by Dr. Ed Berry, PhD, Physics
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.