The fork in the road of the climate change debate

by Dr. Ed Berry

Al Gore framed the climate debate. He said, human carbon dioxide emissions increase atmospheric carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gases traps heat like a blanket that keeps you warm at night. It was that simple, he told us.

People believe big Al’s story. Simplicity sells. But simple is not always correct. A whole lot of people who don’t care about correct, push for laws to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. They are the “climate alarmists.” They think they are saving the planet.

Since they think Al Gore’s basic claims are correct, the alarmists focus on possible consequences of global warming. They believe that finding consequence proves we must stop carbon dioxide emissions. But the climate debate is not about consequences because consequences do not prove their cause.

The critical questions about climate are about cause-and-effect:

  1. How much do human emissions increase atmospheric carbon dioxide?
  2. How much does increased atmospheric carbon dioxide change climate?

In a climate debate, the alarmists must prove the answers to BOTH questions are “significant.” If they miss on only one question, they still lose the debate. They have the burden of proof.

President Trump is a “climate realist.” He disagrees with the alarmists. Many good atmospheric physicists are climate realists. They have shown the answer is “insignificant” to both questions.

These answers may seem counter-intuitive if you think the atmosphere is a simple system. But the atmosphere is a complex system and, as good systems engineers know, complex systems are counter-intuitive.

Al Gore and his alarmists think the atmosphere is like a garbage landfill. What we dump in stays. They could not be more wrong.

Neither nature’s emissions nor human emissions stay in the atmosphere. They merely flow through the atmosphere. The atmosphere is like a lake where a river flows in and lake water flows out over a dam. The lake’s water level will rise or fall until the outflow over the dam equals the inflow from the river.

If the inflow increases, the level will rise until the outflow equals the inflow and the level becomes constant. Conversely, if inflow decreases, the level will decrease until, once again, outflow equals inflow. The faster the inflow, the higher the level to balance the inflow. Fig. 1 illustrates the simple physics model for both the lake and the atmosphere. (For physics details, please see Why human CO2 does not change climate.)

Fig. 1. When the Level equal the Balance Level, Outflow equals Inflow.

Nature’s carbon dioxide emissions are over 20 times human emissions.

Suppose the first river represents nature’s carbon dioxide emissions and a second river represents human emissions. The first river produces 95 percent and the second river produces 5 percent of the total inflow into the lake.

Question: What percent of the water in the lake came from the first river and second river?

If you answered 95 percent came from the first river and 5 percent from the second river, then you passed your physics exam. You are more qualified in physics than any climate alarmist including their PhD’s. This intuitive answer is backed up by solid math that good physicists use.

The ratio of natural to human carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the ratio of their inflows. Nature produces more than 95 percent of the carbon dioxide in our atmosphere and human emissions produce less than 5 percent.

In terms of the often-quoted ppm (or parts per million), these percentages show that human emissions cause an 18-ppm rise, and nature’s emissions cause a 392-ppm rise, in atmospheric carbon dioxide. The total of each inflow is today’s carbon dioxide level of 410 ppm.

The flows and corresponding levels of natural and human carbon dioxide are independent of each other. It does not matter what natural emissions are. If natural emissions went to zero, the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would fall to 18 ppm and we all would die.

If alarmists could stop ALL human emissions, the present inflow of natural carbon dioxide would maintain the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at 392 ppm.

The Paris Climate Agreement proposed to reduce worldwide human emissions by 28 percent. Twenty-eight percent of 18 ppm is 5 ppm. The Paris Agreement would have reduced atmospheric carbon dioxide by only 5 ppm, which is insignificant. Even 18 ppm is insignificant. The alarmists have no case.

Alarmists claim human emissions have caused all the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide since 1750. They claim human emissions have caused the 130-ppm rise from 280 ppm to 410 ppm. They believe the human-produced inflow of 5 percent of the total causes 32 percent (130 ppm / 410 ppm) of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It can’t happen.

Climate alarmists don’t understand how nature works. They deny the way how nature balances itself. Therefore, they are not good guardians of nature because they flunk simple physics.

