, proves his belief is wrong.

    He does not understand that an atmospheric CO2 turnover time of 4 years proves the core theory is wrong.

    He does not understand that the core theory violates the Equivalence Principle of climate physics. He just believes.

    As you wrote:

      Debates require at least two parties defaulting to Reason, and strict mutual honesty, in order to be of any merit…and I have found both Reason and Honesty lacking in public exchanges with Climate Alarmists.”
  51. Ed,
    Let us talk about your model, the so-called “proof” that the IPCC has it wrong.

    Your model says that “land carbon” has INCREASED by 150 Pg’s since the beginning of the industrial age. That is where you say a large fraction of the burned fossil fuel carbon has gone, instead of to the atmosphere. That is a lot. If it were in vegetation, it would mean that there had been a 20-30% increase in vegetation since Lewis and Clark ventured west. From Fig 6.1 of your reference 1, from which you got the data to compute the six time constants in your model, the best estimate is that carbon in vegetation has DECREASED by about 30 Pg’s. But it gets much worse for you. Since you have to postulate volcanos or some other “natural” source to produce the atmospheric carbon increase that you deny is from fossil fuels, the “equivalence principle” requires you to distribute that into your four sinks in similar proportions as the human carbon. You have way more carbon than you know what to do with.

    Explain to Ision and to me how your model accomplishes this.

    1. Dear Dave,

      First, you do not follow the scientific method which says you must reject a theory when it conflicts with data or known physics. My preprint shows three arguments to reject the core theory:

      1. The data in Figure 1.
      2. How the claim that human carbon stays in the atmosphere much longer than natural carbon stays in the atmosphere violates the Equivalence Principle.
      3. How IPCC’s human carbon distribution (Figure 7) is not compatible with IPCC’s natural carbon distribution (Figure 6).

      Yet, you still cling to your precious core theory. Why?

      Second, have you ever worked with models of this type? Most physicists have not. But numerical modeling is part of my expertise.

      Third, if you wish to discuss the details of my model, you will need to be much more precise about where you are getting the numbers that you throw around in your comment. Please reference section numbers, figure numbers, etc, and show your calculations.

      The purpose of my model is to calculate the true human contribution to atmospheric CO2. My model is not necessary to reject the core theory, but it helps nail shut the core theory coffin.

  52. Your model does no such thing. Your model is wrong as Dave and I have explained to you. Your model conflicts with known physics and thus it can be safely ignored.

    1. Dear (Fake) Immortal600:

      You are welcome to your irrational opinion. But you have not made any valid argument that shows any error in my model. You do not even understand the problem, much less the solution. And you do not understand dynamic numerical models.

      Like Dave, you do not understand that my preprint proves the core theory is wrong. Until you acknowledge that fact, then it is obvious that you do not even know how science works, or you refuse to follow the scientific method.

      You do not even know how to make a point. “No such thing” is not a rational argument.

      You are ashamed to tell us who you are. Dave is at least honest about who he is.

  53. Yes, I have made valid arguments that shows your model is incorrect and Dave made the same observation. It’s as simple as the fact that you have assumed linearity, when the physical behavior is nonlinear.

    This simple fact has been explained to you from multiple directions and you still don’t get it.

    I understand dynamic numerical models far better than you do. You are stuck on linearity. The problem you are trying to solve is nonlinear, which means that if you want to linearize the problem then you have to do so with a proper Taylor series.

    The point has been made and as you have done in the past it is likely that you will not post this or not respond in a rational manner.

  54. Dear (fake) Immortal600,

    You don’t get it that the IPCC assumes linearity, as I explained to Dave a few comments ago. Did you read it?

    The first reason I use a linear function for outflow is that IPCC uses a linear function for outflow, and I must simulate IPCC’s natural carbon cycle before I calculate the “true” human carbon cycle that follows the same rules and IPCC’s natural carbon cycle. You miss the physics behind the math.

    I have replicated IPCC’s natural carbon cycle without departing from IPCC’s own rules.

    The second reason I use a linear function is that there are no data that suggests there is a significant departure from linearity. So, in this field, an extension into nonlinearity is a trip to nowhere.

    You are like a guy with a hammer who thinks everything is a nail. You think, incorrectly, that IPCC’s carbon cycles should use a nonlinear function because somewhere in your engineering career you used a nonlinear function to solve a problem. Well, I have solved nonlinear problems also, so I know what a nonlinear problem is, and this is not one of them.

    So, no, you have not made any valid arguments. You have not even admitted that I have proved the core theory is wrong. Like all believers in the irrational core theory, your mind is locked and you are being irrational.

  55. Ed,
    Your model, an attempt to correlate the data of Fig 6.1 in your reference 1, fails to account for the observed decline in land carbon. Therefore it must be rejected, and you know that very well. As usual you duck the issue. But I don’t really expect you to be truthful. It took you nearly a year to acknowledge your carbon 14 error, which led you into the corner you are in.

  56. Dear Dave,

    Please be specific. What “observed decline in land carbon? I am using IPCC’s data. Do you have some data that the IPCC does not mention?

    I am not in any corner, Dave. It is you who is a corner. You reject the scientific method because you do not acknowledge that IPCC’s core theory is invalid. So where are you on the truth?

  57. “You don’t get it that the IPCC assumes linearity, as I explained to Dave a few comments ago. Did you read it?”

    They don’t assume linearity from zero. They assume linearity about the equilibrium state.

    Taylor series aren’t difficult concepts. There’s a constant term, which sets the equilibrium state, and then there is a linear term which sets the rates for small perturbations about that equilibrium state.

    You may have read the IPCC report, but you obviously do not understand it. Feel free to quote the passages that you believe support your claims.

    1. Dear (fake) Immortal600,

      Read the comment above that I made to Dave. It lists my IPCC quotes. These quotes make no reference to any nonlinearity and make all reference to the turnover time which is linear, even to zero.

      First question: Where are your IPCC quotes that assume nonlinearity?

      In this problem the levels never get to zero, so even if there were nonlinearities near zero, they do not matter to this problem.

      Second question: So how is your concern about nonlinear relevant?

      Third question: When are you going to admit that the core theory is wrong?

      1. Ed,

        By now you must be fully aware you have been targeted.

        I respectfully suggest, when you discover intellectual dishonesty, or deliberate confusion, you cease attempting to “cure” the situation, as there is no “solution.” The unending litany of problems with your work do not need to be factual, nor sincere, and no matter how you respond to these fabricated issues, rectification of them is not going to be allowed.

