Secretary Zinke is correct on Clement and climate

(The climate part of this post, which begins in section 3, is revolutionary. Many scientists now support it. I will present this science at an international climate conference in Portugal in September. I will appreciate all professional comments because they help me improve my presentation. I wrote this article for the public, which is more difficult than writing for scientists. – Ed)

by Ed Berry, Ph.D., Physics

1 – Clement’s peers

Joel Clement’s letter of resignation to Secretary Ryan Zinke of the Department of Interior shows Clement resigned for one reason: he believes a US government employee has the moral authority to promote incorrect climate policies that disagree with the President and the will of the American people.

Clement is a member of the climate establishment. Until President Trump, they controlled the US government climate policy. They still control school, college, and university climate programs. They control most science organizations, most scientific journals, the major media, the public climate conversation, and receive funding from the largest foundations. Google’s YouTube “fact checks” videos that question their climate religion.

Secretary Zinke showed proper leadership when he moved Interior employees who work against the President’s climate agenda to jobs where they would not interfere with Interior work.

Clement wrote, “My background is in science, policy, and climate change.” Clement’s resume shows his expertise is in climate policy and forest ecology, and not in climate physics or climate science.

2 – Clement’s climate

Clement defines “climate change” as “human-caused climate change.” He wrote

“Climate Change Is Real and It’s Dangerous. If the Trump administration continues to try to silence experts in science, health and other fields, many more Americans, and the natural ecosystems upon which they depend, will be put at risk. We must act quickly to limit climate change while also preparing for its impacts.”

According to the Belfort Center, Clement was the Interior Department principal to the U.S. Global Change Research Program. The Program produced the Climate Science Special Report (CSSR). Its Executive Summary claims,

“This assessment concludes, based on extensive evidence, that it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.”

CSSR conforms to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). IPCC claims human emissions have caused ALL the increase in CO2 since 1750, and that 15 percent of human emissions will stay in the atmosphere forever.

The IPCC and the CSSR claim there are “no convincing alternative explanations” other than their theory to explain “observational evidence.”

The IPCC and the CSSR defy science when they claim to have “extensive evidence” and “no convincing alternative explanations.” They do not follow the scientific method by making such claims, and they ignore the most significant observational evidence available because it contradicts their theory and claims.

3 – The atomic bomb tests produced important data.

The proper way to test a scientific theory is to test a prediction against data. According to the scientific method, if a prediction is wrong, the theory is wrong.

The above-ground atomic bomb tests raised the level of carbon-14 in the atmosphere from 100 percent to 180 percent until the tests were terminated in 1963. The carbon-14 atoms are in the form of CO2, so carbon-14 CO2 traces how carbon-12 CO2 flows out of the atmosphere.

The carbon-14 level decreased smoothly from 180 percent in 1965 to 110 percent in 1995. The data reveal how CO2 exits the atmosphere and let us test the IPCC theory.

The essential feature of the carbon-14 data is that it falls half-way to its balance value of 100 percent every 10 years. Subtracting 100, from 1965 to 1975, it fell from 80 to 40. Then from 1975 to 1985, it fell from 40 to 20. And from 1985 to 1995, it fell from 20 to 10.

This feature means the carbon-14 CO2 exited the atmosphere in direct proportion to the level of carbon-14 CO2 in every 10-year period, and that did not change from 1965 to 1995.

But IPCC theory says human emissions have decreased the outflow of CO2 from the atmosphere. If the IPCC theory were true, then the time to fall half-way to the balance level would have increased from 1965 to 1995.

There is no detectable change in the carbon-14 outflow in the 20 years from 1970 to 1990. Therefore, the IPCC theory is meaningless or wrong.

4 – A simple model explains atmospheric CO2.

Let’s look at a simple model the climate establishment should have considered before it spent a trillion dollars on bad climate research, bad climate models, and bad climate policy. This model is at the level of high-school or first-year college physics. Smart teenagers will understand it.

Let’s begin with an experiment. Say, you have a bucket of water with a hole in the bottom. Water from your hose flows into your bucket while water leaks out of the hole. You adjust the inflow until the water level stays almost constant.