The IPCC scientists made a critical scientific error.

The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) inserted their critical error into their climate models. This error negates all their alarmists’ beliefs and claims.

The IPCC reports are clear. While the IPCC correctly assumes nature’s emissions of about 100 ppm per year balance outflow to inflow, the IPCC incorrectly assumes human emissions do not balance. The IPCC assumes 1.5 ppm per year of human emissions gets stuck in the atmosphere and stays there. That 1.5 ppm is coincidently just enough to support their claim that human emissions have caused all the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide since 1750.

The IPCC and its believers and scientists began, not with science, but with their emotional, ecological belief that human emissions are bad and natural emissions are good. They have built their whole climate fraud on a foundation of sand.

Here’s why the core IPCC assumption is invalid.

First, the IPCC method rejects simple physics that proves the level, of lake water or atmospheric carbon dioxide, will always adjust outflow to balance inflow. The physics question is NOT whether there is an imbalance of flows. There is. Nature always proceeds toward balance.

The physics question is how much will the level change to achieve this balance. We have already described the answer to this simple physics question.

Second, the atmosphere cannot open its exit door to nature-produced carbon dioxide and close its exit door to human-produced carbon dioxide because it can’t tell the difference between nature-produced and human-produced molecules of carbon dioxide.

In physics, the Equivalence Principle means if we cannot tell the difference between two things then they are identical, and nature will process them the same.

Third, even IF nature could identify nature-produced from human-produced carbon dioxide, to treat them differently would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics, because it would decrease entropy without an input of energy.

For example, if you mix cream in your coffee, it goes in with no effort. But try to take the cream back out of your coffee. It would take an energy source to separate the cream from your coffee. There is no energy source available to separate identical carbon dioxide molecules based upon their history.

In summary, the IPCC claims, and all climate alarmists believe, that nature separates human and natural carbon dioxide molecules – thereby violating the Equivalence Principle – and that nature shuts its exit door for human-produced carbon-dioxide molecules while letting nature-produced carbon-dioxide molecules pass freely – thereby violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

IPCC’s Bern model proves the IPCC’s climate claims are wrong.

The IPCC has something it calls the Bern model. The Bern model is a seven-parameter curve fit to the output of IPCC climate models. To satisfy the intended curve fit, the Bern model must have the same mathematical form as the climate models. Therefore, the Bern model tells us a lot about what is in the climate models.

Specifically, the IPCC claims the Bern model simulates how our atmosphere treats human carbon dioxide emissions. The Bern model says a one-year “pulse” of human carbon dioxide inflow that sets the carbon dioxide level to 100 ppm, will cause the level to still be 29 ppm after 100 years and have a permanent level of 15 ppm forever. This is for only one year of emissions.

The Bern model then adds these permanent levels for all successive years. This invalid idea follows the initial assumption that nature does not balance human emissions. It is the reason alarmists claim human carbon dioxide emissions cause permanent and long-range damage. It is the reason James Hansen claimed in 2008 that we must shut down all coal-electric power plants by 2012 in order to save the planet. Alarmists believe and preach their irrational feelings rather than logical physics.

These alarmist claims derive from the invalid idea that the atmosphere is a garbage dump rather than a reservoir which processes inflows and outflows. The IPCC built these claims into all its climate models. The built-in false claims are why all IPCC climate models are pieces of junk.

Here is a simple way to test the Bern model and thereby all IPCC climate models. According to the Equivalence Principle, the Bern model must hold for natural emissions as well as human emissions, even though the IPCC says it only applies to human emissions.

If we insert natural emissions of 100 ppm per year into the Bern model, it predicts these natural emissions would add 15 ppm per year permanently to the atmosphere. Therefore, the Bern model predicts that the last 1000 years of natural emissions would have added a permanent increase of 15,000 ppm today. Obviously, this has not happened. This invalid prediction proves the IPCC Bern model and all IPCC climate models are wrong.

