IPCC’s core hypothesis is dead
Below are the first two sections of the Introduction to my definitive paper on why IPCC’s core hypothesis is invalid. All the math and physics are done, but I am expanding the Introduction because too many people with PhD degrees still get confused. They don’t understand the basics of science because they have little or no background in the philosophy of science and logic. But this is really simple stuff that we can teach to high school kids. – Ed
by Ed Berry, PhD, Atmospheric Physics, CCM
1. Introduction
1.1 IPCC’s claims are based on invalid hypothesis
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) [1] bases all its climate claims on its core hypothesis. This hypothesis has three parts:
- Natural carbon emissions remained constant after 1750.
- Natural carbon emissions support a CO2 level of 280 ppm.
- Human carbon emissions caused all the CO2 increase above 280 ppm.
IPCC claims its core hypothesis is true and concludes without scientific validation:
“With a very high level of confidence, the increase in CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning and those arising from land use change are the dominant cause of the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.”
“The removal of human-emitted CO2 from the atmosphere by natural processes will take a few hundred thousand years (high confidence).”
The truth is IPCC’s “high level of confidence” vanishes because it assumes incorrectly that IPCC’s core hypothesis is true.
1.2 What this paper does
Simple observation of IPCC’s report [1] shows IPCC’s human carbon cycle does not agree with its natural carbon cycle. IPCC’s own Figure 6.1 shows something is wrong with IPCC’s human carbon cycle.
To test the above observation, this paper derives a “Physics” carbon cycle model that uses only one simple hypothesis:
Outflow equals level divided by response time, herein called e-time.
This hypothesis is used in many scientific and engineering models. Even IPCC uses this hypothesis in several places. It is the simplest possible hypothesis for carbon cycle models.
This simple hypothesis is compatible with all applicable physical and chemical laws. This simple hypothesis shows it is possible and preferable to calculate the natural and human carbon cycles separately. The results of the separate calculations can be added together to produce the total carbon cycle.
IPCC’s carbon cycle model has four key reservoirs: land, atmosphere, surface ocean, and deep ocean. IPCC’s data show carbon levels for each reservoir and the flows between the reservoirs for both natural and human carbon cycles. IPCC’s data for its natural carbon cycle is not perfect but it may be the best data we have. IPCC says its natural carbon cycle data is good to about 20 percent accuracy.
This paper calculates the six e-times for IPCC’s natural carbon cycle data by simply dividing levels by their outflows. Why six? Because the atmosphere and surface ocean have two outflows while the land and deep ocean have only one. With these six e-times, the Physics carbon cycle model is complete, and it exactly replicates IPCC’s data for its natural carbon cycle.
Then this paper calculates the human carbon cycle model. This model begins with all reservoirs empty and inserts IPCC’s data for annual human carbon emissions into the atmosphere. In each model year, the Physics model lets human carbon flow between the reservoirs according the e-times defined by IPCC’s natural carbon cycle.
This simple calculation shows the “true” human carbon cycle because it requires human carbon to obey the same physical rules as IPCC’s natural carbon cycle. However, this “true” human carbon cycle differs significantly from IPCC’s claimed human carbon cycle.
The fact that IPCC’s human carbon cycle is significantly different from the true human carbon cycle – that corresponds to IPCC’s natural carbon cycle – proves IPCC’s human carbon cycle is invalid. IPCC treats human and natural carbon differently, which is unphysical.
Inspection of IPCC’s data shows IPCC did NOT derive its human carbon cycle from its data for the natural carbon cycle or from any data at all. IPCC forced its human carbon cycle to match its core hypothesis without any consideration of IPCC’s natural carbon cycle data.
Therefore, IPCC’s human carbon cycle has no basis in science. Put politely, IPCC’s human carbon cycle is a fraud.
This conclusion is independent of whether IPCC’s natural carbon cycle or the Physics natural carbon cycle properly represent the unknown true natural carbon cycle. All models are approximations to reality.
All that matters here is that the Physics model properly represents IPCC’s natural carbon cycle. Therefore, the Physics model properly calculates IPCC’s true human carbon cycle. This is sufficient to prove IPCC’s human carbon cycle is a fraud and that IPCC’s core hypothesis is false.
All three parts of IPCC’s core hypothesis listed in Section 1.1 are false. There is no other testable hypothesis to replace IPCC’s failed core hypothesis.
The political implications of IPCC’s scientific fraud are significant. IPCC told the world that its human carbon cycle was valid. IPCC’s fraud negates all its claims about human-caused climate change. IPCC’s fraud negates all IPCC’s so-called scientific papers that incorrectly assume IPCC’s core hypothesis is true. All such “scientific” papers are wrong.
Henceforth, no true scientist can claim or assume that natural carbon emissions stayed constant after 1750 and human carbon emissions caused all the increase in atmospheric CO2 above 280 ppm.
Reference
- IPCC. 2013. Carbon and other biogeochemical cycles. Fig. 6.1, p 471. CrossRef
Dear Reader,
If you want America to re-elect President Trump, you should consider the results of a new survey that found 73 percent of Americans now believe in human-caused climate change, versus only 10 percent who do not.
Who do you think these climate change believers are most likely to vote for?
The Democrats, obviously. This survey shows Democrats can win if they beat their climate drum and call President Trump and Republicans “anti-science.” The media and our schools have brainwashed the voters to believe the Democrats.
What are the Republicans doing about this problem? So far, Nothing!
This short post summarizes a brand new proof that our emissions do not cause climate change. The whole proof is longer, but this summary makes the point. The proof is simple enough for a high school student to understand.
Read this post and then answer this question:
Would you like to learn and promote this proof to help elect Republicans in November?
If you are interested, I can show you the logic behind this proof. I can show you how to win the climate debate, so you can help Republicans win in November.
If you are interested, I may be one of the very few climate scientists who can help you.
Why me? Well, because I am different than most scientists in a way that benefits you.
I am not your typical university professor who is afraid to say things that other professors may not support. I am an independent scientist and businessman.
Back in 1957, I scored a perfect 800 in the SAT tests and had time to burn. Caltech and MIT accepted me. I choose Caltech. After graduating from Caltech, