1. You still refuse to accept the very clear distinction between levels and concentrations, Ed. Your math is fundamentally flawed because your physical model upon which it is based is fundamentally flawed.
    CO2 does not disappear into the ether. If your lake consists of water then you can’t analogize CO2 to the flow of water into the lake–that’s ridiculous. A better analogy would be If I started dumping huge bags of salt into the inflow stream.. How do you think the lake would respond to that salty water, Ed? Do you think the concentration of salt in the lake would simply rise a bit and then stay at that percentage, even as I continue to dump salt into the inflow, year after year? A portion of the concentration is cumulative, nature ‘acquires’ a manmade contribution each year which enters the cycle, that is the very basic truth that you and others apparently have such a hard time grasping. dEquilibrium/dt is not zero. The measurements prove this.

    Besides being a misogynist, racist, narcissistic bully, Trump is without a doubt the most anti-science president of all time. He has made America the laughing stock of the world. Not only is he a denialist, he is a conspiracy theorist who allies with the anti-vaxxers, truthers, chemtrail nuts, and likely believes we did not land on the moon. He and you do not consider climate change a scientific issue, it is all about politics, as this blog post clearly illustrates. Those of us (I am an Independent who has voted for Republicans, Democrats, and Libertarians) who don’t give a rat’s behind about political labels are only interested in science. You say, “That claim is such bad science that all so-called “scientists” who believe it are not real scientists” Right. And you are no true Scotsman, Ed. Funny how virtually all of the climate change denialists identify with the hard right. The Democrats were fools to nominate HC, lets see how stupid they are next time round.

    1. Hi Stan,

      I will ignore all your irrelevant political claims and simply point out errors in your view of science.

      Yes, concentration is a level. That is the standard and valid use of “levels” in systems. Amazing that you don’t understand systems. You are out of your league on this issue.

      The physics theory is that “outflow = level / Te.” That combined with the continuity equation produces an equation that exactly simulates the 14C outflow data. Neither you nor the UN have any theory or model that can simulate the 14C data. Therefore, you and the UN are wrong. Your physics is wrong. You believe in fiction.

      Salt? It simply dissolves in the water and flows out with the water. If you dump salt into the lake at a constant rate, and the river inflow stays constant, (and the salt and water are well mixed), then the concentration (level) of salt in the lake will come to a balance level and not further increase.

      What is your science or engineering background? Stan, if you don’t understand this, you need to study or restudy freshman physics and math. It is really simple physics and calculus.

      1. Stan – I am a geologist who has studied and researched climate change since my retirement ten years ago. I have worked with The Right Climate Research Team (a group of exceptional retired scientists and engineers – mostly from NASA). Your comments are certainly out of phase with what I have learned about the complexity of climate change.

        Scientific evidence shows that man’s contribution to climate is minuscule at best. Furthermore, CO2 levels have been 4 or 5 times greater in the past. During those periods vegetation flourished and so did animal life. Rather than state numbers, I suggest you go to Dept of Health and Welfare regs – find out just what level of CO2 is allowed in the workplace. Also, check and see how high it is allowed in nuclear submarines. You will be surprised!

        The is one thing I have that is out of phase with Dr. Ed is – in science the truth is EVIDENCE. As science uncovers more and more evidence from scientific data improvements in REAL conclusions can be made. AND, in time these CONCLUSIONS can change, thereby altering or improving the CONCLUSIONS. So, truth improves as scientific research moves forward.
        As a scientist, I am appalled at the lack of REAL science being used by those who willing to prostitute themselves for a buck or two. They have misled the public in so many levels that it is impossible to keep up with their BS. Then, there are the Al Gores who couldn’t pass junior high general science; yet pass themselves off as experts.

      2. Dr. Ed – I,too, would like to know what Stan’s scientific or engineering background is? Stan’s comments are the things that misguided and confuse the public.

        1. Howard, I have an MS in atmospheric science and 15+ years experience in the field, including several papers published in peer reviewed respected journals.
          The CO2 level eons ago is irrelevant. What is relevant is the current manmade contribution to levels and its effect on the environment.
          I answered your question, now answer mine–do you think the Republican Party and leadership is anti-science?

      3. Ed, I’ll ignore your personal insults. My political statements are highly relevant–they explain why virtually *all* denialist statements are clouded by politics.
        You have to define an analogy as a closed system, Ed. The water flowing into the lake will eventually come from the lake itself. So, salt concentration will continue to rise as more salt is dumped into it. This is clearly seen in the very C14 data you cite. Answer me a basic question, Ed–what do you think would have happened if we continued atomic testing as we did from the start of your chart–just kept detonating bombs.

        1. Dear Stan,
          Your political statements are irrelevant because politics does not decide matters of science. Science follows the scientific method.

          In your terms, a “denialist” is one who does not believe in human-caused climate change as you do. Therefore, you are promoting a religion, not science. Those who follow science, deny your religion because your climate religion denies science.

          Back to science.

          1. You can read the physics model in the slide presentation that I added today. Show me where there is any politics in my derivation of the physics model. There is none.

          2. You are wrong that an analogy must be a closed system. Where did you get that crazy idea?

          3. You are wrong that salt will continue to rise in the lake even if the water is recycled. You are claiming the history of the water molecules affect how salt dissolved in the water. That is crazy.

          4. You are wrong that the 14C data show what you claim.

          To answer your question: The physics model that I have derived fully explains what would have happened if we had continued the atomic bomb tests in the atmosphere. If you understand the simple physics model, you will know the answer to your question.

          If you need help in understanding the physics model, then say so and I will be happy to explain it further.

          5. I am sorry to say that your MS in atmospheric science did not teach you fundamental physics.

        2. Ed, the system must be closed because within the parameters of the model, CO2 does not magically disappear, just as water does not magically disappear from your lake.
          Obviously, if you keep adding salt to water at some point it will become saturated, but according to you, our atmosphere has already reached its ‘saturation point’ with CO2. Clearly that is wrong, as the many who argue that “CO2 levels were much higher in the past” can attest to. If your physics is so rock solid, I anxiously await publication of your model in a respected journal (sound of crickets…)

        3. Dear Stan,
          Who said CO2 “magically disappears”?
          Why are you not able to understand your own salt example?
          Where does my model claim CO2 in the atmosphere is saturated?
          Where do you come up with your crazy, incorrect ideas?

          My presentation at the Porto climate conference is a peer-reviewed publication.

          Have you read through my slide presentation? Have you read my preprint? Or are you just winging it without first studying what I have written?

        4. Ed, you still seem to think that once CO2 is released by man, it no longer is manmade, so it ‘disappears’ into the system and is therefore ‘natural’ That is why your model is fundamentally flawed. If man keeps adding CO2 to the system (as we do, year after year…it is NEW each year because the previous year it was NOT in the cycle) then the only way it can reach an equilibrium point is through saturation. Since you acknowledge that the atmosphere has not reached a saturation point, clearly your model is wrong. The CO2 added by man each year DOES NOT DISAPPEAR! That is something even grade schoolers can understand.

        5. Dear Stan,

          You simply repeat the UN liberal mantra about the effects of human CO2. But, like the UN, you have presented no science or data or model or theory to support your invalid, handwaving claims.

          Meanwhile, my slide presentation proves all the UN claims and arguments are wrong.

          You repeat nonsense that “the only way it can reach an equilibrium point is through saturation.” My slide #17 proves there is no CO2 saturation.

          Rather than just handwaving, defend your (incorrect) claim that
          “The CO2 added by man each year DOES NOT DISAPPEAR!”

          The physics model and its replication of the 14C data prove nature absorbs all human CO2 without saturation.

          Identify any of my slides by number and show where you think it is wrong.

        6. Ed, every time you make silly statement like “you repeat the UN liberal mantra” you show your cards, because it is painfully obvious that to you, the issue is political and not scientific.
          Using your slides 7,8, what is d(Lb)/dt?