Here are the steps in the IPCC climate alarmist logic:

  1. Claim human emissions cause all the increase in carbon dioxide.
  2. This means nature must restrict outflow of human carbon dioxide.
  3. Insert this restriction into climate models.
  4. Insert also the false claim that more carbon dioxide increases temperature.
  5. Models calculate that human emissions increase carbon dioxide and carbon dioxide increases temperature.
  6. Then alarmists claim the climate model output proves human emissions cause climate change.

Here are the steps in climate physics logic:

  1. Understand how nature adjusts outflow to balance inflow.
  2. Develop simple Model of how nature balances inflow.
  3. Show the Model reproduces real data, like carbon-14 data.
  4. Show the Model proves that IPCC models are fundamentally wrong.

The fork in the road of the climate change debate

It may be hard for you to believe, but climate realists now come in two opposing flavors: vanilla and chocolate.

The chocolates want to prove the IPCC is fundamentally wrong by using solid, simple arguments like I have summarized above. The chocolate argument is sufficient to cut off the alarmist argument at its knees. Nothing more is needed. It would be a slam-dunk win in a quick checkmate. The jury would be impressed. The judge would be happy. The chocolates would reverse the EPA Endangerment Finding.

By contrast, the vanillas would begin by trashing physics and admitting that Al Gore, the IPCC, and the alarmists are right about the warming effects of human emissions. Then they would to try to prove that global warming brings more benefits than the status quo. That approach opens the door to endless arguments that the alarmists have perfected.

Even worse, the vanillas would reverse the burden of proof from the alarmists to the vanillas.

The vanillas would confuse the jury, upset the judge, lose the climate debate, and forever extinguish the opportunity to win the debate using simple physics.

The alarmists have already noticed the cave-in by the vanillas and expect to easily win a debate or trial if the vanillas are their opponents. The alarmists will simply claim they want to stop all carbon dioxide emissions so they can keep the climate status quo. Checkmate win.

Conclusion

President Trump is right to recognize the climate fraud. Now, it is up to the realist scientists to recognize and promote a debate based on the physics of climate change, rather than on the vanillas plan to admit the alarmists are right and then try to prove warming is good. Yikes.

Post Views: 3,462

29 Comments

  1. Ed:

    There is a small but important typographical error in your post.

    You say,

    "The IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) "

    which should be,

    "The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) ".

    see http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publicat…

    The IPCC's correct title admits – indeed, proclaims – the IPCC's political nature which your misprint conceals.

    Richard

    Reply

    2. I know about science and it is generally considered to be a discipline that has at its core the desire to search for the truth requiring many things in nature and it should be the desire of those involved in climatology. Sadly, since the subject of climate has become politicized, that desire to find the truth has been overtaken by the knowledge that it can be used a way to exert control over many aspects of life. I use this UN mandate to explain my contention about the political aspect of the IPCC.

      1. Scope and Approach of the Assessment 1.1. Mandate of the Assessment

      The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by World Meteorological Organization and United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) in 1988 to assess scientific, technical, and socioeconomic information that is relevant in understanding human-induced climate change, its potential impacts, and options for mitigation and adaptation. The IPCC currently is organized into three Working Groups: Working Group I (WGI) addresses observed and projected changes in climate; Working Group II (WGII) addresses vulnerability, impacts, and adaptation related to climate change; and Working Group III (WGIII) addresses options for mitigation of climate change.

      http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?…

      Reply

      1. John Swallow,

        There is no "contention" because the IPCC openly states that its purpose is purely political.

        The facts are as follows.

        The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) only exists to produce documents intended to provide information selected, adapted and presented to justify political actions.

        It is the custom and practice of the IPCC for all of its Reports to be amended to agree with its political summaries. And this is proper because all IPCC Reports are political documents although some are presented as so-called ‘Scientific Reports’.

        Each IPCC Summary for Policymakers (SPM) is agreed “line by line” by politicians and/or representatives of politicians, and it is then published. After that the so-called ‘scientific’ Reports are amended to agree with the SPM. This became IPCC custom and practice when prior to the IPCC‘s Second Report the then IPCC Chairman, John Houghton, decreed,

        “We can rely on the Authors to ensure the Report agrees with the Summary.”

