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.


    1. 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.


      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

        Near its beginning that document says


        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”


        (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


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


        by politicians approving the SPM


        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.


  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.


  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.

    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.


      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.


  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

    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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.


    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.

  10. 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!

  11. 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


    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.

  12. 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

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.