by Dr. Ed Berry
My goal in this article is to help Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy make America more efficient. Americas largest unnecessary cost is caused by the climate scam.
I also to apply for Elon’s reward for the most cost-effective carbon capture method. My method costs zero because it shows nature controls the CO2 level.
Making AI intelligent and saving America $2 trillion requires using the scientific method to reject climate fiction and to reject the false idea that consensus determines scientific truth.
Consensus determines opinion, not truth.
Today’s AI is good at deduction, but it incorrectly assumes consensus determines truth. To be intelligent, AI must use the scientific method.
Worldwide, a handful of climate physicists who use the scientific method have proved in published peer-reviewed literature that human CO2 emissions do not change the climate. In fact, they show human CO2 emissions have an insignificant effect on the level of atmospheric CO2.
The World Economic Forum and the deep state censor these scientists. WEF promotes the climate consensus to control America by 2030.
America’s biggest, useless expense is based on the incorrect assumption that human CO2 causes dangerous climate change. This incorrect assumption, easily disproved, costs America more than its national defense, and all of America’s annual deficit.
Climate politics today incorrectly ASSUMES human CO2 causes dangerous climate change and spends no time and no money to determine if this assumption is true.
As a consequence, the dominant political climate arguments are opinions about how much money to spend to try to lower human CO2 emissions, while ignoring the truth that human CO2 emissions do not even control the CO2 level, much less cause climate change.
The Democrats want to spend more money, and Republicans want to spend less money. But both sides waste money because they reject scientific truth.
Would it not make sense to spend a small amount of time and money to evaluate the proof that human CO2 does not control the climate?
Obviously, yes, but the government has no money to check the reality of its biggest waste of money. Elon and Vivek can make this check happen.
The COVID panic a few years ago lowered human CO2 emissions by about 20% for a year. However, the CO2 level continued to rise without any effect from lowered human CO2 emissions.
That should be a wake-up call to check the alarmist consensus assumption that human CO2 controls the CO2 level.
The scientific method
No one automatically knows how to think. We must learn how to think. That’s why good schools are critical to America’s survival.
Our Homo Sapiens’ brains saved us in the wild but fail us in science. We think we know the scientific method, but we don’t.
Aristotle developed the scientific method 2400 years ago. Sir Francis Bacon expanded on the scientific method 500 years ago.
Today, the scientific method is part of the Philosophy of Science. It is not an arbitrary set of rules. It is the only way to find truth in science. But fewer than about two percent of all PhD scientists have learned the scientific method.
The scientific method is simple, but it takes some thinking.
At Caltech, I learned science, but Caltech did not formally teach the scientific method while I was there from 1953 to 1957.
Dartmouth College offered me a teaching fellowship in physics. There, I learned the scientific method from John Kemeny, who learned it when he was a special mathematical assistant to Albert Einstein.
Kemeny’s course in the Philosophy of Science, including the scientific method, and his course in Probability and Markov Chains, changed my life.
Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureat in Physics, later taught the same Scientific Method at Cornel and Caltech.
The scientific method begins and ends with data.
Using data, we formulate an idea, hypothesis, or assumption to connect a cause to an effect. This step is induction.
Then we insert data into our assumption to make a testable prediction. This step is deduction.
Then we compare the prediction with new data.
If our prediction is correct, our hypothesis may be correct, but successful predictions do not prove a hypothesis is true because the next experiment may prove it is false.
Albert Einstein said, “many experiments may prove me right, but it takes only one to prove me wrong.”
It is impossible to prove an assumption is true. We can only prove an assumption is false.
The key to science is, if any prediction disagrees with data, the hypothesis is false.
Proof that an assumption is false overrides all claims and scientific consensus that the assumption is true. Votes do not count in science.
The scientific method applies only to things we can measure. It does not apply to things we cannot measure.
We cannot measure God or heaven or the spirit world. That’s why our Constitution gives us freedom of religion. No one has any scientific basis to tell us our belief about God is wrong.
You can have any opinion you want about something we cannot measure. But when religion steps into areas that we can measure, science wins.
For example, measurements prove the Earth is a lot more than 6000 years old.
Climate change is about science, not feelings or religion. The Pope is not a scientist.