        We call this, “The Confusion Game,” which is an old disinformation technique used by Intelligence services, such as those I used to work for. The basic purpose is to confuse any interested third-parties, attempting to come up to speed on the issues, boggle their understanding, and motivate them to stop seeking to actively understand, and to prevent them from achieving confidence in the veracity of the target’s (your) conclusions.

        It is designed to suppress the spread of unwanted information, exactly like the sort found herein.

        If you can, simply attempt to block these professional trolls, when you discover them…and, give yourself a break. The more your engage them, the happier they become. The only winning move is to not play the game.

        Teach as best you can, but…ignore the champions of intellectual fraud, whose harassment of your work is a matter of deceit and not enlightenment.

        1. Dear Ision,

          Well said and accurate.

          I am about ready to slam the door on (fake) Immortal600. He has one more try to make intellectual sense.

  58. Ed,
    I am using Figure 6.1 of your Ref 1, the data that you used to compute your time constants. Changes in stored carbon during the industrial era (1750-2011 I believe) are listed in red as:
    atmosphere +240 Pg
    ocean +155
    vegetation/soils -30
    fossil fuel reserves -365
    I believe we are both taking the above numbers as DATA that any model is required to replicate.

    Your model has “human carbon L’s” through 2011
    atmosphere +58.5 Pg
    deep ocean + surface ocean = 158.1+30.7 = 188.8
    land +115.9
    total human carbon 363.3 (-363.3 is the change in fossil fuel reserves)

    (The numbers here are not exactly what I posted before, as they went through 2020. I changed the time period to better match Fig 6.1)

    Your problem is to add “natural carbon” to the system in order to bring the atmospheric carbon up to measured levels, without making the disagreement between model and data for the land carbon even worse. You just cannot do it.

    1. Dear David,

      We do not have to replicate your first paragraph red numbers because those numbers result from IPCC assuming the core theory is true. These numbers are not really data because no one measured them.

      Your second paragraph numbers are almost my Figure 12.

      My problem is not about adding natural carbon to the system.

      The purpose of my model is to use IPCC’s black numbers for its natural carbon cycle to calculate the turnover times for the six nodes. Then, using these turnover times, my model calculates how human carbon, introduced annually into the atmosphere according to data, flows to the land, surface ocean, and deep ocean.

      We don’t expect my calculations for human carbon to agree with IPCC’s numbers for its human carbon cycle because IPCC numbers assume the core theory is true, and my numbers assume IPCC’s natural carbon cycle is true.

      My model does what the IPCC should have done but didn’t. My model calculates how the level changes with time using the same physics found in IPCC’s natural carbon cycle. These calculations show human carbon flows so fast from the atmosphere that only 33 ppm is still in the atmosphere in 2020.

      This is the most accurate calculation anyone has made for the effect of human carbon on atmospheric CO2. Given this result, nature had to add 100 ppm to the atmosphere as of 2020.

  59. “The reference to “turnover times” clarifies that the IPCC intends that outflows are directly proportional to the reservoir levels”

    This is your faulty interpretation Ed.

    It should give you pause that your model that assumes linearity gives poor results, whereas my model that correctly applied a Taylor series about equilibrium gave quite good results.

    If you were one that abided by the scientific method then you would reject the poor model (yours) and take the time to properly understand the superior model (mine).

    1. Dear (fake) Immortal600,

      First, you don’t have any model. If you think you have a model, then show it.

      Second, what is your proof of your claim that my model “gives poor results”?

      Third, what is your proof of your claim that your model “gave quite good results”?

      Fourth, you have not yet agreed that the core theory is false. Why?

      Please don’t waste my time with your handwaving, numberless claims.

  60. You can start back in July of 2020 on this thread.

    Your model gives a ridiculous change for the CO2 in the deep oceans.

    Even your faulty model shows that each of the reservoirs INCREASES in CO2 content due to human emissions. That would mean that your model DOES NOT show that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is natural.

    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

    Those numbers are MUCH closer to reality than your flawed numbers.

    1. Dear (fake) Immortal600,

      You just proved what I said: You do not have a model. All you have is your claimed numbers. You show nothing that I or anyone can review and check.

      You did not answer my four questions. You are wasting everyone’s time. You are a nutcase.


  61. Ed,
    My second set of numbers IS your model. And the comparison between first and second paragraph shows that even though your model is built around the data set of Fig 6.1, ref 1, it does not even fit that data. And the mismatch cannot be fixed by postulating “natural carbon” coming from an unspecified source.

    You say you do not need to fit the red numbers. So you think vegetation really has increased 20-30% since 1800? That is what your model says.

    I understand what your model does. I have downloaded the spreadsheet and played with it. Your model says that the great complexity of the carbon cycle can be reduced to 6 time constants. The IPCC warns against such naivety, but you know better.

    Of course we have both known for awhile that your model also cannot explain the evolution of the “bomb pulse” of C14.

    We haven’t even gotten into the issue of residence time versus adjustment time.

    1. Dear Dave,

      You say, “So you think vegetation really has increased 20-30% since 1800? That is what your model says.”

      No, that is not what my model says. You are looking at my calculation for human carbon only. The percentages for human carbon in each reservoir are only for the amount of human carbon added to the carbon cycle when the total amount of human carbon added is less than one percent of natural carbon. So, that 30% you mention is 30% of 1%.

      You wrote:

        “Your model says that the great complexity of the carbon cycle can
        be reduced to 6 time constants. The IPCC warns against such naivety, but you know better.”

      No, the IPCC, not me, reduces the carbon cycle to 6 nodes, which have time constants.

      To “explain” the evolution of the 14C data requires data regarding inflows. Do you have such data?
      The 14C data are just that: data.

      By the way, your “explanation” of the evolution of 14C concentration is wrong. My explanation is correct. I show how the D14C data return to the original balance level of zero explains the increase in 14C. 14C increased along with 12C but from a source that has D14C equal to about zero. The return to the zero level shows that nature, not human CO2, is the dominant cause of the increase in atmospheric CO2. You missed that point and you probably still don’t understand it.

  62. Ed,
    Look again at the numbers. There is no “30% of 1%”. Your model says that by 2020 147.3 Pg of human carbon had been added to land (vegetation) during the industrial age. The total store of carbon at the beginning of the industrial age is given as 450-650 Pg in Fig 6.1. That implies a 22.7% to 32.7% increase in vegetation during that period, unless you want to argue that natural carbon in vegetation has decreased in the period. That argument would violate your equivalence principle.

