World’s Simplest Argument that proves
human CO2 does not change the climate
Meteorologists, scientists explain why there is No Climate Emergency
Original by Katie Spence – The Epoch Times, Sep 14, 2023
This post uses and simplifies the part related to Ed Berry. For the whole Epoch Times article, click here.
To read my papers and references, please go here: Berry Vs Andrews On Theory (1) (edberry.com)
The ‘Climate Emergency’
Edwin Berry, a theoretical physicist and certified consulting meteorologist, said IPCC’s core theory is that natural CO2 has stayed constant at 280 ppm since 1750 and that human CO2 is responsible for the 140-ppm increase.
This IPCC theory makes human CO2 responsible for 33 percent of today’s total CO2 level.
Here’s the problem with that IPCC theory.
The public perception of carbon dioxide is that it goes into the atmosphere and stays there. They think it just accumulates. But it doesn’t. At a constant level, the outflow equals the inflow.
A constant level of 140 ppm requires a continual CO2 inflow of 40 ppm per year because, according to the IPCC, CO2 has a turnover time of 3.5 years.
Divide 140 ppm by 3.5 years to get 40 ppm per year.
A level of 280 ppm requires 80 ppm of inflow. So, IPCC’s claimed human CO2 level of 140 ppm requires 40 ppm per year of inflow, which is 33% of the total CO2 inflow.
But even IPCC says human CO2 inflow is about 5% to 7% of the total CO2 inflow.
So, because human CO2 inflow of 5% to 7% of the total inflow cannot support IPCC’s claimed 140 ppm level, the IPCC instead claims human CO2 has a turnover time of hundreds to thousands of years.
The IPCC is saying something is different about human CO2 keeps it from flowing out of the atmosphere as fast as natural CO2.
IPCC scientists should have asked the simple question: ‘Is a human carbon dioxide molecule identical to a natural carbon dioxide molecule? And the answer is yes.
Since human and natural CO2 molecules are identical, their turnover times are identical, or 3.5 years. So, the whole idea that human CO2 turnover time is hundreds or thousands of years is impossible.
This means nature—not humans—caused the increase in CO2. And consequently, attempts to decrease human CO2 are pointless.
The belief that human CO2 drives the CO2 increase may be the biggest public delusion and most costly fraud in history.
In science, the scientific method says you can’t prove that a theory is 100 percent true — only that the data supports it. But you can prove it’s false. IPCC proposed a theory, and if we can prove it’s wrong, we win. I proved their theory is wrong.
I took my research a step further and calculated the human carbon cycle using IPCC’s own carbon cycle data.
The prediction from the same model doesn’t show humans producing 140 ppm. It comes out closer to 30 ppm. Which means the IPCC is wrong.
Using the IPCC’s data, nature is responsible for about 390 ppm of CO2, and humans are only responsible for about 30 ppm—not 140 ppm.
Now, someone could ask, ‘Well, is the IPCC data correct?’ My answer is, ‘I don’t know.’ But I don’t have to know because IPCC has used this very data to deceive the world. I want to show that their logic is incorrect using their data.
The IPCC was not set up as a scientific organization.
IPCC doesn’t engage in skepticism of its theories and, therefore, the scientific method that governs all science.
IPCC was set up as a political organization to specifically convince the public that carbon dioxide was causing problems.
There’s no climate emergency.
All my research and correspondence from colleagues trying to disprove my theories are available to the public.
I commented this on a facebook post and received this reply: “you’ve made a few basic errors and false assumptions. “Is a human CO2 molecule identical to a natural CO2 molecule?” – the answer is actually no, since carbon from burning fossil fuels contains a specific isotopic signature, and the ratio of these carbon isotopes in the atmosphere clearly shows that the recent increase in CO2 is best explained by human activity, i.e. extracting and burning fossil fuels.” Can you help me with a counter argument?
Hi Claire,
A human 12CO2 molecule is identical to a natural 12CO2 molecule. Consideration of 14CO2 molecules requires looking at a group of molecules where the number of 14CO2 molecules is negligible.
To be more specific, a 12CO2 molecule has a turnover time of 3.5 years and a 14CO2 molecule has a turnover time of about 10 years. Both are a long way from the thousand years the IPCC claims for human CO2.
Their last argument that 14CO2 proves human CO2 caused the CO2 increase is in error. My 2023 paper, section 5.2, shows how D14C data show the addition caused by human CO2 is close to zero. The key is we must consider the D14C balance level, not the D14C level itself, in making this argument. The opponents use the D14C level and get the wrong answer.
Is the Sun warming the oceans reducing their ability to absorb CO2?
Hi Ralph,
If we follow both physics and the systems model method, we will say that a warming ocean surface will reduce the e-time for the flow of CO2 from the ocean surface to the atmosphere.
