17 Comments

  1. 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?

    1. 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.

      1. 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

  2. “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”?

  3. 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.

  4. 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

    1. 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.

      1. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

    1. 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

  7. 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.

    1. 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

  8. 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.?

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.