        This was done and has been the normal IPCC procedure since then.

        This custom and practice enabled the infamous ‘Chapter 8′ scandal

        (see http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications… )

        so perhaps it should – at long last – be changed. However, it has been adopted as official IPCC procedure for all subsequent IPCC Reports.

        Appendix A of the most recent IPCC Report (the AR5) states this where it says.

        “4.6 Reports Approved and Adopted by the Panel

        Reports approved and adopted by the Panel will be the Synthesis Report of the Assessment Reports and other Reports as decided by the Panel whereby Section 4.4 applies mutatis mutandis.”

        This amendment of the "Assessment Reports and other Reports" to concur with whatever is "decided by the Panel" is completely in accord with the official purpose of the IPCC.

        The IPCC does NOT exist to summarise climate science and it does not.

        The IPCC is only permitted to say AGW is a significant problem because they are tasked to accept that there is a “risk of human-induced climate change” which requires “options for adaptation and mitigation” that can be selected as political polices and the IPCC is tasked to provide those “options”.

        This is clearly stated in the “Principles” which govern the work of the IPCC.

        These are stated at
        http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-princ…

        Near its beginning that document says

        “ROLE

        2. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.”

        This says the IPCC exists to provide

        (a) “information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change”

        and

        (b) “options for adaptation and mitigation” which pertain to “the application of particular policies”.

        Hence, its “Role” demands that the IPCC accepts as a given that there is a “risk of human-induced climate change” which requires “options for adaptation and mitigation” which pertain to “the application of particular policies”. Any ‘science’ which fails to support that political purpose is ‘amended’ in furtherance of the IPCC’s Role.

        The IPCC achieves its “Role” by

        1

        amendment of its so-called ‘scientific’ Reports to fulfil the IPCC’s political purpose

        2

        by politicians approving the SPM

        3

        then the IPCC lead Authors amending the so-called ‘scientific’ Reports to agree with the SPM.

        All IPCC Reports are pure pseudoscience intended to provide information to justify political actions; i.e.Lysenkoism.

        Richard

        Reply

  2. Ed,

    You say,

    "The Bern model then adds these permanent levels for all successive years. This invalid idea follows the initial assumption that nature does not balance human emissions. It is the reason alarmists claim human carbon dioxide emissions cause permanent and long-range damage"

    Some years ago in a well-attended Conference on climate change at the Royal Society, London, some representatives of the Hadley Centre gave an account of how they determine the cause of the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). They explained how they collate all the CO2 from human emissions and then assess the proportion of those emissions that stays in the air,.

    Questions were invited following their presentation. I rose and asked,

    "Sirs, you say the change in atmospheric CO2 is entirely a result of the emissions of CO2 from human activities. Earlier this week Indermuhle et al. published a paper in Nature magazine that shows atmospheric CO2 concentration fell 300 years ago. Please can you say where the power stations were shut 300 years ago. …"

    (My question was then interrupted by the audience bursting into laughter, and when the laughter ceased I concluded my question with)

    "Failing that, can you please say why you only assess the human emissions."

    The reply to my question was,

    "We only assess the emissions from human activities."

    A follow-up question was not permitted but I think my point was made.

    Richard

    Reply

  3. Dr. Ed – as always, we must ask "who benefits?"; followed closely by "follow the money!" That's all we need to know. For the Alarmists, it's always been how do they line their pockets – starting with the fraudster Gore.

    Reply

    1. Dear Peter,

      I agree. But my goal here is to present a logical argument that can be used in court to overturn the EPA Endangerment Finding.

      Ed

      Reply

      1. Ed,

        I dislike ascribing motivations so I ignore that part of this subthread, but you may want to know I have commended reading your paper to the lawyers who are fighting the EPA Endangerment Finding in the US Courts.