A legal trial example of using the scientific method
In a trial where a prosecution accuses Smith of shooting Jones, the prosecution will try to show a connection between Smith having a gun, aiming his gun at Jones, pulling the trigger, and shooting a bullet at Jones.
The defense does not need to prove all the prosecutions claims are false. The defense needs only to prove that one of the prosecution’s assumptions is false. The unstated assumption was that Smith was near the crime.
The defense proves Smith was three thousand miles away at the time of the shooting. That simple proof outvotes all arguments that Smith is guilty.
A climate change example of using the scientific method.
Climate change science is a subset of climate science. All political decisions and legal trials related to climate are about climate change science and not about climate science.
We do not need to involve all known climate science to resolve the climate change debate. We should keep the arguments simple.
The only things that matter in climate change lawsuit are the assumptions made by the plaintiffs and the proof by the defense that one or more of the plaintiffs’ assumptions are wrong.
The first task of intelligent AI would be to identify these assumptions. If AI cannot do this then Ai needs experts to identify unstated assumptions in every argument.
Held v Montana shows how alarmists “prove” their climate change claims.
Held v Montana (HvM) was the first key climate lawsuit in America that set a precedent for other climate lawsuits. The plaintiffs started in Montana because Montana Republican candidates are for sale at a lower price than in other states.
Montana could have easily defeated Held v Montana.
Montana lost because the evil Republican Party Boss forced AG Knudsen to purposely lose the lawsuit. So, Knudsen stipulated his agreement with the plaintiffs and put up NO defense of climate change in Held v Montana.
The State of Montana censored and blacklisted me to be sure they lost Held v Montana. I have a long story to tell that is not relevant to this article.
Held v Montana plaintiffs make three invalid assumptions.
To win a lawsuit or debate, we must first identify all our opponent’s assumptions. Then we must prove their key assumptions are false. Keep it simple.
Our Children’s Trust filed Held v Montana in July 2020. The trial took place from June 12 to 20, 2023.
The Held v Montana plaintiffs used the same three assumptions that the IPCC and climate alarmists make to support their climate change claims. But they never list their assumptions and never call them assumptions.
Their whole case depended upon these three assumptions:
- The natural CO2 level remained at 280 ppm since 1750. Consequently, human CO2 emissions caused all the CO2 increase above 280 ppm.
- This human-caused CO2 increase causes global warming.
- This human-caused global warming causes bad stuff to happen.
What evidence do climate alarmists have to prove its three assumptions are true?
Can they measure the amount of human CO2 versus natural CO2 in the air?
- No. That is impossible because human and natural CO2 molecules are identical. We can only measure the total CO2 in the air.
Can they measure the amount of global warming caused by increased CO2?
- No. That is impossible because we cannot directly connect warming with increases in CO2.
Can they measure how much bad stuff is caused by global warming?
- No. That is impossible because bad stuff happens whether or not the global temperature is warming or cooling or staying the same.
So, climate alarmist’s core assumptions are not directly provable.
Ten expert witnesses testified that weather and climate “bad stuff” harmed the child plaintiffs.
Two expert witnesses, Steve Running and Cathy Whitlock, argued that human CO2 emissions caused the “bad stuff.”
First, they argued that assumptions #1 and #2 are true because a “scientific consensus” (of people who never appear in court for cross-examination) believe these assumptions are true.
Plaintiffs’ Expert Report by Steve Running and Cathy Whitlock argued as follows:
There is a scientific consensus that the rise in atmospheric CO2 that we are witnessing is attributable to human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels.
The vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change.
Most leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world.
2400 years ago, Aristotle showed the consensus argument fails. Wikipedia (2023) says,
argumentum ad populum is a fallacious argument which is based on claiming a truth because the majority thinks it is true.
Argumentum ad populum is similar to an argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam). It uses an appeal to the beliefs of a group of people, stating that because a certain opinion is held by a majority, it is therefore correct.
Second, they argued, the existence of “bad stuff” in assumption #3 proves assumptions #1 and #2 are true. Of course, they did not call these assumptions “assumptions.”
Their second argument is that effects prove their cause, which is fundamentally not true.
What is both amazing and sad it that about 97% of America’s population does not understand that the climate scam is totally based on the invalid arguments of consensus and that effects prove their cause. This argues for better education.
That’s it! All climate alarmism is based on the above invalid arguments.