    1. Dear David,

      OK, you make a good point. However, please notice that my model uses 2500 PgC for Land at natural equilibrium. This comes from adding IPCC’s (Figure 6.1) averages for Vegetation (550 PgC) and Soils (1950 PgC) to get the total for the natural land resource of 2500 PgC. That 2500 PgC (shown in Figure 4) goes into calculating the Land turnover time.

      Then my model, using that turnover time, calculates that 198 PgC of 452 PgC (or 43.43%) of human carbon is in the Land by 2020 (Figure 13). This 198 PgC is an 8% (human-caused) increase over the natural Land amount.

      Realize that the IPCC says its numbers are accurate to about 20%.

  63. Ed,
    OK, vegetation plus soil is up by 8% in your model, whereas IPCC estimates it is down a % or two. But what is going to happen to this discrepancy in the total carbon when you add the large amount of “natural carbon” to the system that you say is necessary to bring the atmospheric level up to its measured value? It will get much bigger, by an amount that depends on what you think the source of the natural carbon is, and to some extent the time evolution of the natural emissions. Since a large part of the history of CO2 growth has been directly observed at Mauna Loa and correlates well with human emissions, I think your hypothetical natural carbon has to have been emitted on a similar time scale, i.e. more or less continuously, and at a higher rate in recent decades. It sure doesn’t sound like volcanos to me.

    Harde argued that atmospheric “natural carbon” came from outgassing of the oceans due to global temperature rises, ie that temperature rises caused the CO2 increase rather than the other way around. A standard argument against that theory that convinces me is the DECREASE in atmospheric oxygen that correlates well with the increase in CO2. When you burn a lump of coal, you use up oxygen. Your Ref 1 discusses it. Heating the oceans should cause oxygen outgassing just like CO2 outgassing, and an INCREASE in atmospheric oxygen, if Harde were right.

    If Ision, who loves CO2, is still out there, maybe he can tell us if he loves oxygen too. I would hope so. A friend thinks an oxygen tax would be an easier sell than a carbon tax, and that friend might be right. When you burn fossil fuels, you are consuming oxygen and the effect on atmospheric oxygen levels is easily measurable (though not of immediate concern).

    We still need to get to residence time vs adjustment time.

    1. I do not love Oxygen as much as I do CO2. After all, CO2 was here first, and that pesky Oxygen pollution makes things rust! I haven’t decided how I feel about Argon, yet. But, I like Nitrogen for inflating my tires, so it is okay.

      I know…I know…and I am in therapy for my Oxygen antagonism and am conflicted a bit by CO2’s responsibility for it…

    2. Dear David,

      There are several resources (that I have not looked for in this reply) that show plants are growing much faster now than many years ago and they say the cause is the increased atmospheric CO2.

      The decrease in oxygen measures only the amount of carbon that has been burned to form atmospheric CO2. This decrease in oxygen does not say anything about the flows of carbon into and out of the atmosphere, and it follows its own oxygen cycle. So, it has nothing to say about the cause of the increase in atmospheric CO2.

      Regarding nature’s part in the increase, data show that CO2 concentration follows temperature. More precisely, the rate of CO2 increase follows temperature. If we assume this relationship is accurate, then we would expect nature’s added CO2 would be smooth over time, as you suggest.

      Since the source of the natural CO2 increase has a D14C value close to zero, it is likely the oceans and not volcanoes provide this CO2 increase.

      You are welcome to discuss residence time vs adjustment time whenever you wish.

  64. Ed,
    Yes, according to studies, increased CO2 plus warmer temperatures have increased plant growth somewhat, especially at the mid-latitudes. This would be included in the IPCC numbers for carbon in the “land sink.”

    If the atmospheric carbon increase is caused by outgassing from warmer oceans, then oxygen should also be outgassing and increasing in the atmosphere as well. Instead it is decreasing, and this is further evidence that the combustion of fossil fuels is having an important effect on atmospheric gasses.

    Following is a table of atmospheric, land, and ocean carbon changes during the industrial era, through 2011, all given in Pg’s. The first column is the TOTAL CARBON CHANGE, per Figure 6.1 of your Ref 1, the same place you got the data for your model. The second column is the HUMAN CAUSED CARBON CHANGE according to your model. The third column is column 1 minus column 2, i.e. (total carbon change in a sink) – (human carbon change in a sink according to you model) which would be (NATURAL CARBON CHANGE in a sink according to your model). I have shown columns 1 and 2 before and invited you to think about column 3, the distribution of natural carbon. You did not respond, so I have done the arithmetic for you:

    (per Berry) (per Berry)
    atmosphere 240 58.5 181.5
    land -30 115.9 -145.9
    oceans 155 188.8 -33.8

    The absurdity of your model is apparent in this table. The 365 Pg of carbon removed from sequestered fossil fuel reserves went initially into the atmosphere. You say that the great majority of human carbon has left the atmosphere and gone into the land and oceans. Meanwhile (you say) outgassing oceans have greatly increased the atmospheric carbon, but for some reason have taken carbon from the land!

    For a long time you have falsely claimed that the IPCC models treat human emissions and natural sources of carbon differently. In fact, it has also been your model that violates what you named “the equivalence principle.”

    _____________________________________________(per Berry)_____________________(per Berry)
    atmosphere _____+240________________________+58.5 _________________________+181.5
    land_______________-30_______________________+ 115.9_________________________ -145.9
    oceans__________+155_______________________+ 188.8__________________________ -33.8

    Table from previous post, reformatted

    1. Dear David,

      Thank you for your comment. Even though you are wrong, your comment helps me reply to people like you who have enormously difficult times understanding the obvious.

      Figure 2 shows the IPCC numbers for both the natural and human carbon cycles. IPCC’s natural carbon cycle numbers are from data.

      However, IPCC’s numbers for its human carbon cycle derive not from data but from IPCC’s ASSUMPTION that human-caused carbon emissions are responsible for ALL the increase in atmospheric CO2 greater than 589 PgC (278 ppm). That is your column one. It is pure junk science based on an invalid assumption.

      Column 2 is from my calculations using the data in IPCC’s natural carbon cycle to calculate a true human carbon cycle. The fact that you claim IPCC’s Column 1 is more reliable than my Column 2 shows you cannot understand my Preprint, my model, and my calculations.