        Richard

        Reply

  5. Al Gore and his climate alarm are in the money-making business…..that's all. Much like the Clinton's and their Foundation….just in the money making business. Both should be tried for fraud and sent to do jail time with Hillary.

    Reply

  7. Dr. Ed, thank you for this beautiful clear analysis. I plan to share it with others in my realm. It really should be part of the public record and available for all to see. I have read most of your writings of the past several years – all of which have been excellent. But this piece, at this time, stands out as a seminal and important work, backed up in detail by your research paper.

    It's interesting and exciting to anticipate what you might do next, having known about your important work in the State Supreme Court case where you put together a spectacular defense to defeat those who would have incorporated bogus environmental law into our State Constitution. Many of us here in the state know, with profound appreciation, what a long-lasting gift your effort, energy, determination and your ability to act on short notice, was and is for the people of Montana and beyond.

    If testifying and participating in hearings or a court case regarding the validity of Co2 rulings and laws of the EPA and the U.S. Supreme Court that might be happening in the near future, are somehow in your plans, as you seem to be hinting at, then yes! It will be a great thing to see. We will be watching closely and I, for one, am available to help in some small way to go forward. Thank you for doing all that you do.

    Reply

  8. God made everything to work in harmony including nature. Al Gore and the alarmist thing they are smarter than God. They have a rude awaking when they leave this world.

    Reply

  9. Dr. Ed, Richard, Dr.Charles, John, Peter, GW, Mike and BF, thank you for a delightful orchestration of contrasting themes and comments. It was like a conversation involving the several choirs of an orchestra, each with its tonal variety and musical contribution.

    However, I am concerned with the simplistic motive of "follow the money." My searches tell me it is true, very true, but tragically incomplete. Those who focus on money also focus on control, world control, and control at the psychological level of psychopaths, those mentally ill who exhibit essentially no respect for human, animal, ocean, bird, plant, and insect life, and even the life of our planet. And their money buys them technology, the very latest and the most destructive because it fulfills their evil designs, one of which is to reduce the living population of planet earth and to extend war into space. My research convinces me they are terribly secret and equally dangerous. Are my emotions involved? Of course, but also my need for evidence is highly motivated.

    One proponent who has collected climate data from seemingly credential sources for at least two decades is the work of Dane Wigington with his gathering of data related to Climate Engineering, with much focus on that which is being sprayed onto our world civilization from the air. A search by name will open many of his you-tube reports.

    Another proponent who has searched for the latest technological innovations and their origins is Steven Greer MD who began his work in 1991. It is Dr. Greer who has yielded, at least for my level of searching, the origin of a group of psychopaths that are properly identified as a cabal who have organized in many countries and who are unacknowledged, that is, who operate without responsibility to any human government: they are totally self-centered.

    It is my hope that these sources might add to your searches for truth.

    Reply

    1. Dear David, thank you for your comment and compliments on my post.

      On the other subject, I am sorry to disagree with you. Chemtrails are, in my view and in the view of every professional I know in the weather and climate business, normal jet contrails, or in some cases clouds that form from contrails. Search "chemtrails" on this website to find more information.

      Meanwhile, chemtrails are a distraction from the subject of this post.

      Reply

  10. Good article. What NO one is talking about is the REAL cause of "climate change". The 100,000 year cycle of warming and cooling that causes continental ice build up and melting due to perturbations in earth's orbit around the sun, caused by interactions of Jupiter and earth. 80K to 90K years of cooling with ice build up and lowering seas by +/- 400 ft. of sea levels and 10K to 20K of warming, melting ice, rising seas by up to 400 ft. See the Blue Holes of the Bahamas, National Geographic, 2010. Its all there.

    Reply

  11. Dear Dr. Ed. Thanks for your reply. The chemtrail sources to which you refer are in sharp conflict with my sources that specifically describe the characteristics of the Hi Baypass Turbofan Engines used on most commercial passenger and military tankers. I urge you search Hi Bypass Turbofan Jet Engines, Geoengineering, And The Chemtrail Lie. Thus you will have, in your search for truth, opposing views from which you can make your own choice.