The result is the same as if the surface ocean had reduced its ability to absorb CO2, i.e., the flow from the ocean to the atmosphere is increased, but that is not the proper description of the physics.
Ed
“Edwin Berry, a theoretical physicist and certified consulting meteorologist, said IPCC’s cory is that natural CO2 has stayed constant at 280 ppm since 1750 and that human CO2 is responsible for the 140-ppm increase.”
Hi Ed, cory should be “core theory”?
Hi Don,
Thank you for catching that typo error. It is now fixed.
Ed
Latent heat of vaporization/condensation is what transfers most excess heat into space. For every pound of water (about two cups) that falls as rain about 1000 BTU’s of heat energy that was absorbed during the evaporation process is transferred into space. We also don’t need to worry about uncontrolled warming because the warmer the earth gets, the more water evaporates forming more clouds which reflect the incoming radiation from reaching the earth’s surface. The one thing we can’t control is the amount of energy that is radiated to earth. We know from history that during the warm periods, the world prospers but during cold periods, there is much hardship.
The only relevant fact I know is that C02 is heavier than the other gases including oxygen. Therefor when coal burns in a furnace of a power station all the gases rise and come out of the chimney. But as C02 is the heaviest it sinks to the ground where all the plants absorb it as food and convert it to oxygen for us to breathe. Photosynthesis Click on the word
CO2 is a “well-mixed” gas. It doesn’t “sink” to the ground, but is found from the bottom to the top of the atmosphere. It will only separate by atomic weight when isolated from the chaos of winds and varying temperature.
Here’s the physics explanation: Dalton’s law of partial pressures says each non-interactive gas behaves as if it were alone. They are unaffected by the presence of other gases.
Alone, CO2 molecules are heavier than O2, N2. Therefore, CO2 will be more concentrated closer to the ground than O2 or N2.
There is a simple experiment that anyone can do to disprove the idea of a greenhouse effect, and that is to make two identical boxes, one covered by greenhouse glass, the other by a glass or plastic that is transparent to al IR wavelengths. If the greenhouse theory is correct, the one with greenhouse glass should get warmer. In fact the opposite happens, as the greenhouse glass actually blocks more incoming heat than outgoing. The same will apply to CO2. If it blocks heat in a particular waveband being radiated from the ground, It will block even more heat in thet waveband from the sun. Theis has the effect of reducing the extremes of temperature without causin actual warming.
Why use greenhouse glass when you can use actual CO2 like Eunice Foote did in 1856?
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=fjtSAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA382&lpg=PA382&dq=%22Circumstances+Affecting+the+Heat+of+the+Sun%E2%80%99s+Rays%22+foote&source=bl&ots=j5MLp3r_i4&sig=pfHXWv44uTHzjMyCAx_vjOnxlyU&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22Circumstances%20Affecting%20the%20Heat%20of%20the%20Sun%E2%80%99s%20Rays%22%20foote&f=false
She got the opposite result you said she should get. You’ve done this experiment yourself, right?
By my calculations, 1.5 trillion tonnes of CO2 injected into the atmosphere would raise the level by about 180 ppm. Do you get a different answer? Assuming my math is correct, I’m not seeing how the raise in CO2 levels is not caused by man. We’ve produced more than enough to account for the difference.
Hi Dominic,
Your math is OK but not your physics. To formulate the problem in physics, we should consider the flows of human and natural CO2 independently. Then, we find that the balance level of human CO2 is only about 5% of the balance level of natural CO2.
In other words, what you are not considering in your calculations is that human CO2 is also flowing out of the atmosphere, just as natural CO2 flows out of the atmosphere.
Ed
Dr. Ed
I was glad to see the coverage. Hope it opens a few eyes. Have you seen the paper by Koutsoyiannis et al., 2023 discussed here
https://notrickszone.com/2023/09/18/new-study-the-rising-co2-causes-warming-perception-not-supported-by-real-world-observation/
They do an interesting analysis of the time relation of atmospheric CO2 and temperature and come to the same conclusion as you that most of the recent rise is natural. The evidence is stacking up and no acceptable rebuttal to be seen.
Hi DMA,
Thank you for the reference. They use statistics rather than physics. They get part of the answer, but they do not get the physics that explains why human CO2 does not cause all the increase.
Ed
The AGW thesis has never been experimentally demonstrated. It thus violates the scientific method.
The warming happens first, then the rise in CO2 levels. Thus AGW violates causality.
Why do you need more than the above to toss the whole AGW out?
And yet there are many other good reasons to throw it out? Where’s the tropical hot spot? Why can’t we confirm a unique value for climate sensitivity? How can CO2 IR warm the oceans given it can’t penetrate the 1mm thick ocean skin (which is colder than the waters below because all the evaporation occurs there), etc, etc.?
