1. “Therefore, I am planning to organize a climate action group composed of people who wish to help bring climate truth to America.”
    This is very good news. I have been trying to inform people around Bozeman for years and now the local paper refuses to print my letters. I will gladly help with your climate action group in any way I can.
    On the subject of truthful science I would bring your attention to the work of Michael and Ronan Connolly (www.oprj.net) that seems to falsify the greenhouse effect in our atmosphere. This adds more ammunition to your already adequate arsenal of work that needs to be widely disseminated to counteract the lies that now hold public sway.

  2. This makes the case so clear that one would need to be an idiot to be unable to follow the logic.
    That is why I sent it to several Australian parliamentarians.

  3. Well, why to concentrate so much on the carbon issue. Carbon dioxide is good for all sorts of things:
    #1 A plant food — CO2 of less than 150ppm => death to us all!
    #2 If the atmosphere is warming, nitrogen, oxygen or argon cant radiate this extra energy anywhere; while e.g. O3 and our CO2 can and they do radiate it to all directions; while incoming energy (insolation) excites the atmosphere, it delays the propagation of this energy flow toward Earth and when the Earth radiates at night it does the same thing. However, the energy balance is not “the same thing;” there’s is much more energy in-flux during the “day” than there is that of the night’s out-flux. So, if CO2 is that all capable entity, it must cause cooling rather than warming.
    Does that make any sense?

  4. First of all thanks a lot for creating so much content and adding real science to this whole debatte. It‘s sad that people like you or Dr. Salby don‘t get much attention although they are true experts SPECIFIC to this field.

    Regarding this article, I find the „Why should you believe me…?“ part a bit problematic. While I do not doubt what you write, isn‘t this an argument from authority? And in the beginning you criticize 100% correctly that so many people wrongly think that when 1000 scientist say something it must be „more correct“ than what 1 scientist is saying.

    I mean the reason why people should believe you is because you have the better arguments/ can prove this IPCC bullshit theory wrong, right?

    Best wishes

    1. Wrong. He is not asking for people to believe him because he is an expert. He is asking for people to look at his math and explains why they should look at his math. He isn’t just anybody. He has falsified the IPCC theory.

    2. Weingarten,
      Also, an argument from authoritity would be an argument citing authority like “11,000 climate scientists agree” or “the government agrees” or “everyone in the media agree.” He is making an argument from science. And, he is providing his credentials. So, his argument is anti authority or science.

  5. The basis of the CO2 greenhouse scam is the value of the greenhouse effect of the atmosphere.
    The real greenhouse effect is closer to 15 ° than to 33 ° because this last value is obtained by considering the atmosphere without clouds while preserving the albedo of the clouds.
    The presumed influence of GHGs is therefore largely overstated.
    Then, for CO2, 1 photon encounters one carbon molecule every 25 mm and is returned to the ground in 50% of cases.
    How can the CO2 concentration increase act on a CONSTANT photon flux at constant temperature? It should first increase the temperature of the ground to change the absorption of CO2 molecules … the opposite of common sense!

  6. Dr. Berry, thank you for all that you do. Ezra Levant (Rebel News) of Canada took apart the recent worldwide fawning news coverage of the 11,000 “scientists” and the on-line letter they signed on his show November 7. He examined the signatories just from Canada and discovered a lot of well meaning people, but no scientists. A great counter to the breathless CBC coverage of the letter. The segment is very entertaining and was posted to YT. A little long, but good for a few laughs.
    ” 11,000 ‘scientists’ warn about climate change? Fake News! | Ezra Levant ”

  7. Great Work Dr Ed, can i ask a real simple question, i hear that alarmists say greenhouse gases radiated energy back down to the surface to cause increased warming, but in a real simplified way, what if a energy source radiated up from the surface lets say 100watts for simplicity, and that 100 rises up and then is reflected back down from say a mirror or greenhouse gases, surely it would be still 100 watts? (no warming), i don’t understand in an alarmists mind how it would be say 101.5watt or an increase of 1.5 degrees, where does this supposed energy or heat come from?


  8. Ed,
    You confuse fluxes with total stores and net changes over some period. And your summary graph omits the important fifth reservoir: the in ground fossil fuel reserves of oil and coal. Reading from the IPCC chart, in the last x years of industrialization, the atmosphere is up 240 units and the deep sea 155 units for a total of +395. In that period vegetation has lost 30 units and fossil fuel reserves have lost 365 for a total loss of -395. (The -365 in the fossil fuel reserves is the one you missed) Notice that the changes balance. What was once in the ground is now in the air and sea, and deforestation hasn’t helped either. Your “problems 1 and 2” are not problems at all:
    1. It is your chart that shows 0 flow between the deep ocean and the surface, not the IPCC chart. The IPCC chart shows a healthy flow.
    2. It makes perfect sense that the land holds 30 units less now than at the beginning of the industrial period. It is called deforestation.

    Your problem 3 I don’t understand, since I don’t see 1.5% anywhere on the IPCC chart. Your 65.7% makes no sense since you missed the big change in carbon-in-the-ground.

    I know you have convinced yourself that the CO2 human activity produces mostly finds its way to the bottom of the ocean, but doesn’t it seem strange to you that “natural carbon” doesn’t do the same? Your argument that once CO2 is released nature treats it the same, whatever the source, is correct. So apply it. To quote a physicist whom we both admire: “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.” I will be giving an adult ed course on Feynman in the spring in Missoula. You are welcome to attend.

    1. Dear Dave,
      Thank you for your comment. In the future, you should read my preprint to get the science correct before you comment on my simplified version for the public.

      Clearly, you are confused. For example, it is not relevant that I show a “fifth box” to represent the fossil-fuel reservoir. There is no one who has read my post or email who does not understand the obvious, namely, that the source of human carbon in IPCC Fig. 6.1 is the fossil-fuel reservoir. Except you. Duh!

      All that matters here is where the human carbon ends up according to the IPCC. You have confirmed that you agree the PgC levels I inserted into my 4-box chart are the same human-caused levels that are in the IPCC Fig. 6.1 and that they total 365 PgC.

      However, you can’t read IPCC Fig. 6.1 flow data. Read the numbers by the red arrows. Once you acknowledge that my flow numbers are correct, we can continue this lesson for you on climate change.

      Meanwhile, for the level parts of Problems 1 and 2, we only need the levels anyway. It is impossible to add carbon to the deep ocean without adding any carbon to the surface ocean. It is impossible to get a negative level, but the IPPC shows a negative level for land.

      You claim the -30 PgC is deforestation. Not according to Fig. 6.1. The -30 is in the box called Vegetation and the flows show human carbon has a net flow into the vegetation.

      The problem is this: we dump 365 PgC of human carbon into the atmosphere. We let it flow to the other reservoirs. It is a closed system. No carbon can leak out of the system. IPCC Fig. 6.1 calculates incorrectly where the human carbon ends up in about 2013.

      So, even before we use the flow data, IPCC’s human carbon cycle is junk science. This is not advanced physics. This is third-grade arithmetic.

      If you follow the scientific method, Dave, you MUST reject the IPCC version of the human carbon cycle based on this IPCC error. That means you must reject the IPCC hypothesis that human emissions cause climate change.

      And if you don’t follow the scientific method in your work, Montana should not let you teach at a university. Especially the scientific method.

      You should ask me to help you with your course on the scientific method. I can teach the scientific method better than you can.

      1. Calm down, Mr. Ed. I repeat, the IPCC numbers say that 365 came out of the ground, and vegetation (or forests) lost 30, putting the total, 395, somewhere else. They reckon 240 went into the atmosphere and 145 into the deep ocean. You are right about one thing: its third grade arithmetic. Perhaps you can post your version of these simple sums, without a lot of distracting charts and intemperate verbiage.

        For the record, I retired 7 years ago, but continue to teach MOLLI courses. I did invite you to take one; you might learn something. None have been about climate science. I certainly do not invite you to co-teach one.