    Perhaps you may find chemtrails as a distraction but I suggest Climate Engineering is very much involved in the Climate Change Debate.

    David

    Reply

    1. Dear David, I have researched the new turbofan engines. The type of engine is irrelevant. The only thing that matters in contrail formation is the amount of water vapor that comes out of the engines, which is entirely determined by the combustion of the fuel and has nothing to do with the engines. OK. new engines will burn less fuel per mile because they are more efficient. But that does not change the discussion.

      Someday, I may write a book about the chemtrail delusion. But that is a very low priority because, fortunately, the EPA is not making rules about chemtrails. For now, I am focusing on the subject of this post which is a very high priority.

      There is no qualified atmospheric scientist among the promoters of chemtrails. As you may have gathered, I have a lot of experience in cloud research, including flying through high altitude clouds and collecting particle samples. I have good friends who have done similar research. I have good friends who are commercial airline pilots and also excellent meteorologists. We all agree that chemtrails are a delusion.

      There is no chemtrail believer who has taken the small effort to strap a cloud sampler on a business jet and bring back samples of what they claim is in "chemtrails." They have spent far more effort, money, and time taking photos of contrails and claiming they are chemtrails. They have no data to back up their claims, so no one should believe them.

      Reply

  12. Brilliant article. Very useful in my debunking for friends and relatives!!

    And THANK YOU EA Johnson for your comment!

    I keep harping (not HAARPing! {wink}) on the 100k-yr cycle — because it is SOOOOOO clear (or oughta be!) that we're sliding down what will eventually be an ice cliff! STOP preparing for the Bahamas and start preparing for Alaska!

    Now, I'm off to read the rest of your site, Ed Berry! THANKS for the great resource!

    Reply

  13. Hi Ed,

    Continuing from a post on a different page of your w yesterday

    —-Originally Posted by Ed Berry;

    Dear Arkasia,

    You are making a few errors in your argument. First, you are treating human CO2 differently than natural CO2. And by “natural” I mean all CO2 that did not come from humans.

    —–

    Human CO2 is just an additional input of CO2 into a system that only has a limited capacity to sequester CO2.

    Most of the CO2 in the carbon cycle is recycled, that's why it's called the carbon cycle. A small amount of new CO2 is emitted naturally each year through Volcanic activity. Before humans, the additional CO2 from Volcanic activity was balanced by the long term sequestration of CO2 in sediments on land and under the sea and through chemical and biological processes.

    Now humans are increasing the amount of CO2 in the air beyond the capacity of the planet to sequester it, so concentrations in the air and oceans are going up.

    —- Quote Ed Berry

    Second, you are neglecting the effect of vapor pressure on the exchange rate. The higher the vapor pressure, which I call the level, the faster the exchange rate. —-

    Vapour pressure refers to evaporation and condensation of a particular gas/liquid, CO2 doesn't evaporate from the oceans. It diffuses between the atmosphere and the oceans (and transfers through mechanical agitation via wind and waves). The rate of diffusion depends on the Partial Pressure and the transfer coefficient. This basically means that the atmosphere equalises the ratio of CO2 in the air with the CO2 in the surface water of the oceans

    When humans increase the CO2 in the air, about 30% of it goes into increasing the CO2 concentrations in the ocean, which changes the partial pressure between the atmosphere and the sea, and causes increased diffusion of CO2 from the ocean into the atmosphere.

    —–Quote Ed Berry

    Third, your claim that human CO2 has a residence time in the atmosphere of hundreds of years has no physical foundation, as I prove in my later post. ——-

    Unless the rate of deep ocean sequestration increases by the same amount as the additional CO2 entering the oceans from the atmosphere, then the additional CO2 emitted by humans will cause additional CO2 to be emitted by the Oceans.

    So while an individual CO2 molecule resides in the atmosphere for 4 years on average before it's taken up by the ocean or chemical or biological processes, the fact most of the CO2 is recycled, and only a small percentage of the CO2 gets sequestered each year means that the effective residence time is the speed at which the biosphere can sequester additional CO2 rather than how long it takes for individual CO2 molecules to get absorbed.