      Your inability to understand my calculations shows you are a wannabe atmospheric physicist. Your haste to call my calculations incorrect shows you do not even have the proper scientific attitude to do climate physics.

      IPCC simply takes the measured atmospheric CO2 level of 829 PgC in about 2011 and ASSUMES human CO2 emissions caused ALL the increase in atmospheric CO2 above its claimed natural level of 589 PgC, thereby getting 240 PgC (113 ppm) for the human-caused increase to the atmosphere in about 2011. Then the IPCC irrationally dumps the human carbon it cannot squeeze into the atmosphere into the deep ocean. That is pure junk science. What a waste of taxpayer money.

      Here is a correction to your numbers with surface and deep ocean data shown:

      Reservoir____IPCC Human ______Berry Human ______Berry Natural
      Land_____________0_______________172__________________(no data)
      Surf Ocean_______0_______________ 33__________________(no data)
      Deep Ocean_____155_______________126__________________(no data)
      Total__________395_______________395__________________(no data)

      Figure 2 shows that IPCC moved 30 PgC from the land to the atmosphere.

      My preprint omits this IPCC 30 PgC because (a) IPCC assigns an error of +/- 45 PgC to this 30 PgC, (b) IPCC has no valid annual data for human-caused carbon emissions from land use, (c) 30 PgC in this context is negligible, and (d) the focus of climate politics is upon human emissions from burning carbon fuels.

      Therefore, Column 2 uses my Figure 11 percentages for 365 PgC carbon fuel emissions as of about 2011 and adds IPCC’s 30 PgC to get 395 PgC to properly compare with Column 1.

      I don’t know where you got your Column 3. The only number I assign to Column 3 is for atmospheric carbon. There are no data that assign numbers for the natural changes in the other reservoirs.

      You can compare IPCC’s human carbon cycle shown in Figure 6 with the true human carbon cycle derived from IPCC’s natural carbon cycle data shown in Figure 11.

      Do you really think Figure 6 represents the real human carbon cycle better than Figure 11?

      Every intelligent person should be able to understand that your Column 1 is an illusion.


    I continually update my preprint to make it better. Today, I updated the PDF at the top of this post to my June 5 version. Only the text and figures numbers are changed. The math and calculations remain unchanged.

    My introduction was too long, according to some reviewers. So, I removed the figures showing the charts by Kouwenberg and Beck, and I put IPCC’s Figure 6.1 in Figure 2.

    I added a few more IPCC quotes to help the dumbheads who don’t understand what the IPCC says because they think they already know what the IPCC says.

  67. Ed,
    Column 1 is NOT IPCC’s estimate of human carbon. It is IPCC’s estimate of the CHANGE in total carbon in each of the sinks during the industrial era. IPCC does not label some carbon human and some natural. Only you do. For the atmosphere, the carbon change is well measured since ice core data gives good measurements of atmospheric CO2 from ~250 years ago, and of course we have good measurements today. For land that quantity is estimated from a complex and detailed analysis, region by region. The conclusion that there is a little less carbon “on land” after 250 years of forest clearing makes perfect sense to me. (If you want to put “0” in column 1 for land change instead of “-30”, and change the human emissions from 365 to 395, it doesn’t change the problem you have much.) Finally yes, I believe the estimate of increased carbon in the ocean is constrained to make the total change in atmosphere, land, and sea equal to the estimated total fossil fuel emissions. The assumption is merely that carbon is conserved, an obvious constraint and not at all junk science. Certainly the observed increased acidification of the oceans is consistent with carbon in the oceans increasing.

    Column 2 is all yours.

    I explained how I got Colum 3: I subtracted Column 2 from Column 1, reservoir by reservoir. That is exactly what you did to get your “176” for the amount of “natural” carbon in the atmosphere. The only reason you do not do it for the ocean and land sinks, is that you are embarrassed by the result, which clearly shows that your model implies that human and natural carbon behave differently. One of the few things we agree on: that cannot be true.

    1. Dear Dave,

      You have become a complete nutcase. You are not able to understand the IPCC of my preprint. I quote the IPCC sentences that refute your comment. Your comment is idiotic. Every claim in your comment is wrong.

      I don’t know how to help you. I think you are beyond help. Maybe there is a shrink out there who can help.

      I suggest you take a few days to read my preprint, especially the IPCC quotes, and think about this carefully before you make another nutcase comment.

  68. Ed,
    You disrespect your followers when you assume they cannot understand that (change in total carbon) = (change in human emitted carbon) + (change in natural carbon.) Your followers can see that your hysterical response is an attempt to distract them from seeing that your model is toast. The jigs up.

    1. Dear Dave,
      You still don’t get it that the IPCC ASSUMES the change in human carbon equals the change in total carbon. You make the same assumption as the IPCC. Therefore, you miss the whole problem.

      Your reading comprehension is so low that you do not understand IPCC’s description of its Figure 6.1 that clearly says the red numbers represent human carbon.

      Your climate IQ is so low that you believe IPCC’s numbers in your Column 1 are data, which they are not. Your Column 1 numbers result from IPCC’s ASSUMPTION that the core theory is true, which it is not. So your whole argument is circular and invalid.

      We have approximate data for the annual human carbon emissions due to burning carbon fuels since about 1750. We have good data for the annual change in atmospheric CO2 after 1960. We have NO data that tells us human emissions cause ALL the increase in atmospheric CO2.

      We have NO data for the annual change in the total natural carbon. You ASSUME the total natural carbon in the carbon cycle has been constant since 1750, and that human emissions have caused all the CO2 increase.

      So your argument is so full of ASSUMPTIONS that it is junk science. All good scientists acknowledge and list the assumptions in their arguments. You do not. You assign constraints to your thinking where data do not justify the constraints.

  69. Dear Ed,

    See? When you discover the absence of Reason in a party, and context divorced from meaning, teaching and learning vanish, as no communication can take place.

    The corrupt intellect simply pushes their cognitive “Reset” button, returning it to an unmodified state. It is an emotional phenomenon found in emotionally indoctrinated people, in order to avoid doubt regarding what has been programed into them.

    It is not their fault, as most people are the victims of the deliberate mutilations of their cognitive powers by the institutions they were forced to attend, until enough indoctrination had been achieved, which motivated them to continue their indoctrination on their own, and pay for it themselves.

    By the time you get to play with these people, they are hopelessly unconscious of the mental barriers their minds are infested with, and any transgression of them only invokes an emotional reaction, which protects them from the uncomfortable emotions created by the surfacing of doubt, along with the mental “work” doubt provokes.

    Remember the old definition for “insanity?”

    You are able to point out the contradictions (fallacies) of the IPCC, which are sufficient to remove it from any serious consideration as a tool for the comprehension of Identity (Reality). And, as a result, have properly discovered Human CO2 to be meaningless (insignificant) to Climate. And, further, all the Herculean efforts to reduce Human CO2 emissions are also meaningless to the Climate, about which, such efforts NEVER were meant to effect…but are meant only for political and economic control over Human means of production.

    I appreciate your hard work on this matter.

  70. Ed,
    Perhaps it would be more productive if you say what you think and I say what I think, and you stop saying what IPCC thinks, because you have a bad habit of misrepresenting them. It took you nearly a year to acknowledge your critical error in analyzing C14 data, so I suspect your apparent failure to understand the argument I am now making is all bluster. But in case you really haven’t understood, I will lay it out again, with one change to accommodate your comment.

    The column 1 numbers we have discussed are the measured or inferred CHANGES IN TOTAL CARBON for three different sinks (atmosphere, land, oceans) during the industrial era. The COLUMN 1 numbers are:

    +240 Pg in the atmosphere, determined by the difference between current measurements and ice core measurements of CO2. There is NO assumption here about how much of the 240 Pg is from the 365 Pg humans have put into the atmosphere versus other sources. This is a measurement, and the measurements don’t identify the source of the carbon.

    -30 Pg in land sinks. This is the best estimate from complicated studies of forest growth and clearing over the last 250 years. Of course there are uncertainties, but neither of us is in a position to second guess this number, and you gave no good reason to arbitrarily set it to 0, and that change doesn’t materially affect the argument anyway. There is NO assumption about how much of the remaining carbon in plants, soil, etc came from burned fossil fuels.

    +155 Pg added to the oceans. Yes, this number uses the 365 Pg added to the system by fossil fuel burning to constrain the total (240 -30 +155 = 365). It is an expression of carbon conservation. Of course, the seams of coal and oil reserves had been there, sequestered, before 1800, but the 365 Pg is taken as “new carbon” added to the cycle. If there is an additional source of natural “new carbon” that had been sequestered, say undersea volcanoes emitting X Pg, then this number should be 155 + X, where X is a positive number. I did not have this X in my previous post. X is 0 if your hypothetical outgassing of the oceans is of carbon already in the cycle. (Of course, this explanation of atmospheric carbon increase is contradicted by the oxygen data.)

    COLUMN 2 is YOUR MODEL of how much of the carbon change in the sinks came from human sources. Unlike column 1, this is not data it is BERRY’S MODEL:
    Atmosphere +58.5
    Land +115.9
    Ocean +188.8

    COLUMN 3, computed as Column 1- Column 2, is also BERRY’S MODEL for the amount of natural carbon added to the sinks. You need to take responsibility for it, Ed. As surely as 1 + 1 = 2, “total carbon change in a sink” [column 1] = “change in the human carbon in that sink”[column 2] + “change in the natural carbon in that sink [column 3]. From this it follows that BERRY’S MODEL implies that the change in natural (i.e. non-anthropogenic) carbon is:
    Atmosphere +181.5
    Land -145.9
    Ocean -33.8 + X

    Including this “X” (which I did not include before) makes your model sound a little better. At least you can make X big enough to account for the observed acidification of the oceans. But again: your model requires “natural carbon” to distribute itself very differently from “human carbon.” Tell us why your model says human carbon has been accumulating in land sinks while at the same time natural carbon in land sinks has decreased. You cannot. Your model is nonsense. Case closed.

    A note to “Fonzie”: I do not understand your comment. We all agree that atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are up. There have been more than enough human emissions to account for this. If it is not from human sources, where is it from? Any accounting of carbon has to balance increases in one place with decreases in another. Ed’s model does that. But by not working out what his model implies about the flows of non-anthropogenic carbon, Ed did not see that it is HIS model, not IPCC’s, that treats human and natural CO2 differently.

    1. Dear David,

      You say,
      “+240 Pg in the atmosphere, determined by the difference between current measurements and ice core measurements of CO2. There is NO assumption here about how much of the 240 Pg is from the 365 Pg humans have put into the atmosphere versus other sources. This is a measurement, and the measurements don’t identify the source of the carbon.”

      Your column 1 is based on only two measurements for each year: (a) the CO2 in the atmosphere and (b) the annual human CO2 emissions.

      Yet you still think those two data points prove human CO2 caused all the increase in atmospheric CO2. It is impossible for those two data points to support such a claim because there are no data that show how much of the CO2 increase was caused by natural CO2 vs human CO2.

      The only way to get the numbers (not data) in your column 1 is to ASSUME the natural CO2 level stayed constant at 280 ppm while human CO2 caused all the CO2 increase. That is an invalid ASSUMPTION and nutcase circular reasoning.

      Until you get that, there is no use continuing this conversation.

      Regarding your note to Fonzie, you say incorrectly,
      “But by not working out what his model implies about the flows of non-anthropogenic carbon, Ed did not see that it is HIS model, not IPCC’s, that treats human and natural CO2 differently.”

      Before you criticize my preprint, you have an ethical obligation to understand my preprint. But you ignore that. Obviously, you cannot understand my preprint and you are ashamed to admit it.

      Face it, Dave, you are a third-rate physicist. Your only reason to attack my physics is not science but your BELIEF that human CO2 causes dangerous climate change.

  71. Ed,
    Reread what I wrote. I make no claims about the human versus “natural” carbon in today’s atmosphere. For the third or fourth time, Column 1 is only about the change in TOTAL carbon in each of the three sinks during the past ~250 years. Of course much of the atmospheric human carbon emissions in that period have been replaced with carbon that you would call “natural”, while human carbon has found its way from the atmosphere to land sinks and the oceans. But that exchange does not absolve humans from being the primary cause of the atmospheric CO2 increase. See the difference between “residence time” and “adjustment time.”

    I understand your analysis completely. You have modeled human carbon flow (with dubious parameters), but you have not finished the job. You have not modeled “natural” carbon flows. If you did, you would see that with your parametrization, natural carbon changes plus human carbon changes don’t add up to the observed total carbon changes.

    1. Dear David,

      No, you do not understand my preprint. You prove that in your comments.

      Column 1 is NOT the total change in carbon in the three sinks. Column 1 is your imagined carbon change in the three sinks. You can’t tell the difference between facts and assumptions.

      Of course, I do not model the natural carbon flows because we have no direct data on natural CO2 emissions. Without inputs, a model is useless.

      Everything in your above comment is irrational and incorrect. Your suggestion that the difference between IPCC’s definition of residence time and adjustment time implies human CO2 caused all the CO2 increase is also irrational.

      I always welcome rational criticisms of my papers. But your comments have become a distraction because they are like a broken record player, repeating the same junk science over and over again.

  72. Does the change in total carbon in a sink equal the change in human carbon in that sink plus the change in natural carbon in that sink? Yes or no.

    1. Of course. That is how I conclude that natural CO2 has added about 100 ppm to the atmosphere as of 2020. I subtract the calculated 33 ppm caused by human CO2 from the measured increase in CO2 to get the increase caused by natural CO2.

      But you can’t get that because you are locked into the IPCC assumption that human CO2 caused all the increase.

  73. Ed,
    We are making progress. We agree that if we subtract the Berry Model’s calculation for the human carbon remaining in the atmosphere from the total measured change in carbon in the atmosphere, we get the Berry Model’s calculation for natural carbon added to the atmosphere.

    Now let’s do the same thing for carbon on land. Note that the Berry Model says that carbon put into the atmosphere from coal fired power plants is ultimately distributed to the land in the ratio 115.9Pg/58.3Pg = 1.99, compared to what stays in the atmosphere. By the “equivalence principle” that we both accept, this means that the carbon spewing from hypothetical undersea volcanos that works its way to the atmosphere, to make up the 181.5 Pg (240-58.5) of atmospheric carbon increase that the Berry Model says is not from humans, should also put about 181.5 x 1.99 =361 Pg into the land. This is in addition to the 115.9 of land carbon change that the Berry Model attributes to humans. So the Berry Model says that about 361 + 115.9 = 476.9 Pg of carbon has been added to the land the last ~ 250 years. That is a lot of carbon. Don’t you think we would have noticed? According to the famous IPCC figure 6.1, all vegetation amounts to 450 – 650 Pg of carbon, and the best estimate of land carbon changes in the industrial era is -30 +-45 Pg. So the Berry Model predicts 476.9 for a quantity estimated at -30, and misses by about 11x the estimated error.

    1. Dear David,

      Nice that we agree on your first paragraph.

      However, your second paragraph does not properly describe my model. You say “ultimately distributed” and then you use numbers that do not represent ultimately distributed.

      “Ultimately distributed” is best described in percentages. Figure 5 shows these percentages. The data come from IPCC’s figure 6.1 (here Figure 2) for natural carbon.

      My model shows that all carbon (human and natural) added to the carbon cycle (in the amounts we are talking about) will ultimately assume the same percentages as shown in Figure 5.

      In addition, my model shows how fast any added carbon will move to those ultimate percentages.

      So, all the numbers in your second paragraph do not represent my model. Nice try.

  74. Ed,
    You may be surprised to find that I agree that some of the numbers I have posted do not represent your model. I inadvertently switched two of them. The Berry Model says that human carbon accumulated in the land sink through 2011 was 158.2 Pg (not 115.9 Pg), and the amount accumulated in the deep ocean was 115.9 Pg (not 158.2 Pg). I made the mistake in a June 1 post of what we are calling “column 2”, and carried it through the later posts. Perhaps that has made it more difficult for you to follow my argument, even though it is quite straightforward.

    I believe that I made the error by looking at your Figure 10, which has the same error. The curve you label “Deep Ocean” is the curve you calculated for Land , and vice versa. “Lg” in your spreadsheet is clearly meant to be Land level, and “Ld” Deep Ocean level, but that is not how the plots are labeled.

    I stand behind the logic of my last several posts, and when I correct the numerical error, your model is even further off the mark in describing carbon accumulation in the land sink. The Berry Model says that as of 2011 there was 158.2/58.5 =2.70 (not 1.99) times more human carbon in the land compared to the atmosphere. Your model still has 181.5 Pg of added natural carbon in the atmosphere, and now when I repeat the application of the “equivalence principle” as before, I find that the Berry model predicts 606 Pg of total carbon added to the land during the industrial era. The best estimate of this quantity from data is -30 +-45, so you are now off by 14x the estimated error instead of 11x.

    Your Figure 5 is not relevant to the discussion, but your Figure 10 (after you correct it) is. Figure 10 shows that in the Berry Model, the levels of human carbon in the various sinks remain roughly proportional. The ratios of the curves are approximately constant. You therefore cannot argue, as you seemed to try to do in your comment, that somehow transient effects invalidate my argument.

    Generally speaking, models which attribute atmospheric CO2 growth to sources of carbon other than fossil fuels have the problem that they have more carbon than they know what to do with. As you well know, the fossil fuel carbon is by itself ~ 40% more than is needed to account for the atmospheric carbon growth, and standard analyses say the rest has gone to the oceans, especially the deep ocean. But the Berry Model, with the added constraint of the “equivalence principle” says that a very large chunk has gone to the Land, enough to approximately double vegetation since the beginning of the industrial age. If you believe that, I have this bridge you might be interested in…

    1. Dear David,

      First off, you get a gold star. Thank you very much for finding my labeling error in Figure 10 that inadvertently switched the labels for land and deep ocean, ending up disagreeing with my own calculations. I updated the PDF above to correct this error.

      Now on to your other stuff. You are using data from tab “HumanBB” of my spreadsheet that calculates how human CO2 flowing into the atmosphere flows to the other reservoirs.

      You select my numbers for 2011, which is fine but these calculated numbers for 2011 are very close to the numbers for 2010, which I have plotted in Figure 11. The total human carbon added as of 2010 is 354 PgC, and your land to atmosphere ratio in 2010 is 2.71. So far, we agree.

      But how do you derive that my model “still has 181.5 PgC of natural carbon added to the atmosphere”?

      And how do you conclude that my model “predicts 606 PgC of total carbon is added to the land during the industrial era”?

      Please show how you got your numbers so I can respond to your comment.

      Finally, in your last paragraph, you say, “fossil fuel carbon is by itself ~40% more than is needed to account for atmospheric carbon growth, and standard analyses say the rest has gone to the oceans, especially the deep ocean.”

      In that sentence, you are merely restating the assumption that human carbon causes all the CO2 increase and natural carbon stays constant, or in my terms, you are assuming the core theory is true.

      You can’t prove the core theory is true by assuming the core theory is true.

      Figure 6 shows the IPCC claim based upon its assumption that the core theory is true. It shows no human carbon enters the land, which is irrational because we know that natural carbon enters the land.

      IPCC’s human carbon cycle conflicts with IPCC’s natural carbon cycle, contradicting the equivalence principle. So, why should anyone believe IPCC’s human carbon cycle is true?

      My model uses the physics embedded in IPCC’s natural carbon cycle to calculate a true human carbon cycle as shown in Figure 11.

      Figure 6 is not even close to Figure 11. So, which is more correct?

      If you say Figure 6 is more correct, then you are assuming the core theory is true, violating the equivalence principle.

      If you say Figure 11 is more correct, then you are assuming the equivalence principle is true.

      Take your choice. But if you choose Figure 6, then you do not have any bridges to sell.

  75. Ed,
    Thank you for fixing your error on Figure 10. Let me respond to a couple of extraneous comment you made in your last post.

    First, you called attention to your Figure 6, probably as a distraction from addressing my main argument, but I will take the bait. As is your habit, you either willfully or ignorantly misrepresent IPCC with Figure 6. To begin with, your title is wrong. Instead of “IPCC Human Carbon in 2010”, the title should be “Changes in Total Carbon from 1800 to 2010, as a percentage of Estimated Human Emissions.” IPCC doesn’t talk about “human carbon” since the data they use cannot, of course, identify the source of the carbon. In addition, your Figure 6 indicates that carbon in the Land sink has not changed, which is not what IPCC says. IPCC reckons that it has DECREASED by 30 +_ 45 Pg. Your “adjustment” from -30 to 0 is small and within the error estimate, but scientists who respect data do not arbitrarily do this sort of thing. No doubt you did it because “-30 Pg” of human carbon in the land would sound, and be, ridiculous. On the other hand, a change in total carbon in land sinks of -30 Pg makes perfect sense. I suggest therefore that you change the title to Figure 6 and that you don’t fudge IPCC data.

    Second, how on earth does my making the true statement “fossil fuel carbon is by itself ~40% more than needed to account for atmospheric carbon growth” mean that I have “assumed the core theory”. Your Figure 1 says the same thing! Have you yourself then “assumed the core theory”? Once again, you disrespect your readers with this nonsense.

    If you give rational responses to these comments and still want to know, I will explain again how the Berry Model is awash in way too much land carbon and is not self-consistent. I suspect most of your readers already understand the arguments I have made previously. Perhaps you should ask your technical advisor “Ision” to explain it to you. I will respond to honest questions from anyone who is truly unclear.

    1. Dear David,

      Thank you again for helping improve my paper. You are a good “mop-up-man.”

      Theoreticians, like me, typically skip over the unimportant stuff as they focus on the big picture. Every theoretician needs a mop-up-man to help clean up the details.

      But you are correct. So, I added IPCC’s 30 PgC deficit to land in both Figures 4 and 6. Then, I changed the text describing these figures. As a result, you made my case stronger than it was before.

      If we were working at a university, I would pay you a small fee for your help, like I would pay a grad student. But here, you get your reward by criticizing me as try to prove me wrong.

      Regarding your other suggestions, my Figure 6 title is correct and if you think about it, you may eventually understand my preprint.

      Yes, the IPCC does talk about human carbon. Can you see the little red numbers and arrows in Figure 2? They represent the human carbon that the IPCC adds on top of natural carbon (shown by black numbers and arrows.)

      The only reason that human carbon equals the change is because IPCC assumes the natural carbon cycle remains constant, e.g., IPCC assumes its core theory is true. When you call human carbon “the” change, you constrain natural carbon to not change.

      To do theoretical physics, we must free our minds of invalid assumptions. We must remove IPCC’s constraint on natural carbon and allow natural carbon to change, as it must.

      When you say “fossil fuel is by itself ~40% more than needed to account for atmospheric carbon growth,” it shows you are not looking at the physics correctly. Worse, it suggests you really do think human carbon has caused all the CO2 increase in atmospheric CO2, which means you believe the core theory is true, which makes you a slave.

      No, Figure 1 does not say the same thing. Figure 1 is intended to show that there was not enough total carbon before 1950 to have caused all the CO2 increase, using IPCC’s data.

      But Jerry has a much better challenge to my Figure 1 than you do, so I will address his challenge separately.

  76. You claim that the pre-1950 data in Figure 1 of your preprint contradict what you call IPCC’s core theory about the cause of rising atmospheric CO2, and you assert, based only on the pre-1950 data, that you have proved IPCC’s core theory is wrong. But the emissions data in that figure (and in Figure 10) are not the cumulative global sum of human CO2 emissions before or after 1950, and your interpretation of the pre-1950 data and the conclusion you drew from it are incorrect.

    First, what you call the “sum of human CO2 emissions” in the two figures is only the sum of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement production. This should have been obvious to you from the 2020 Gilfillan et al. document you cite in the Figure 1 legend as the source of the CO2 emissions data in that figure. That reference contains data only on CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement production. It does not include any data on human CO2 emissions from land use and land cover changes. Hence, your sum of human CO2 emissions in both Figure 1 and 10, both before and after 1950, is less than the actual sum, and it’s why the pre-1950 sum of human CO2 emissions in those two figures is less than the observed CO2 prior to 1950.

    Available data shows that the combined cumulative sum of CO2 emissions globally from land use and land cover change and fossil fuel combustion and cement production is large enough to exceed the observed CO2 level for the entire period covered in your Figure 1. Numerous papers have been published over at least the past 20+ years containing estimates of historic global CO2 emissions from land use and land cover changes. The estimated emissions are those attributable to the direct anthropogenic effects of those changes. Hence, they are considered human emissions. Some of the estimates of those emissions extend back to 1750. For example, a 2020 paper by Gasser et al. contains estimates of historical CO2 emissions from land use and cover change from 1750 to 2018.

    [Gasser. T., L. Crepin, Y. Quilcaille, R.A. Houghton, P. Cais, and M. Obersteiner 2020. Historical CO2 emissions from land use and land cover change and their uncertainty. Biogeosciences. 17: 4075-4101.]

    Their results show an increasing trend in cumulative global carbon emissions from land use and land cover changes over that entire period. Adding their estimates of cumulative annual global CO2 emissions (by converting their carbon numbers to CO2) from land use and land cover changes, based on data in that publication, to the sum of annual emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement production shows that it exceeds the observed CO2 levels both before and after 1950, including the entire period from 1820 to 2018. Thus, your assertion that the sum of human CO2 emissions before 1950 was less than the observed CO2 level is false, as is the conclusion you drew from the pre-1950 data.

    The IPCC has also analyzed the effect of land use and land cover change on CO2 emissions. Chapter 6 of its Working Group I Third Assessment Report contains a figure of published data on estimated global CO2 emissions from land use and land cover change for the period of 1750 to around 2008 (Figure 6.10, p. 491). All the estimates of global CO2 emissions from land use and land cover change in that figure show an increasing trend in annual emissions from 1750 to 1850 and additional and more variable annual emissions after that. Adding the sum of even the minimum estimates of annual emissions in that figure to the sum of emissions from fossil fuel combustion and cement production also shows that the total exceeds the observed CO2 levels in atmospheric CO2 for the entire period from 1750 to 2018.

    According to your Figures 1 and 10, the sum of human CO2 emissions in excess of 280 ppm prior to 1840 was zero, which means you are simply assuming, albeit incorrectly, that there were no human CO2 emissions before then and that the only source of human emissions of CO2 is, and has been, from fossil fuel combustion and cement production. Common sense should tell you those are preposterous and false assumptions. Both the pre- and post-1950 data on human emissions in your Figures 1 and 10 are incorrect. And the conclusion you drew from the pre-1950 data is false because the sum of human CO2 emissions, including those resulting from land use and land cover change, has exceeded the observed CO2 level both before and after 1950.

    This means that nature, i.e., the land and oceans combined, has been a net global sink of atmospheric CO2, not a net source for the entire time period covered in your Figures 1 and 10. It also means that anthropogenic CO2 emissions alone are large enough to fully account for the observed global rise in atmospheric CO2 above 280 ppm since the industrial era began. The corrected sum of human CO2 emissions is fully consistent with IPCC’s core theory about the cause of rising atmospheric CO2. So, because the emissions data in Figure 1 are incorrect, you have not disproven that theory.

    Lastly, while you correctly state that the measured CO2 levels in your Figure 1 were less than the sum of human emissions after 1950, you fail to offer any interpretation of the post-1950 data, as if it is somehow unimportant or irrelevant to your interpretation of the data in that figure. You simply say that IPCC’s core theory was wrong at least before 1950. But what about after 1950? I suspect the reason you fail to say anything about what the post-1950 data means is that it would force you to contradict what you concluded from the inaccurate pre-1950 emissions data. So, do you just avoid interpreting that data in order to steer clear of any self-contradiction? If there’s some other reason, what is it? You can’t cherry pick only the data that conveniently matches what you want to believe and remain silent about the other data that clearly contradicts your belief. Your advisors in graduate school surely didn’t advise such a practice.

    1. Jerry Elwood,

      You conclude your long comment by saying to Ed Berry,
      “Lastly, while you correctly state that the measured CO2 levels in your Figure 1 were less than the sum of human emissions after 1950, you fail to offer any interpretation of the post-1950 data, as if it is somehow unimportant or irrelevant to your interpretation of the data in that figure. You simply say that IPCC’s core theory was wrong at least before 1950. But what about after 1950? I suspect the reason you fail to say anything about what the post-1950 data means is that it would force you to contradict what you concluded from the inaccurate pre-1950 emissions data. So, do you just avoid interpreting that data in order to steer clear of any self-contradiction? If there’s some other reason, what is it? You can’t cherry pick only the data that conveniently matches what you want to believe and remain silent about the other data that clearly contradicts your belief. Your advisors in graduate school surely didn’t advise such a practice.”

      Your paragraph which I have quoted falsely accuses Ed Berry of a malpractice which YOU have conducted. In that paragraph you have chosen to “cherry pick only the data that conveniently matches what you want to believe and remain silent about the other data that clearly contradicts your belief”. I provide this explanation of your error which claims coincidence has similar importance to refutation..

      The IPCC provides its time series of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
      If that data series contradicts “the IPCC’s core theory” for the period pre-1950
      there is no reason to think the data series coinciding with “the IPCC’s core theory” in some other parts of the time series is other than coincidence.

      Your error is reminiscent of Ben Santer’s infamous claim to have found a “discernible human influence on global climate”: that claim lasted less than a year before it was discredited in the formal literature,


    2. Dear Jerry,

      Your comment, while entirely wrong, helped me improve my preprint.
      Here is the explanation that I just added to my preprint.

      “IPCC (2013, p 486) Table 6.1 shows IPCC’s cumulative PgC flow from Land to Atmosphere for the years 1750 to 2011 as 30 +/- 45 PgC. This is the same as in IPCC’s Figure 6.1 shown in Figure 2.”

      “IPCC’s Table 6.1 shows the PgC per year from 1990 to 2011. Simple addition shows the cumulative PgC released by these flows from1990 to 2011 is 42 PgC, which exceeds IPCC’s total of 30 PgC from 1750 to 2011. Therefore, according to IPCC data, there is no carbon flow from Land to Atmosphere until 1990.”

      Do I have to do this simple addition for you?

      According to the IPCC, there is no basis to add the land use effect to the human-caused carbon emissions until after 1990. Maybe the IPCC will adjust its data in its next report, but for now, Figure 1 indeed proves the core theory is wrong using IPCC’s own data. Therefore, your comment has no relevance to Figures 1 and 10.

      You suggest that I neglected adding the annual data for human carbon emissions beginning in 1750. Jerry, you can download my spreadsheet if you wish, or you can run the sums yourself from the data. Either way, you will find that the sum of human carbon emissions is virtually zero until after 1860, as Figure 1 shows.

      So, if you wish to claim my simple additions of annual data are “preposterous,” I suggest you first do the sums yourself. These calculations are very simple. In fact, when Will Happer checked all my calculations in Preprint #3, he began with the original data and found his calculations agreed with mine to the second decimal place.

      I fixed the last sentence in this paragraph to make it clear to those who understand the scientific method that says it takes only one contradiction to prove a theory is wrong.

      “The measured CO2 level is greater than the “Sum of human CO2” before 1950, which proves natural carbon increased the CO2 level before 1950. So, the core theory is wrong before 1950 which means the core theory is wrong period.”

      Lastly (to reference your last paragraph where you begin with Lastly), since the data in Figure 1 prove the core theory is false before 1950, it is also false after 1950. It takes only one failure to prove a theory is false. Good behavior cannot absolve a bad theory of its former sins.

Leave a Reply

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.