Killing their climate arguments in a legal trial is a piece of cake. They win by assuring no public entity makes a good defense. I am a witness to how they did that in Montana.
They even blow their own case with additional claims.
In support of assumption #1, they claim human CO2 stays in the atmosphere much longer than natural CO2. In fact, they need to make that claim to justify their assumption #1.
But this claim is impossible because human and natural CO2 molecules are identical, so they will behave exactly the same and will flow out of the atmosphere at exactly the same rate. This is the Climate Equivalence Principle.
Therefore, their assumption #1 is false because it requires human CO2 to behave differently than natural CO2.
They also claim that we must reduce human CO2 enough to lower the CO2 level to 350 ppm, to save the planet. But IPCC’s own data (Berry, 2019, 2021, 2023) show the natural CO2 level is already about 400 ppm, and human CO2 about 20 ppm. Therefore, we can’t “save the planet” by restricting human CO2 emissions.
Here’s a summary of how to win a climate change lawsuit.
Scientific references and details are on https://edberry.com.
We do not use the argument that “warmer is better” because it does not prove any key assumption is false, and it inherently agrees with the plaintiffs’ assumptions #1 and #2. This argument does not belong in a climate lawsuit.
Edwin X Berry, PhD, Theoretical Physics, CCM (2020 – 2023):
The IPCC assumes the natural CO2 level remained constant after 1750, and human carbon emissions caused ALL the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide above 280 ppm.
IPCC’s own data and the Climate Equivalence Principle prove this assumption is wrong. Natural carbon emissions control the CO2 level.
Carbon-14 data, properly interpreted, proves human carbon emissions have no significant effect on the CO2 level. Nature, not human emissions, controls the CO2 level and climate change.
Richard Courtney, UK climate scientist and professional reviewer (2021 -2024):
Berry’s work is a breakthrough in understanding which I and all others failed to make. It indicates that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 contribute a negligible proportion of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration. (2021)
Berry’s analysis is the only breakthrough in climate science in the last four decades. (2023, 2024)
Richard Courtney died on September 30, 2024, the day before his 78th birthday.
Howard “Cork” Hayden, PhD, Theoretical Physics (2023):
IPCC’s calculation for the temperature increase caused by doubling CO2 is 4.5 times greater than properly calculated by the Stephan-Boltzman radiation law.
Chuck Wiese, Meteorologist (2023):
Change in the Earth’s reflectivity (albedo) explains all temperature increase since 1984. The increased CO2 level has no effect on temperature.
Humlum et al. (2012) and Koutsoyiannis et al. (2023):
CO2 changes follow temperature changes with a delay of about 12 months.
Ferenc Miskolczi, Foreign Associate Member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (2023):
Global mean cloud cover fully explains the observed mean surface temperature.
John Clauser, 2022 Physics Nobel Prize Winner (2024):
The IPCC has misidentified the dominant process that controls the climate. Its models are based on incomplete and incorrect physics.
The dominant climate process is cloud coverage over the oceans. When cloud cover decreases, sunlight evaporates more water that causes more clouds that in turn cool the Earth, and vice-versa.
The basis of the scientific method is that the possible is provable by experiment. A theory is a scientific explanation of a fact while a hypothesis is an unproven idea. Locke disproved magic by common sense and Einstein proved that common sense defines reality.
As an aside; the range of experimental science is between the smallest naturally occurring particle, the hydrogen ion, and the speed of light. I fail to understand how particles in an accelerator can influence the natural world as the quantum folks claim
Here’s how I explain it…
The words “fact”, “theory”, “hypothesis” and “law” have very specific definitions in science:
Hypothesis: A tentative explanation of an empirical observation that can be tested. It is merely an educated guess.
Working hypothesis: A conjecture which has little empirical validation. A working hypothesis is used to guide investigation of the phenomenon being investigated.
Scientific hypothesis: In order for a working hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, it must be testable, falsifiable and it must be able to definitively assign cause to observed effects.
Null hypothesis: Also known as nullus resultarum. In the case of climate science, the null hypothesis should be that CO2 does not cause global warming.
A Type I error occurs when the null hypothesis is rejected erroneously when it is in fact true.
A Type II error occurs if the null hypothesis is not rejected when it is in fact false.
Fact: An empirical observation that has been confirmed so many times that scientists can accept it as true without having to retest its validity each time they experience whatever phenomenon they’ve empirically observed.