The water in your bucket represents the CO2 in the atmosphere. Water from your hose represents the flow of CO2 into the atmosphere. Water that flows out of the hole represents the flow of CO2 out of the atmosphere.

As you know, if inflow is greater than outflow, the level goes up, and vice-versa. Also, outflow increases as the water level increases. The simple model puts these two assumptions into a mathematical equation. With some easy calculus, we can solve the simple model equation. (See here for details).

You don’t need a peer-reviewed scientific paper. You can do the calculations in Excel. You can prove for yourself that the simple model exactly replicates the carbon-14 data.

5 – The simple model replicates the carbon-14 data.

The following plot shows how the IPCC model and the simple model simulate the outflow of CO2 from the atmosphere. All models begin at 80 ppm and assume inflow is zero.

The blue curve follows the carbon-14 data. This is “ground truth.” Any model that cannot simulate the carbon-14 data is wrong. The simple model exactly simulates the carbon-14 blue curve. The blue curve falls half-way to zero every 10 years.

The green curve shows the simple model adjusted to simulate the normal carbon-12 CO2. The green curve falls half-way to zero every 2.8 years.

6 – The IPCC model contradicts the carbon-14 data.

The IPCC inserted its theory into its climate models. IPCC’s Bern model replicates the internal output of climates. The Bern model allows us to test IPCC’s climate models and IPCC’s theory.

The red curve shows the Bern model prediction. For the first year, it approximates the green curve of the simple model. Thereafter, the Bern model predicts dramatically slower outflow. The level never goes below 12 on this plot because IPCC claims 15 percent of human emissions remain in the atmosphere forever.

The obvious error in the Bern model is it changes its future with time. For example, the simple model predicts the level will fall one-half its value in a specific time interval no matter where you start on the curve.

But the Bern model gives a different future if you begin at a different time or point on its curve. It has no repetitive time interval. It is unphysical in its core.

IPCC invented its theory to support its invalid claim that human CO2 has caused all the increase in atmospheric CO2 since 1750.

The Bern model demonstrates the result of this IPCC theory. It cannot simulate the carbon-14 data. Therefore, the Bern model is wrong, which means the IPCC theory and all IPCC climate models are wrong.

7 – The simple model is the simplest and only model that explains the carbon-14 data.

The simple model nails the carbon-14 data that the complex IPCC theory cannot. “So, who you gonna believe?”

The simple model shows we must think in a new paradigm about how CO2 flows into and out of our atmosphere. It changes entirely the dominant worldview of how human emissions change the level of CO2 in our atmosphere.

It shows the level of CO2 in the atmosphere behaves like the level of water in a lake. If a river flows into a lake and lake water flows out over a dam, the inflow does not continue to increase the lake level. The inflow simply raises the level of the lake until the outflow over the dam equals the inflow from the river. Then the lake level remains constant so long as inflow remains constant.

The simple model shows the inflow of CO2 into the atmosphere sets a balance level for CO2 in the atmosphere. The level moves to the balance level until outflow equals inflow. Then, if inflow remains constant, the level will remain constant. Therefore, constant human emissions do not add CO2 to the atmosphere.

The simple model shows that no part of human emissions stays in the atmosphere forever as IPCC claims.

The simple model shows the CO2 composition in the atmosphere reflects the inflow. Using IPCC data, the total CO2 inflow is 96 percent natural and 4 percent human. Therefore, the CO2 composition of the atmosphere is 96 percent natural and 4 percent human.

8 – Climate change is natural.

Therefore, of today’s 410 ppm of atmospheric CO2, 392 ppm comes from natural CO2 and only 18 ppm comes from human CO2.

The above chart shows Inflow according to IPCC data is 4 percent human CO2. The simple model proves the Atmosphere composition will be the same as the inflow composition, which is 4 percent human CO2.

The IPCC theory, that human CO2 caused all the increase in atmospheric CO2 since 1750, says the atmosphere contains 30 percent human CO2, which is impossible.

The simple model shows, if ALL human emissions were stopped today and natural emissions remained constant, the level of CO2 would fall by only 18 ppm in 20 years. There would be no measurable drop in global temperature.

