Below are the first two sections of the Introduction to my definitive paper on why IPCC’s core hypothesis is invalid. All the math and physics are done, but I am expanding the Introduction because too many people with PhD degrees still get confused. They don’t understand the basics of science because they have little or […]
by Dr. Ed Berry Abstract The above-ground atomic bomb tests in the 1950s and 1960s almost doubled the level of 14C, in the form of CO2, in the atmosphere. The D14C data show how the 14CO2 returned to its natural level after the termination of the bomb tests in 1963. A simple physics model accurately
by Ed Berry, Ph.D., Physics Permission granted to republish with link to this original. Climate Truth New calculations prove all human CO2 emitted since 1750 has added only 31 ppm (parts per million) of CO2 to the atmosphere, and natural CO2 has added 100 ppm. All human carbon has added only one percent to the
“Trump pulls out of the UN Paris Climate Agreement” vs “More than 11,000 scientists from around the world declare a ‘climate emergency’” In a moment, I will to show you a simple proof that President Trump is a better climate scientist than all 11,000 climate science imposters who claim we have a “climate emergency.” Those
by Edwin X Berry, Ph.D., Physics October 11, 2019: I posted the first draft of this Preprint for your comments. June 20, 2020: Thanks to all your comments, I have replaced this Preprint #2 with my much updated Preprint #3. I am preserving your comments and closing the discussions on this post.
[Updated 8/26/2020 – Ed] On July 4, 2019, the International Journal of Atmospheric and Ocean Sciences published my scientific paper, “Human CO2 Emissions have little Effect on Atmospheric CO2.“ Because it is easy to read even for non-scientists, I encourage you to download the free PDF of my paper here. My paper’s 9000 plus words
Note: The International Journal of Atmospheric and Ocean Sciences published its online version of this paper on July 4, 2019, here. Edwin X Berry, Climate Physics LLC, Bigfork, Montana, USA Abstract The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agrees human CO2 is only 5 percent and natural CO2 is 95 percent of the
by Ed Berry, Ph.D., Physics Environmental Correspondent Alister Dyle penned the news pseudoscience article entitled, “Evidence for man-made global warming hits ‘gold standard’: scientists.” The article claims, Evidence for man-made global warming has reached a “gold standard” level of certainty. Well, where is the evidence? Evidence means cause and effect evidence. They don’t give any evidence
by Ed Berry, Ph.D., Physics, CCM On January 8, I left home at 4:10 am and arrived at the Glacier International Airport at 4:40 am. Delta Airlines flew me to Salt Lake City and then to Phoenix, Arizona. After unwinding at my hotel, I took a taxi to the Phoenix Convention Center and the American
Human CO2 does not cause climate change. Below is the image of the 4’x 8′ poster I will use for my presentation to the American Meteorological Society on January 8, 2019. Scroll down to see larger views. For explanations, please read my preprint. Better yet, if your group would like to host my public presentation, you may
by Ed Berry, Ph.D., Physics The American Meteorological Society (AMS) published my paper: “Contradictions to IPCC’s Climate Change Theory” AMS published my original abstract here with a link at the bottom of the page where you can download my full paper in 2-column pdf format. I will present my paper at the AMS annual meeting
Human CO2 has little effect on atmospheric CO2 Please see the published version of this paper here. Edwin X Berry, Ph.D., CCMClimate Physics LLC, Bigfork, Montana, USA “The formulation of a problem is often more essential than its solution, which may be merely a matter of mathematical or experimental skill. To raise new questions, new
Global Green Airbag versus Global Greenhouse Claus U. Rieth, The Porto Climate Conference Basic Science of a Changing Climate – the topic of the Conference that took place at Porto University in Porto, Portugal on Sept, 07– 09, 2018. Attended by leading scientists in many domains, experts of engineering and critical thinkers of meteorology, oceanography,
These slides prove human CO2 emissions add only 18 ppm to CO2 in the atmosphere while nature adds 392 ppm. Therefore, everything the UN IPCC and its supporters have told you about climate change is WRONG! Human emissions do not change the climate. These are my Porto slides revised and expanded. Next, I will add video and text
“The simple model shows how inflow affects level, how level affects outflow, and how balance occurs when outflow equals inflow. Nothing in the world outside the atmosphere changes these conclusions. But these conclusions change entirely the dominant worldview of how human emissions change the level of CO2 in our atmosphere.” by Ed Berry, Ph.D., Physics, reposted
Please click on the title below to see my newer post on August 2, 2018, that has been reposted by others: Human CO2 emissions are not responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2. So climate change is natural. by Ed Berry, Ph.D., Physics This post proves the alarmist IPCC climate change claims are WRONG. You will
I presented a summary of this preprint at the “Basic Science of a Changing Climate” conference in Porto, Portugal, on September 7, 2018. – Ed Edwin X Berry, Ph.D., Physics Climate Physics LLC, 439 Grand Dr #147, Bigfork, Montana 59911, USA Copyright © 2018 by Edwin X Berry. This PREPRINT will be submitted to a
by Ed Berry, Ph.D., Physics These 8 words are the death of climate change: It violates the Equivalence Principle, therefore it’s wrong. At its very core, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) violated a key principle of physics. Therefore, all IPCC climate claims and models are wrong. IPCC’s Big Idea (its fundamental
by Edwin Berry, PhD, CCM By private email, a good physicist commented on my preprint, “Why human CO2 does not change climate.” Even if you are not a scientist, I think you will understand my reply. Dear ….., Thank you for your email. First, to answer your questions. You asked, Do you consider the clearing