        Of course human emissions are the source of increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

      2. Thank you Dr Berry for your contributions.
        You would probably know Dr Art Robinson through Caltech.
        I remember reading the report he did on global temps over 3000 years gleaned from Sargasso Sea sediments and since then have paid attention.
        When no attention was being paid to the thermonuclear furnace 93million miles away from us it became apparent that a scam was underway.
        Ultimately, from promoting same sex relations, abortion, contraception including ru4 ,dangers of having children for the environment, keeping more women in the workforce so as to inhibit childbearing …
        Voila, the golden billion is within reach. Sorry to digress but it’s all related.

  9. Dear Dave,
    The scientific method says: if your prediction disagrees with experiment, your theory is wrong.

    IPCC’s Fig. 6.1 for the human carbon (red arrows and numbers) shows 9 PgC per year from fossil fuels, cement production, and land use change flows into the atmosphere.

    Then, a net 2.6 PgC per year flows from atmosphere to land, and a net 2.3 PgC per year flows from atmosphere to surface ocean. The leaves 4 PgC per year added to the atmosphere.

    The surface ocean level remains at 0 PgC with a net 2.3 PgC inflow. Yet 155 PgC magically finds its way to the deep ocean that has 0 inflow.

    The net 2.6 PgC per year flowing into the land causes the level to decrease from 0 to -30 PgC.

    Without going any further, this is junk science. IPCC’s human carbon cycle is invalid.

  10. Look carefully at the long caption of Figure 6.1. About half way down it says “Note that the mass balance of the two ocean carbon stocks ‘Surface ocean’ and ‘Intermediate and deep ocean’ includes a yearly accumulation of anthropogenic carbon (not shown). ” So for whatever reason they omitted a red arrow from this complicated chart. That does not invalidate the main takeaway, which is the accumulation (or dissipation) of carbon stocks over the entire Industrial era, which are shown in red. I quoted those numbers in yesterday’s post.

    When I first objected to your methods and conclusions a couple of months ago, I asked a simple question. You promised to get back to me on it but you didn’t. I asked the same question yesterday and here: in your model where does the anthropogenic carbon go? Where does the 395 Pg of carbon released during the Industrial Era, mostly by fossil fuel burning but also by vegetation changes, go, if not to the atmosphere and ocean? And if you erroneously argue that not much goes to the atmosphere, then where did the increase in the atmosphere come from? You have not answered this question because you can’t without showing your model to be inconsistent with itself. At this point, I guess I don’t expect an answer, because either you are intent on fooling yourself or you are dishonest.

    People read your conclusions and cheer, because you are telling them what they want to hear: there is no problem. They cheer just as they cheered Chamberlain in 1938 declaring “peace in our time.” You are typical of the “3% ” of climate scientists who deny reality. You have no case.

    1. Dear David,
      (You are so busy rattling off Chamberlain quotes and making false claims about me, that you have failed your science. Focus on the science.)

      Since you are promoting the IPCC hypothesis, the onus is on you to provide the data that IPCC says is “not shown.” Until you do, you are violating the scientific method by supporting a hypothesis that contradicts data. As it stands, the IPCC has made gross errors in its human carbon cycle.

      You are taking the unscientific position that you have proven the IPCC hypothesis to be correct when it is impossible to prove a hypothesis is correct.

      To find my answer to your question about where did the human carbon go, read my preprint. Not only do I answer your question, I show that the IPCC did not correctly answer your question. Therefore, your “belief” that human CO2 is responsible for all the rise in atmospheric CO2 since 1750, as the IPCC claims, is invalid.

      If you are a scientist, you should understand the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is:
      “Nature, not human CO2 emissions, is the dominant cause of the observed increase of atmospheric CO2 above 280 ppm.”

      The null hypothesis stands unchallenged. Neither you nor the IPCC have proved the null hypothesis is invalid. The IPCC simply ignores the null hypothesis.

      Any scientific challenge to the null hypothesis must provide evidence that the null hypothesis is wrong. Evidence means a properly structured and testable hypothesis that has not made any incorrect predictions and includes no invalid scientific assumptions.