        7. Dear Stan, do you not understand that correlation does not prove cause and effect?
          You are claiming that my support conservative politics causes me to derive a physics equation that proves your liberal position on climate is wrong. Clearly, by making such a statement, you hope to deflect that fact that I have proven your climate religion is wrong. Otherwise, you would simply find a way to prove my physics is wrong … which you have not done.

          In my slide 8, equation (3), Lb is the balance level. (I don’t yet have my written text or my video that explains what I told my Porto audience, so I understand why you might ask your question.)

          Eq (3) is found by setting Eq (2) equal to zero, which is when L = Lb, the balance level. I don’t use d(Lb)/dt anywhere, but dL/dt is the rate of change of level with respect to time.

    2. Stan
      If your salt model means to make the salt concentration analogous to atmospheric CO2 You have to have natural sources about 30 times the human input and salt removal mechanisms about 30 times as big as the human input with large uncertainty in all the natural flow. Now you have the same analogy as Dr. Ed’s lake and river. You don’t really need much math to realize that the uncertainty precludes concluding that any growth of salt content is entirely man made.

      1. DMA: It would not matter. Salt concentration would rise regardless. Answer this, a question which Ed seems unwilling to answer: what do you think would have happened if atomic testing had continued after 1963, so we kept detonating atomic bombs to this day? What would the impact be on our atmosphere?

        1. Obviously the C14 concentration would have increased because the new addition of C14 was much larger than the rate at which it was removed from the atmosphere and much larger than any natural source. It would have increased until the C14 sinks matched the natural plus new sources and then become constant. In the interim it would have been building up in the CO2 sinks at the rate that all CO2 is cycled-about 25% per year. I don’t see how this is any different from Dr. Ed’s examples.
          The salt concentration cannot continue to rise if the removal reaches a level equal to the sources.

        2. Stan, Please see my answer to your salt claim and your 14C question in my comment above.

          DMA, You are correct. Here is how I would explain the answer to Stan’s 14C question. Continued bomb tests would have raised the level of 14C. If we assume the bomb tests added a constant inflow of 14C then that inflow would have set a balance level. As the level of 14C increased, its outflow would have increased in proportion to its level. When the level reached its balance level, then outflow would have equaled inflow and thereafter the 14C level would have remained constant until the inflow changed.

        3. Well I’m glad to see that Ed admits “continued bomb test would have raised the level of C14” because his model assumes just the opposite–he insists that continued burning of fossil fuels does nothing to the level of CO2, it just magically stays at an additional 18ppm. That’s what is truly crazy.

        4. Hi Stan,
          The more you comment, the more you prove your ignorance. You are unable to follow a simple physics model that every good high-school student can understand.

          There is no contradiction between my answer to your 14C question and my statement that inflows set balance levels. You just don’t get it.

          The only thing my model assumes is “outflow equals level divided by residence time.” Everything my model concludes is a logical deduction of that one assumption.

          You should decide whether you are here to learn something or whether you are here to look like a moron.

          You have proved we do not have a climate-change problem. We have a deficit of science-understanding problem.

  2. Dr. Ed
    I think you are correct about bringing out the truth. Whether it can be accomplished enough in the remaining time to effect the vote is questionable but it ought to be attempted. Do you know if Will Happer can produce climate truth videos or press releases of some sort for the president? If he could the press could not ignore it and the activists would have to try to explain his errors-almost like a debate they run away from so often.
    In the mean time continue your efforts as they will help.

  3. I am no scientist, but when the dinosaurs roamed the earth, the CO2 levels were much higher and plants and trees use CO2 as food, the trees produced lots of oxygen, this allows animals to grow very big. When communism fell, the communist became the environmentalist. It all boils down to control.

  4. The Republicans should emphasize that the Democrat demanded climate policies is nothing more than virtue signaling.
    Their solutions won’t work, even by their own models, are disrupting society and cost a tremendous sum of money.
    The only way the Democrats can respond is by hysteria.
    And that’s the one thing we’ve had already too much of, and the people will reject any more of it.
    Although Dr. Ed’s explanations are easy to comprehend, the issue is still too complicated to win an election.