Law: A mathematically rigorous description of how some aspect of the natural world behaves.
Theory: An explanation of an empirical observation which is rigorously substantiated by tested hypotheses, facts and laws.
Laws explain what happens, whereas theories explain why it happens.
For instance, we have the law of gravity which describes how an object will behave in a gravitational field, but we’re still looking for a gravitational theory which fits into quantum mechanics and the Standard Model and explains why objects behave the way they do in a gravitational field.
I believe the best response to the elite climate doomsayers is to pass a law that anyone who purchases more than 50 gallons of fuel (gas, diesel or jet fuel) at any one time for private use pay a ‘luxury climate tax’ of $50/gallon (call it the 50/50 tax) with proceeds going to paying down our national debt). This should serve as a wake-up call to those celebrities and the Al Gore type climate-hucksters who private jet to bogus climate summits or to Paris for a late lunch and the Dicarprios and other wealthy entertainers/climate ambassadors who travel in yachts with 100,000 gallon fuel tanks. Such a plan would not affect commercial businesses or the 99% of the rest of us who use normal modes of transportation. If they try to cheat, confiscate their aircraft or yacht or the black-market fuel depot that services them.
Important to remember that “training” is a necessary part of AI systems. So from the same question you get wildly different answers from AI systems trained differently. Maybe somebody will train an AI system with all the papers from real scientists who respect the scientific method. That might be cool.
You’d be amazed at how many people don’t understand the Scientific Method.
https://www.patriotaction.us/showthread.php?tid=2711
For instance…
Climatologists misuse the S-B equation, using the idealized blackbody form of the equation upon real-world graybody objects. One can easily ascertain this by doing the calculations upon any ‘Earth Energy Balance’ graphic (which is a graphical representation of the results of the mathematics in their Energy Balance Climate Models (EBCMs).
This misuse of the S-B equation essentially isolates each object into its own system so objects cannot interact via the ambient EM field, it assumes emission to 0 K, and it thus artificially inflates radiant exitance of all calculated-upon objects. Thus the climatologists must carry these incorrect values through their calculations and cancel them on the back end to get their equation to balance, subtracting a wholly-fictive ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow from the real (but too high because it was calculated for emission to 0 K) ‘warmer to cooler’ energy flow.
That wholly-fictive ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow is otherwise known as ‘backradiation’. It is nothing more than a mathematical artifact due to the misuse of the S-B equation. It does not and cannot exist. Its existence would imply rampant violations of the fundamental physical laws (energy spontaneously flowing up an energy density gradient in violation of 2LoT).
The S-B equation for graybody objects isn’t meant to be used by subtracting a wholly-fictive ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow from the real (but too high because it was calculated for emission to 0 K) ‘warmer to cooler’ energy flow, it’s meant to be used by subtracting cooler object energy density from warmer object energy density to arrive at the energy density gradient, which determines radiant exitance of the warmer object. This is true even for the traditional form of the S-B equation, because temperature is a measure of radiation energy density, per Stefan’s Law.
————————-
Temperature (T) is equal to the fourth root of radiation energy density (e) divided by Stefan’s Constant (a) (ie: the radiation constant), per Stefan’s Law.
e = T^4 a
a = 4σ/c
e = T^4 4σ/c
T^4 = e/(4σ/c)
T = 4^√(e/(4σ/c))
T = 4^√(e/a)
where:
a = 4σ/c = 7.565733250034e-16 J m-3 K-4
where:
σ = (2 π^5 k_B^4) / (15 h^3 c^2) = 5.6703744191845e-8 W m-2 K-4
where:
σ = Stefan-Boltzmann Constant
k_B = Boltzmann Constant (1.380649e−23 J K−1)
h = Planck Constant (6.62607015e−34 J Hz−1)
c = light speed (299792458 m sec-1)
σ / a = 74948114.502437694376 W J-1 m (W m-2 / J m-3)
————————-
The traditional Stefan-Boltzmann equation for graybody objects:
q = ε_h σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4)
[1] ∴ q = ε_h σ ((e_h / (4σ / c)) – (e_c / (4σ / c)))
Canceling units, we get J sec-1 m-2, which is W m-2 (1 J sec-1 = 1 W).
W m-2 = W m-2 K-4 * (Δ(J m-3 / (W m-2 K-4 / m sec-1)))
[2] ∴ q = (ε_h c (e_h – e_c)) / 4
Canceling units, we get J sec-1 m-2, which is W m-2 (1 J sec-1 = 1 W).
W m-2 = (m sec-1 (ΔJ m-3)) / 4
[3] ∴ q = (ε_h * (σ / a) * Δe)
Canceling units, we get W m-2.
W m-2 = ((W m-2 K-4 / J m-3 K-4) * ΔJ m-3)
One can see from the immediately-above equation that the Stefan-Boltzmann (S-B) equation for graybody objects is all about subtracting the energy density of the cooler object from the energy density of the warmer object.
————————-
The Stefan-Boltzmann equation in energy density form ([3] above):
σ / a * Δe * ε_h = W m-2
σ / a = 5.6703744191845e-8 W m-2 K-4 / 7.565733250034e-16 J m-3 K-4 = 74948114.502437694376 W m-2 / J m-3.
Well, what do you know… that’s the conversion factor for radiant exitance (W m-2) and energy density (J m-3)!
It’s almost as if the radiant exitance of graybody objects is determined by the energy density gradient, right?
Energy can’t even spontaneously flow when there is zero energy density gradient:
σ [W m-2 K-4] / a [J m-3 K-4] * Δe [J m-3] * ε_h = [W m-2]
σ [W m-2 K-4] / a [J m-3 K-4] * 0 [J m-3] * ε_h = 0 [W m-2]
… it is certainly not going to spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient.
Now, the above is proof that “backradiation” does not and cannot exist because energy does not and cannot spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient.
Except the climatologists claim that “backradiation” causes the “greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)”, which they then use to designate polyatomics as “greenhouse gases (due to the greenhouse effect (due to backradiation))”.
You’ll note that all the supposed “greenhouse gases” are polyatomics… there’s a reason for that. In order for there to be “backradiation”, they have to use a radiative atom or molecule. Monoatomics have no vibrational mode quantum states and thus cannot emit (nor absorb) IR radiation in any case. Homonuclear diatomics have a net-zero electric dipole which must be perturbed via collision in order to emit (or absorb), but collisions occur exponentially less frequently as altitude increases due to air density decreasing exponentially with altitude. That left the polyatomics (CO2, H2O, CH4, etc).
As an aside… they claim water vapor to be the most-efficacious “greenhouse gas”… so a higher concentration of it would mean a higher surface temperature, right? Except…
Dry Adiabatic Lapse Rate: 9.81 K km-1 * 5.105 km = 50.05062 K temp. gradient + 255 K = 305.05062 K surface temp.
Average Humid Adiabatic Lapse Rate: 6.5 K km-1 * 5.105 km = 33.1825 K temp. gradient + 255 K = 288.1825 K surface temp.
High Humidity ALR: 3.5 K km-1 * 5.105 km = 17.8676 K temp. gradient + 255 K = 272.8675 K surface temp.
See that Dry Adiabatic Lapse Rate? The atmosphere, when one removes all water, consists ~99.957% of N2 (a homonuclear diatomic), O2 (a homonuclear diatomic) and Ar (a monoatomic)… they cause temperature to go up. Not water.
You’ll also note that the 33 K temperature gradient and the 288 K surface temperature the climatologists claim is caused by their “greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)” is actually due to the average Humid Adiabatic Lapse Rate….
We know the emission curve of Earth is approximately equal to an idealized blackbody emitting at 255 K, and we know the ‘effective emission height’ at that temperature is ~5.105 km.
6.5 K km-1 * 5.105 km = 33.1825 K + 255 K = 288.1825 K
See that 6.5 K km-1? That’s the average Humid Adiabatic Lapse Rate.
See that 33.1825 K? That’s caused by the average HALR, but the climatologists claim it’s caused by their “greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)”.
See that 288.1825 K? That’s caused by the average HALR, but the climatologists claim it’s caused by their “greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)”.
The climatologists know that “backradiation” doesn’t exist and thus cannot show any physical effect, so they hijacked a known effect.
Now we have the mathematical and scientific proof that “backradiation” does not and cannot exist, thus the “greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)” cannot exist, thus “greenhouse gases (due to the greenhouse effect (due to backradiation))” cannot exist.