The simple model proves human CO2 is not responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2. So, climate change is natural.

The simple model proves President Trump is correct about climate science.

Our schools and universities should teach the simple model but they do not.

Call to Action

Support the climate revolution: Sign up for my emails here.

Copyright © 2018 by Edwin X Berry. Permission to republish with link to source granted.


    1. I came here to specifically say the same as Warren. I believe there’s some convergence here with WUWT. And today Monckton had a great update:,

      Great work and read as well. Time to join forces! As I commented on WUWT:
      “Alas, I fear you’re proofs will fall on corrupt ears. Social engineering on the left always moves to the path that saves face, keeps them in power and the money flowing, whatever it takes. Ad hominem attacks and anecdotal non-science will continue, if not escalate. We got record fires in CA, don’t ya know. And a President to impeach. ‘Tis the season. [sarc]”

      Your work is nonetheless obviously important and we appreciate it. Time to pile on the real science.

  1. Dr Ed,
    I really like your observations and analysis. It reminds me of my Science rducation!
    WRT the CO2 reaction rate, my Chemistry is more than sixty years behind me however I have kept an open mind! Reaction rates with dilute reactants are typically proportional to the concentration of the reactants. When the system is heterogenous, the interface could be the limiting factor, however I suspect CO2 and water is not limited by the surface. I realise that Henry’s Law applies but the aqueous reservoir is vastly larger than the atmospheric one.
    Good luck with your presentation.

  2. For additional info on climate change, check out “”. This is a venue set up by Mike Adams, author of Natural News as Conservatives are being censored through Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc. Once at, type in Climate Change or any other topic of interest.

  3. This entire “analysis” is, unfortunately, pure pseudo-scientific nonsense. Anyone can easily demonstrate to themselves, with little more than grade school arithmetic, that the current CO2 increase in the air cannot possibly be caused by “nature”.

    Humans currently emit around 33 billion tons of CO2 into the air every year. However, the level of CO2 in the air is increasing by only around 19 billion tons every year. Where are the other 14 billion tons going? They can’t just magically disappear. They have to be going somewhere.

    There is only one possibility: nature is taking that CO2 out of the air. Yes, even though nature puts a lot of CO2 into the air, it currently takes even more back out of the air.

    Obviously nature cannot possibly be responsible for the CO2 increase in the air, just like taking more money out of your bank account than you put into it cannot possibly make your bank account increase either.

    Because nature cannot be responsible for the CO2 increase, humans therefore must be responsible for the CO2 increase. ALL of the CO2 increase.

    1. Dear MGC, You say you can easily demonstrate your case but you did not demonstrate your case.

      Your 33 billion tons, which you use for scare tactics, amounts to 4.5 ppm per year. Nature emits, according to the IPCC, 98 ppm per year. Therefore, the composition of today’s atmosphere is 4 percent human CO2 and 96 percent natural CO2. If you could stop the 4 percent human CO2, the 96 percent natural CO2 would still remain. Very simple physics.

    2. MGC
      I’m afraid you have fallen for the simple but erroneous explanation for a complex process. Your banking analogy is the same one given at the Skeptical Science website but it sits on some invalid assumptions so is not an appropriate analog of the atmospheric CO2 evolution. Better to compare the bank’s deposits to the atmospheric CO2. Hundreds of deposits and withdrawals will join my meager additions and lessor subtractions.

      If the bank records a net gain at year end that exceeds my net deposit record can I claim to be solely responsible for their gain? The fact that my gain is larger than the banks divulges no information about the flow of funds except the end result. The assumption that anthropogenic additions to CO2 are the only new source and all historical sources match historic sinks does not stand up to any scrutiny.

      One thing that the net gain of CO2 being less than anthropogenic emissions tells us is that sinks are in fact proportional to the CO2 content, a central point in Dr. Ed’s analysis. Another thing it implies is that the variability in the flux into and out of the atmosphere is so large that the human emissions are lost in the noise of the natural system.

      I recommend the work of Salby and Harde in addition to Dr. Ed’s to get a better handle on this subject.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.