We can confirm a unique value for ‘ECS’ (ie: the change in Adiabatic Lapse Rate, not the “greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)” of the climate alarmists). How do we do this? We calculate the Specific Lapse Rate of CO2 (what the Adiabatic Lapse Rate would be if the atmosphere consisted of only that gas), then calculate CO2’s contribution to the ALR based upon its concentration, then change that concentration and take into account the atoms and molecules which that CO2 displaces.
The ‘ECS’ (ie: the change in ALR) of CO2 is only 0.000011683426182319 K km-1 ppm-1, without taking into account the atoms and molecules CO2 displaces, because the Specific Lapse Rate of CO2 is 11.683426182319 K km-1. Taking that into account only reduces that number.
AGW / CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, due to CO2) is a provable hoax, nothing more than a complex mathematical scam predicated upon mathematical fraudery in the misuse of the Stefan-Boltzmann (S-B) equation in Energy Balance Climate Models (EBCMs) to conjure “backradiation” out of thin air; and the misattribution of cause to effect in the climatologists claim that the atmospheric temperature gradient is caused by their “greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)”, when it is actually caused by the gravitational auto-compression of the ALR (that blue-shifting of temperature as one descends a gravity well in an atmosphere; the conversion of translational mode (kinetic) energy to gravitational potential energy with altitude (and vice versa) in accord with the Ideal Gas Laws).
All of the above is proven at the URL below.
The ‘scientists’ shilling for AGW / CAGW are either uneducated, deluded or nefarious commies.
Energy does not and cannot spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient, thus “backradiation” (ie: energy spontaneously flowing up an energy density gradient) is physically impossible, thus the “greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)” is physically impossible, thus “greenhouse gases (due to the greenhouse effect (due to backradiation))” are physically impossible, thus “AGW / CAGW (due to greenhouse gases (due to the greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)))” is physically impossible, thus all of the offshoots of AGW / CAGW (eg: carbon footprint, carbon credit trading, carbon capture and sequestration, net zero, degrowth, banning ICE vehicles, climate lockdowns, replacing reliable baseload electrical generation with intermittent renewables, etc.) are all based upon that physical impossibility.
Should any of those uneducated, deluded or nefarious commie ‘scientists’ claim that “backradiation” (ie: energy spontaneously flowing up an energy density gradient) is possible, then they must also claim that water can spontaneously flow up a pressure gradient (uphill); or they must also claim that different forms of energy obey different physical laws. Neither is true, thus in making such a claim they’d only expose themselves as being nothing but uneducated, deluded or a nefarious commie.
With the AGW / CAGW hypothesis disproved, that leaves only the Adiabatic Lapse Rate. And we can calculate the exact change in atmospheric temperature gradient (and thus surface temperature) for any given change in concentration of any given atmospheric gas.
Idealized dry gas molar heat capacity lapse rate:
If we take ϒ = 1.404, g = 9.80665 m s-2, R = 8.31446261815324 J mol-1 K-1 and M = 28.9647 g mol-1, then:
dT / dh = -0.4/1.404 * (((28.9647 g mol-1) * 9.80665 m s-2) / 8.31446261815324 J mol-1 K-1) = -9.7330377706482238008458858152373 K km-1
The stated molar isobaric heat capacity for dry air is Cp = 7/2 R
7 / 2 * 8.31446261815324 J mol-1 K-1 = 29.10061916353634 J mol-1 K-1
∴ Molar Heat Capacity / 7 * 2 = Specific Gas Constant
dT / dh = -0.4/1.404 * (((Molar Mass) * 9.80665 m s-2) / Specific Gas Constant) = Specific Lapse Rate
The below data is taken from the model atmosphere I constructed in my paper at:
https://www.patriotaction.us/showthread.php?tid=2711
… to calculate the Specific Lapse Rates below:
(N2) 9.433973828324 K km-1 * 0.780761158 +
(O2) 10.680770320623 K km-1 * 0.20944121395198 +
(Ar) 18.84692989579 K km-1 * 0.00934 +
(CO2) 11.683426182319 K km-1 * 0.00043 +
(Ne) 9.5205114453312 K km-1 * 0.0000182 +
(He) 1.8883738683977 K km-1 * 0.000005222 +
(CH4) 4.4080355942551 K km-1 * 0.0000018 +
(Kr) 39.225663804284 K km-1 * 0.000001 +
(H2) 0.6859482857817 K km-1 * 0.00000055 +
(NO2) 12.127952596066 K km-1 * 0.00000033698 +
(N2O) 11.18181671295 K km-1 * 0.00000033671 +
(Xe) 61.282460659191 K km-1 * 0.0000000869565217391 +
(CO) 9.4393555726775 K km-1 * 0.00000008 +
(SO2) 15.757493460485 K km-1 * 0.000000015 +
(O3) 12.001569302138 K km-1 * 0.0000000003 +
(I2) 45.728742264382 K km-1 * 0.00000000009 +
(SF6) 30.187357269247 K km-1 * 0.0000000000115 =
(N2) 7.36568033074394 +
(O2) 2.23699350189356 +
(Ar) 0.176030325226679 +
(CO2) 0.00502387325839717 +
(Ne) 0.000173273308305028 +
(He) 0.00000986108834077279 +
(CH4) 0.00000793446406965918 +
(Kr) 0.000039225663804284 +
(H2) 0.000000377271557179935 +
(NO2) 0.00000408687746582232 +
(N2O) 0.00000376502950541739 +
(Xe) 0.00000532890962253648 +
(CO) 0.0000007551484458142 +
(SO2) 0.000000236362401907275 +
(O3) 0.0000000036004707906414 +
(I2) 0.00000000411558680379438 +
(SF6) 0.000000000347154608596341 = 9.78397288330931 K km-1
See that result above? That’s the Dry Adiabatic Lapse Rate. We’ve reverse-engineered the Adiabatic Lapse Rate, teased out the contribution to the ALR of each gas according to its concentration, then cumulated those contributions to arrive at the ALR again, as a double-check of the maths.