Thus all of the offshoots of CAGW (GWP, net zero, carbon credit trading, carbon capture and sequestration, degrowth, forcing EVs upon the populace, replacing reliable baseload electrical generation with intermittent renewables, etc.) are all based upon a physical impossibility.
But you’d be surprised how many climatologists don’t understand that their entire foundation has been knocked out from beneath them, that the entire premise chain:
backradiation ==> greenhouse effect (due to backradiation) ==> greenhouse gases (due to the greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)) ==> CO2 designated as a “greenhouse gas (due to the greenhouse effect (due to backradiation))” ==> the claim that we must reduce CO2 emission ==> all of the offshoots of CAGW
… collapses because we’ve collapsed their foundational premise of “backradiation”. None of it is physical. We can prove (with evidence so compelling it would be admissible in a court of law) that the entirety of CAGW is nothing more than a complex mathematical scam… so it’s time to start prosecuting these charlatans for defrauding taxpayers of billions of dollars.
But the climatologists don’t even grok that their game is finished and it’s only a matter of time before we start prosecuting them, clawing those fraudulently-obtained funds back and sentencing the worst offenders to long terms of incarceration… they think (FSVO ‘think’) it’s still business as usual for their little scam.
So the trick, then, is to force Plaintiff to *prove* *physicality*. Prove that “backradiation” can exist. Prove that energy can spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient.
They cannot do so. They’ll claim it’s been measured, whereupon Defendant will whip out the manual for a pyrgeometer and demonstrate that pyrgeometers and similar such equipment used to ‘measure’ “backradiation” utilize the same misuse of the S-B equation as the climatologists use, so of course it’s going to arrive at the same incorrect conclusions.
Thus, just as, for instance, if Plaintiff was suing Defendant because Plaintiff believed Defendant was releasing flying pink unicorns farting rainbow-colored glitter to cause warming, that suit would be dismissed for lack of physicality (ie: what Plaintiff believes does not comport with reality), so too must any lawsuit predicated upon AGW /CAGW be dismissed.
AGW / CAGW is as equally physical as those flying, farting unicorns… that is to say, both are physically impossible.
I can tell you exactly how much CO2 contributes to surface temperature… I’ve done the calculations.
CO2: 0.0000596438906607385 K ppm-1
https://www.patriotaction.us/showthread.php?tid=2711
Of course, the Specific Lapse Rate of each constituent atomic or molecular species of the atmosphere doesn’t take into account the fact that a rising concentration of a radiative polyatomic puts more of those emitters into each parcel of air, making it more likely that each parcel will emit their energy to space, which causes cooling of the upper atmosphere, where the lapse rate is ‘anchored’. That’s a far larger effect than the minuscule increase in the lapse rate.
And that’ll cool the upper atmosphere, which translates down through the lapse rate to a cooler surface (it’s just that we’ve got a lot of thermal capacity to work through). The lapse rate starts at a lower temperature (in the upper atmosphere), so it ends at a lower temperature (at the surface).
I am not a scientist ( a retired businessman from NZ ) but can read science papers- this is one of the most understandable papers I have read – and have read hundreds .
Can one of you scientists please explain to me if human and natural CO2 molecules are identical how do we know that natural CO2 ppm = 400 and human produced (mainly fossil fuels ) are 40 ppm.I am aware that the human ppm are approx 5% of the total
May be a thick question but please explain.
Thanks
Peter
Dear Peter,
Thank you for your compliment, and question.
Annual human CO2 emissions are about 5% of total human plus natural CO2 emissions. This is measurable.
Each inflow will cause a CO2 “balance lever” proportional to the inflow.
A balance level is the level where outflow equals inflow.
So, the human CO2 balance level will be about 5% of the 420 ppm, or about 20 ppm, and the natural CO2 balance level will be about 400 ppm.
I will describe this more completely in my next article.
Thanks a lot- I understand .You are a legend, keep the good work up
I have just been interviewing students at 5 universities in NZ for our energy scholarships.When I asked these students ( approx 50 ) with GPA.s of 7-8 and above the question ” what are the main greenhouse gases and what percentage comes from humans (mainly fossil fuels )?Not one of them knew – so as you will appreciate if these Uni students have no idea then we have a major challenge getting the average Joe and Mary bloggs to understand
Regradsd
Peter