  11. Ed,
    Using your numbers, 67 of 452 PgC emitted by humans throughout the industrial age ends up in the atmosphere, that’s 14.8%, raising the atmospheric concentration to 32 ppm. But you concede that the atmospheric concentration has in fact risen by 132 ppm. So apparently you believe there is a “natural” source of CO2 that is 132/32 =4.1 times as large as the fossil fuels. I don’t see you saying anywhere what you think that source is. I know that some speculate that volcanoes are the culprit, but the best estimates (see IPCC figure 6.1) put volcanic emissions not much more than 1% of fossil fuel burning. Let’s suppose the experts are off by a factor of 400, and hidden volcanoes are the problem. Then, since nature will distribute volcanic CO2 the same way it distributes human CO2, your estimate for CO2 in the land and oceans also has to go up by a factor of 4.1. The “land’s” share becomes 166 x 4.1 =680 PgC, according to your numbers. But if your “land” and IPCC’s “vegetation” numbers are meant to be the same, your +166 already disagreed with IPCC’s -30. You can see that your model is hopelessly inconsistent with data. And you yourself have often stated what needs to be done with models that disagree with data…

    1. Dear David,

      For the readers who are following this discussion, you have used the numbers from my Preprint, Table 4, year 2020.

      My acceptance of the 132 ppm rise of atmospheric CO2 since 1750 is not a concession. It is a matter of using the Mauna Loa data to get today’s level of atmospheric CO2 of about 412 ppm and subtracting IPCC’s assumed level of 280 ppm in 1750. The difference is 132 ppm.

      Then, I need to correct your fourth-grade arithmetic and subtract the human-caused increase of 32 ppm from the total rise of 132 pm to get the required nature-caused increase of 100 ppm, before we divide by 32 ppm. So, the required natural increase is about 3 times 32 ppm.

      Section 5.3 in my Preprint is a discussion of “The effect of temperature on CO2.”

      But rather than discuss possible causes of the increase in natural CO2 emissions since 1750, we need to address the scientific method. There is no scientific requirement for my Preprint to show how nature may have increased its CO2 emissions do defend the physics in my Preprint. Scientific history is repleat with examples of advances without explaining what may cause any conclusions of the advances. Science progresses step by step.

      My Preprint simply shows the proper way to calculate the carbon cycle for both natural and human carbon. The Physics model reproduces the IPCC data for natural CO2 under IPCC’s assumption that the natural inflow remained constant after 1750. The Physics model finds the IPCC estimated flows are a little off and corrects the flows while keeping IPCC’s estimated natural levels constant.

      In matching the IPCC natural data, my Preprint does a calculation properly that the IPCC has not done. This calculation derived e-times from the IPCC carbon-cycle data.

      The next logical step is to assume human carbon will flow through the reservoirs with the same e-times as the natural carbon that is simultaneously flowing through the reservoirs. On that simple basis, my Preprint shows all human carbon emissions from 1750 to 2020 will have increased the level of atmospheric CO2 by 32 ppm.

      Unless someone can show where my calculations are wrong then we must conclude that natural emissions have increased since 1750 in the amount that would increase atmospheric CO2 by about 100 ppm. My Preprint is under no scientific obligation to show how nature may have increased its emissions.

      The next step is for someone to show that natural emissions may have increased. The IPCC has not addressed this issue. The IPCC has only assumed nature stayed constant. My Preprint proves this IPCC assumption is incorrect.

      The papers by Harde and the seminars by Salby may be the only scientific literature that has addressed this issue.

      In summary, my Preprint shows the IPCC calculations for the human carbon cycle are (as you put it) “hopelessly inconsistent with data” and with accepted physics.