Thus:
————————-
Assume they draw CO2 down from 430 ppm to 280 ppm (150 ppm decrease). That would reduce the lapse rate (and thus surface temperature) by:
(CO2) 11.683426182319 K km-1 * 0.000001 = 0.000011683426182319 K km-1 ppm-1
(CO2) 11.683426182319 K km-1 * 5.105 km * 0.000430 = 0.0256468729841176 K
(CO2) 11.683426182319 K km-1 * 5.105 km * 0.000280 = 0.0167002893850068 K
(CO2) 11.683426182319 K km-1 * 5.105 km * 0.000150 = 0.00894658359911077 K
But wait! We also have to account for the atoms and molecules which that CO2 displaces. We’ll do the calculations for the three most-prevalent atomic or molecular species.
N2 | 28.0134 g mol-1 | 29.12 J mol-1 K-1 | 9.4339738283240 K km-1
(N2) 150 ppm * 0.780761158 = 117.1141737 ppm
(N2) 780761.158 ppm + 117.1141737 ppm = 780878.2721737 ppm
(N2) 9.433973828324 K km-1 * 5.105 km * 0.780761158 = 37.6017980884478 K
(N2) 9.433973828324 K km-1 * 5.105 km * 0.7808782721737 = 37.6074383581611 K
(N2) 37.6074383581611 K – 37.6017980884478 K = 0.00564026971329668 K warming
O2 | 31.9988 g mol-1 | 29.38 J mol-1 K-1 | 10.680770320623 K km-1
(O2) 150 ppm * 0.20944121395198 = 31.416182092797 ppm
(O2) 209441.21395198 ppm + 31.416182092797 ppm = 209472.630134073 ppm
(O2) 10.680770320623 K km-1 * 5.105 km * 0.20944121395198 = 11.4198518271666 K
(O2) 10.680770320623 K km-1 * 5.105 km * 0.209472630134073 = 11.4215648049407 K
(O2) 11.4215648049407 K – 11.4198518271666 = 0.00171297777410118 K warming
Ar | 39.948 g mol-1 | 20.7862 J mol-1 K-1 | 18.846929895790 K km-1
(Ar) 150 ppm * 0.00934 = 1.401 ppm
(Ar) 9340 ppm + 1.401 ppm = 9341.401 ppm
(Ar) 18.84692989579 K km-1 * 5.105 km * 0.00934 = 0.898634810282194 K
(Ar) 18.84692989579 K km-1 * 5.105 km * 0.009341401 = 0.898769605503737 K
(Ar) 0.898769605503737 K – 0.898634810282194 K = 0.000134795221542916 warming
0.00894658359911077 K – 0.00564026971329668 K – 0.00171297777410118 K – 0.000134795221542916 K = 0.00145854089016999 K decrease in lapse rate.
Reducing CO2 from 430 ppm to 280 ppm would decrease the lapse rate (and thus surface temperature) by 0.00145854089016999 K.
————————-
About 1/1000th of a degree. That also happens to be the sum total of the effect of the CO2 atmospheric concentration increase (which is comprised of natural and anthropogenic CO2) to date from preindustrial times… so negligible as to be immeasurable. And from that immeasurably tiny change, trillion dollar scams have been spun.
I’ve been sharing this and the relpies all say that it confuses the turnover rate (3.8-5.5 years) with the adjustment time (~1000 years).
How can I prove this wrong?