    I'm aware of Harde (2017) which claims that the total residence time before sequestration is 4 years, but this is far from the established view, and he seems to make the same error as you, in over simplifying his model and not accounting for the slow rate of deep ocean sequestration. (see the response paper here http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/… )

    —– Quote Ed Berry

    If you wish to continue this discussion, please reply in my later post where we can discuss this in more detail after you have read my later post.

    Thanks, Ed —–

    I read this paper and the error is that you assume that nature is capable of sequestering any amount of additional CO2 at the rate we add it in. In reality, Biological processes had been able to take up about 10% through additional growth, (but this is slowing down now) but deep ocean sequestration of carbon dioxide has not increased as this relies on downwelling currents which are relatively stable but take a long time (hence why this is part of the slow carbon cycle)

    Your choice of 4 years as a residence time for CO2 in the atmosphere is in contrast with the majority of the published literature and expert opinion of most other atmospheric scientists who recognise that carbon cycles through the system, and it is only when it is sequestered long term, that we can consider that it is no longer resident.

    Of course it's much more complicated than my explanation, and much much more complicated than the 'berry model', but long story short, An additional 4% of CO2 every year is much more than natural processes can deal with, so CO2 concentrations have been accumulating in the oceans and the atmosphere, and there is no plausible source other than Humans emissions. If you would like to posit a different source for the increased CO2 concentrations in the ocean, the land and also the increased biomass sequestration from the additional plant growth, you would need to provide good evidence for this.

    Best regards

    Akrasia

    Reply

    1. Dear Akrasia,

      Thank you for bringing your comment to this post.

      I have done two things in my preprint:

      First, I have used the scientific method and a simple physics argument to prove the IPCC is wrong. I have shown the IPCC has violated known physical principles, and for those reasons, all the core IPCC conclusions are wrong.

      I have shown that nature will treat human emissions exactly like it treats nature’s emissions; that a correct model of carbon dioxide flow through the atmosphere must also be able to reproduce the carbon-14 data; and that the idea that continuing human carbon dioxide emissions continue to “add” to the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is an invalid, yet popular idea.

      Second, I have proposed a model based on simple physics that accurately describes how carbon dioxide flows through the atmosphere. So far, no one has used the scientific method to prove my proposed idea is wrong.

      To reply to your comments:

      I do not error in my “assumption” the nature can absorb additional carbon dioxide. I use valid physics to show that nature will absorb carbon dioxide in proportion to the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The IPCC did not consider this effect.

      The statement that nature “has been able to take up about 10 percent” is not a physical statement. It is merely an IPCC claim that I have proven to be wrong.

      There are no data accurate enough to claim, “this is slowing down.” And if there were such data then it still does not prove my proposal is wrong.

      The reference to “deep ocean sequestration” is not relevant to my model. The deep ocean is another level that can be added AFTER we agree that my model is correct for the atmosphere.

      I do not “choose” 4 years as a residence time. I “derive” 4 years from simple physics and IPCC approved data.

      Your reference to “published literature” is irrelevant to science. The history of science is littered with cases where almost 100 percent of professional scientists were wrong.

      The statement that “An additional 4% of CO2 every year is much more than natural processes can deal with, so CO2 concentrations have been accumulating in the oceans and the atmosphere, and there is no plausible source other than Humans emissions,” has no physical basis, and I have proven it to be wrong.

      My proposal does not need to “posit” different sources. The IPCC needs to abandon its invalid ideas and return to doing physics.

      Reply

  14. Thank you for your work on this topic.

    There is another typographical error in the following paragraph from the above, after "reservoir"-

    "These alarmist claims derive from the invalid idea that the atmosphere is a garbage dump rather than a reservoir the processes inflows and outflows."

    Perhaps you meant to insert "which" instead of "the" after "reservoir"?

    Good luck with your paper

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *