Politics and Climate

by Dr. Ed Berry, PhD, Physics

Climate Update

Last October, I got an idea on how to calculate the human carbon cycle. My calculation puts climate alarmists in checkmate. Here’s how it works.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published its data for its assumed natural and human carbon cycles.

A carbon cycle model has four dominant carbon reservoirs: land, atmosphere, surface ocean, and deep ocean. The model has time constants that define how fast carbon moves from one reservoir to another reservoir in proportion to the carbon level in each reservoir.

First, I use IPCC’s natural carbon cycle data to find the time constants in IPCC’s natural carbon cycle. Then, I use IPCC’s natural carbon time constants to calculate the human carbon cycle. This gives the human carbon cycle that corresponds to IPCC’s natural carbon cycle.

IPCC’s problem is that its human carbon cycle does not use the same time constants as IPCC’s natural carbon cycle. That violates the Equivalence Principle.

IPCC’s so-called climate science violates the Equivalence Principle.

The Equivalence Principle says if we can’t measure the difference between two things then these two things are identical.

Einstein used this principle to show that gravity is the same thing as an inertial force. From this observation, Einstein derived his principle of general relativity.

Applied to climate science, nature cannot tell the difference between human-produced carbon atoms and nature-produced carbon atoms because human and natural carbon atoms are identical and do not contain their history. But IPCC uses different time constants for human carbon than it uses for natural carbon. Therefore, IPCC contradicts the Equivalence Principle.

IPCC uses an invalid core assumption.

IPCC assumes the natural carbon cycle stayed constant after 1750 and human carbon emissions caused ALL the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide above 280 ppm.

IPCC’s core assumption violates the Equivalence Principle and has NO evidence to support it. Also, every IPCC study (that I have read) uses this core assumption to process its data. Therefore, lo and behold, IPCC concludes its core assumption is correct. This is classic circular reasoning. Garbage in. Garbage out.

Climate alarmists claim support of 97 percent of scientists. Not only is that claim invalid but even if it were valid then all 97 percent of scientists would be wrong. That is because science does not determine scientific truth by voting.

Science finds truth by rejecting assumptions, ideas, and theories that are wrong, as we have done with IPCC’s assumptions and claims.

The whole world of climate alarmism is science fiction because IPCC’s science has failed.

Global warming is not your fault.

Don’t over complicate climate physics. Simple physics proves IPCC is wrong.

Your carbon emissions do not cause climate change. Nature causes climate change.


  1. As an aerothermodynamics research engineer and then later an engineering executive from the jet engine industry this is my kind of reasoning. Simple basic physics not emotion laden feelings or cold blooded indoctrination of a power based ideology. Thank you, sir.

    1. A problem in climatology in general and the carbon cycle particulary, is the inability to do and repeat well controlled experiments to prove e.g. if a carbon cycle model is valid or not. Therefore it might be interesting to look at other fields of science, dealing with comparable issues.
      There are striking similarities between the carbon cycle and pharmacokinetics. When a drug is added to the body system, it distributes to the blood and from the blood to different tissues, comparable with carbon reservoirs (multicompartmental model). Time constants define how fast the drug moves from one compartment to another (land, atmosphere, ocean surface, deep ocean).
      If one continues drug administration, a steady state is reached (99% of the steady-state) after 7xhalf-life of the drug (= pre-industrial situation of the carbon cycle). If one adds a small extra dose of the same drug also continuously (anthropogenic CO2; e.g. 5%), plasma concentrations (CO2 in the atmosphere) will rise but the extra dose will not add up in the blood (atmosphere) because the small extra amount will not ‘saturate’ the excretory systems (liver and kidneys = oceans and land) and the first order process continues ( the same fraction of drug/unit of time) is eliminated. After again 7xhalf-time of the drug a new steady-state is reached, proportional to the extra dose (i.e. 5%).
      In pharmacokinetic one can prove hundreds of times how this ‘natural’ process can be approached. I am a layman in climatology and the carbon cycle but interested in the question why this (seemingly very natural) approach might not be valid for the carbon cycle. Why should the (small) anthropogenic contribution ‘saturate’ the system so that the anthropogenic CO2 ‘adds up’ in the atmosphere i.e. a sudden transition from a first order to a zero order process?
      From a pharmacokinetic point of view the ‘physics’ model of Dr. Berry seems anyway the most ‘natural’ approach.

  2. Even Wikipedia shows looking at their 6 million year temperature history shows the last 2 1/2 million years are both colder than normal and violently zigzagging up and down, compared to the previous 3 million years of life-filled stability. We are due for another deadly plunge.
    Global warming should be seen as 100% good news, something desired, something to be celebrated!
    Anything bringing on global warming should be wanted! And encouraged!
    Why isn’t it?