  12. Ed,
    The fundamental difference between your analysis and the IPCC analysis is simply in your definition of “human emissions”. Since the e time for removal of CO2 from the atmosphere is only a few years, you effectively count only a few years’ worth of human emissions as contributing to today’s atmospheric totals. You call a carbon atom that came out of a coal mine 50 years ago, was absorbed by a tree a few years later, then returned to the atmosphere last year “natural carbon.” The IPCC counts that atom, correctly, as “human emissions.” Had we left it in the ground, it wouldn’t be in the atmosphere now. Had there not been human activity, the atmosphere would still be at 280 ppm.
    You acknowledge that your model must postulate an increase in unknown “natural emissions” to account for the total increase in CO2 in the atmosphere that is well established and we agree upon. In the IPCC analysis there is no mystery: 365 PgC came out of the ground, 30 PgC was lost from vegetation stores, 240 PgC went into the atmosphere and 155 PgC went into the ocean (2013 numbers). The numbers are of course designed to balance. All the flows you calculate are interesting and some maybe correct, but they are unnecessary if you use conservation of carbon as IPCC does. It is your interpretation of recycled human emissions as “natural” that is misleading and wrong. The atmospheric CO2 levels will NOT quickly return to preindustrial levels if we reach 0 carbon as you have claimed. The mysterious increase in what you call “natural” carbon is human caused, and here to stay.
    I have seen enough references to the Harde paper that I guess I should read it. I honestly look for analyses that come to different conclusions than the IPCC. So far, I have found none that are credible.

    1. Dear David,

      You completely misinterpret my Prepint and its analysis.

      My calculation for the human carbon cycle is the ONLY accurate calculation to date. It is the only calculation that does not mix human and natural carbon together. It counts as human carbon all the carbon that the IPCC says humans emit. It properly conserves all human emissions. It never changes the definition of human emissions to natural emissions.

      You must have read such junk in other papers. But that is NOT what my Preprint does. There is nothing misleading in my calculation.

      By contrast, there is much misleading nonsense in the IPCC calculation. The IPCC human carbon cycle does not use the same carbon cycle definitions as it uses for its natural carbon cycle.

      The way it stands, according to proper science, is the IPCC human carbon cycle calculation is invalid and my human carbon cycle calculation is valid.

      Therefore, the conclusions of my carbon cycle calculation must be presumed to be valid. This means (a) natural emission increased after 1750 enough to add about 100 ppm to the atmosphere, and (b) that human carbon in the atmosphere will quickly decay as my calculations show.

      1. Ed,
        Please read your own paper. At the beginning of 4.2 you identify the human carbon input: historical emissions from industrial activity. You omit the recycled carbon, and that is why your final results make no sense. It is not just that you have to hypothesize a mysterious extra source. As I showed above, if there were some hidden source (volcanoes?), in order to get the atmospheric CO2 up to measured values they would put more carbon in the the land and sea reservoirs than data show there is. You say it is not your job to find the hidden source. OK, but it is your job to make a self consistent theory.

        The IPCC data is self consistent and consistent with data. Your model is neither.

        For two months I have tried to get you to say how you think the various reservoirs have changed during the industrial era. I have done this hoping that you would see the problems. You have steadfastly ducked the question. At this point I don’t know if you are incapable of that analysis, or know the result and don’t want to admit you were wrong.


        1. Dear David,
          You need to take a course in reading comprehension.

          You do not even understand that my Preprint calculation includes all recycled human carbon. It is the first such calculation that does this properly.

          Table 4 shows all the human carbon that has entered the atmosphere since 1750, according to IPCC data and best estimates. That is the 452 PgC Table 4 shows as of 2020. Table 4 shows how all that human carbon has distributed itself among the reservoirs, using IPCC’s e-times for natural carbon.

          There is no human carbon missing in my Preprint’s calculation. You can’t recycle human carbon until it enters the atmosphere. My Preprint computes the recycling of all the human carbon that has entered the atmosphere each year.

          Show me an IPCC calculation that has done this. You can’t.

          If you think recycled human carbon must be added separately then I suggest you return your PhD degree to the institution that gave it to you.

          My theory is self-consistent. The IPCC’s theory is NOT self-consistent. I have not “ducked” any relevant question. I have provided the first self-consistent calculation of the human carbon cycle… and you don’t get it.

          Until you understand my Preprint, we are not discussing physics. We are discussing your ability to read a scientific article and understand what is says.

        2. “I have tried to get you to say how you think the various reservoirs have changed during the industrial era.”

          He doesn’t need to. Like Harde and Salby, Dr. Ed has demonstrated that human emissions are much too small to have caused the observed increase of atmospheric CO2. Where that CO2 ends up is immaterial. What is material is that, with this recognition, the entire IPCC house of cards collapses.

    2. “I honestly look for analyses that come to different conclusions than the IPCC. So far, I have found none that are credible.”
      I recommend you review Salby’s lectures especially (https://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/agw-hypothesis/what-is-really-behind-the-increase-in-atmospheric-co2/ ).
      The concept from IPCC that all the increase in CO2 is from human sources just can’t stand scrutiny. Note that every proof Salby shows is derived from the conservation equation. As an initial thought experiment consider fact that the atmosphere increase is nearly linear while emissions change rapidly as the world economy changes. What mechanism decides to increase the “airborne fraction” when emissions slow up and retard it when they speed up so that the concentration rise is constant.

      1. DMA,
        The atmospheric increase is not linear. It has a positive second derivative, consistent with the increasing human emissions. Of course there are prominent seasonal wiggles due to vegetation changes, and other smaller wiggles presumably from measurement issues, but the dominant trend is clear.

        Are you recommending Salby to me over Harde?

        1. I personally find Salby easier to comprehend. He and Harde worked together on Harde 2017 and Harde 2019. The Salby reference I gave contains his review of the egregious treatment of Harde by the journal in order to promote Kohler.
          The premise of the increase in CO2 being all human assumes a nearly steady state of natural emissions and absorption prior to the industrial revolution. Knowing that atmospheric CO2 is temperature driven, I find that assumption difficult to accept. Because human emissions are so much smaller than natural emissions any small variance in the natural would make the signal too noisy to detect the human contribution. The positive second derivative is consistent with any increase. The lack of response in atmospheric content to changes in emissions rates precludes the IPCC presumption that all increase is human. Dr. Ed’s analysis is consistent with the data and does not require shaky presumptions about nature.

  13. It would be illogical to assume that natural emissions of CO2 have remained constant over the past 150 years. Historical records of atmospheric CO2 levels over the past billions of years have revealed rather constant fluctuations- all without the presence of humans.

    One can ponder various plausible sources of natural CO2 emissions, including increased release from warming oceans and variations in the output from the recently discovered large numbers of sub-antarctic and deep-ocean volcanoes and vents. See: https://notrickszone.com/2013/03/02/most-of-the-rise-in-co2-likely-comes-from-natural-sources/ and https://debunkhouse.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/how-much-of-the-atmospheric-co2-is-anthropogenic/ and https://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/esef5.htm and http://www.plateclimatology.com/discovery-of-massive-volcanic-co2-emissions-puts-damper-on-global-warming-theory

    Salby has demonstrated that CO2 released by human activity does not differ isotopically from natural sources, and, as such, the two components can not be differentiated by C13. Therefore, assuming that the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 is due primarily to human emissions is unsupported. Such an assumption simply joins the other unsupported assumption that CO2 causes global warming. https://meteolcd.wordpress.com/2012/04/29/the-part-of-natural-co2-emissions-dynamite-conference-by-prof-murray-salby/
    Also see: http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/search?q=carbon+13

    Furthermore, statistical detrending eliminates any correlation between human emissions of CO2 and total atmospheric CO2 levels. https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/12/19/co2responsiveness/ and https://casf.me/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/emissions-vs-global-co2-concentrations.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0AYCrJ8YboguEguisCBytVzOye0woRrecgNjNs7FL69vPRWrYW3tWzcvU and https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/05/27/spurious/

  14. Ed,
    About 12 years ago, you claimed that you were writing a book on the science of climate change. As it has not yet appeared, it must be either a beauty or just a fib. While I suspect the latter, all of climate science would get a lot of amusement out of any book on this subject that you could manage to write.
    So, I am still looking forward to seeing your long overdue attempt to prove me wrong. The ball is still in your court (as it has been for 12 years)!
    Eric Grimsrud

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.