  5. I’m surrounded by alarmists. I’ve been trying to warn Republican leaders about this for a long time. AGW/CC are the left’s rally cry along with immigration and #metoo (=extreme Trump and conservative hatred). We should have started long ago forcing public debate. As soon as they’re through with Kavanaugh, out will come the climateers in full force. They’ve already been revving up bigly for some months now, doubling and tripling down on their ridiculous claims.

    Dr. Ed, isn’t there something that you and a group of scientists can do to intercept and influence Trump or EPA on this point?

  6. You are a Trump supporting Republican. I’m a classical liberal Democrat.

    So, of course, I consider you almost entirely insane. Politically. As you do of me.

    But your treatment of Climate Change is the only solid, rational piece of analysis I’ve been able to find. And I’ve been searching for a week.

    My background is in mathematical modelling, “chaotic” systems and Artificial Intelligence. I’m not the sort of person who scans the introduction of a scientific paper; I’m the type who downloads the Vostok data myself and checks their math.

    I recently became interested in the disposition of Carbon isotopes in atmospheric CO2 and what it says about man-made climate change. I’ve been digging through dozens of papers from the usual channels like IPCC, EPA, etc.

    I noticed when it comes to topic of the isotopes of C12, C13 and C14 – our clearest “tracers” of man-made CO2 – nobody would give a straight answer. They would beg off with some obvious evasive ploy like, “C13 is seen to decrease, which is what we would expect, now onto some other thing.”

    Even the actual values were difficult to find. The broader context was nowhere at all to be found : What are the values (C12/13/14) now, what were they in the past, how do we know and who says, and what is the mechanism of sources and sinks among land, air and water from which we can draw inferences from these data?

    Your paper “Why Human …” is the first actual piece of science I could find on the subject. Most importantly, yours is the only treatment that meets the requirement that it *makes* *accurate* *predictions*. Something which seems to have gone out of style in the scientific literature. I have to go through it again more carefully, but my first reading of it was like a blast of fresh Arctic air.

    For my part, every time I drill down to the raw data let it speak for itself, I find the same conclusion : That CO2 doesn’t drive temperature; it’s the other way around. That man-made CO2 is little more than noise. That the Earth is warming and releasing CO2 from the oceans.

    Furthermore, we know the Milankovic Cycles predict the next ice age will be upon us soon. That much is clear to anyone with a casual glance at the graph. We are the first humans to see it coming. Yet we’re running around chasing CO2, ignoring the possibility that we can’t effect climate with the CO2 knob, that in fact the climate is about to do what it always has done – freeze for 100,000 yrs.

    We could be building a society that can endure the next ice age. Preserve culture, technology, food supply, reduce population, eliminate nuclear weapons, etc. By chasing CO2 we may be like the midieval physicians who thought the plague was rooted in Man’s sin, and that we need only repent.

    The archetype of Man’s flawed magnificence is seductive. It is the scientist’s unpopular duty to say, “Um, guys? I was wondering about the rats …”

    Anyway. You’re a Trump-voting Republican and I’m an otherwise-voting Democrat. Who would have imagined science transcending politics?

    If you don’t mind, I’ll take a seat over here with you.

    1. Hi Chris,
      Thank you for your kind and intelligent note.

      In my mind, climate science and political party preference are two different dimensions. Neither dimension should constrain our preference in the other dimension.

      Politics plays by its set of rules and proper science plays by a different set of rules, like the scientific method.

      Ivar Giaever, Nobel Laureate in Physics, is a dedicated Democrat. Yet he calls the alarmist view of global warming a pseudoscience.

      Yes, we can sit on the same side in climate physics.

  7. Get real guys! The earth is responding as it should be recovering from an ice age and benefiting from the extra carbon dioxide from man and a warming ocean. Please view Matt Ridley’s lecture a few years back: Global Warming vs Global Greening. He tells the whole story in British humor backed by his journalistic experience from day one of the movement.

  8. I’ve been wringing my hands over climate change, but not anymore. Our earth is so good! I just knew deep down that she was more intelligent than we ever gave her credit for. Thank you for sharing your knowledge Dr. Ed<3

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.