    1. Because, it’s more difficult to blame global cooling on humans, although the charlatans definitely tried to do so in the 1970s by claiming that burning fossil fuels was causing so much air pollution that it was preventing solar radiation from reaching the earth. These same charlatans blamed all of the same “extreme weather events”, floods, droughts, hurricanes, violent wind and thunder storms, etc., (which they now blame on global warming) on global cooling!

      In 1974, NCAR climatologist Stephen Schneider said imminent global cooling could result in “food shortages and death by starvation for millions”. Of course he later became a CAGW alarmist.
      Also see: https://www.quora.com/If-you-had-a-10-minute-appointment-with-President-Trump-how-would-you-convince-him-to-act-on-climate-change/answer/John-Walker-922/comment/123310079

      It was easier to convince the public that pollution could block sunshine than it is to convince them that minuscule increases in CO2 somehow causes catastrophic warming. But their farce was ended when the slight cooling period after the 1940s ended. So they had to change to AGW to frighten the public.

      So why create fear and push either farce? Because the entire scam is being led by global socialists (many in the globalist UN and IPCC) who desperately want to replace capitalism with global socialism. It was initiated by the UN-affiliated crook, oil billionaire and globalist, Maurice Strong (supported by his globalist friend David Rockefeller). And fear is a great motivator of people ignorant of the truth. That’s why these globalists must mendaciously claim that the science is settled and that AGW is going to be catastrophic, despite the complete absence of any proof whatsoever. The hypothesis can not even be tested/falsified, and is, therefore, pseudoscience.

      But, by using manipulated computer models, based upon manipulated temperature data, guesses about the climate sensitivity to CO2, and a host of other “parameterizations” (i.e., fudge factors), they can pretend their apocalyptic prognostications are based upon science! It’s a scam of epic proportions.



      Ironically, the scam is also being vehemently pushed by persons hoping to cash in on the green agenda/climate change industry, to the tune of $trillions. Governments also see a golden opportunity to create all sorts of new taxes the politicians can then spend in exchange for votes.


      As I said, it’s a scam of epic proportions, based upon ideology and greed, not science.

  3. Hydroxychloroquine must be supplemented with zinc. It is the zinc that kills the virus. Too many doctors are still not prescribing it or not supplementing it with zinc, staggers the imagination.

  4. Dr. Ed; You do not talk about volcanos. El Nino and La Nino, I get confused. There are a lot of volcanos, how much CO2 do they put out. one more thing, There are some so call experts are saying, because of global warming, the permafrost in Russia and the artic is defrosting. the frost is releasing viruses back into the environment. I think this is bull, but could those viruses survive under the frost.

    1. Fred H,
      Ed does not need to talk about any of those things. He observes the ratio of ‘natural’:human emissions to the atmosphere and assess how those proportions affect the concentration of CO2 in the air.

  5. Keep up the great work. I enjoyed your explanation of the IPCC violating the Equivalence Principle. This is simply common sense and rational. Unfortunately the IPCC has none.

  6. Thanks so much to get me informed! I’m a complete layman but i see how they deal with it. The same procedere in promoting and handling clima change and Corona. Computermodels with way out prognosics dominaiting there minds as tey could not think anymore for themselves. And a political agenda behind wich gives all power to certain financial and industial corporations where peoples intersts come last. So far i could find dos Hydroxychloroquine not kill the virus but oxidates zells of patoghenes and so reduces the impact the virus could have when i understood it rigth. An interesting study i found, in french, about Prevotella bacterie which could explain a lot. May be thats the reason why its so difficult to get a hold of the virus and find the adequate remede. With respect Christian Loosli from France.

  7. Ed, as I understand the Equivalency Principle, CO2 is fungible. A human caused molecule cannot be differentiated from a natural molecule. But the IPCC believes they can? Is this correct?
    Also, is there a credible study that connects rising CO2 with global temp.? I have been unable to find any.

  8. Your Climate Update is very important.

    The principles in this “How It Works” update article are simple to understand and can not be ignored or challenged.

    Most people studying the issue of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels ignore or glance over the fundamental flow process you describe to reach their own conclusions. This invalidates any different conclusions they may reach.

    Your flow calculation techniques are used in fluid technology applications.

    Repeatedly throughout history experts and laypeople have failed to understand very important events because they accepted things based on dogma or failed to understand basic principles of physics. These failures have caused much suffering and death, and destroyed vast amounts of wealth.

    The core question of these discussions is about plentiful, reliable energy from fossil fuels. Without this energy, the modern world will fall apart. Anyone who demands the world stop using fossil fuels must not be allowed near leadership positions or the public.

    John Shanahan
    Civil Engineer

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.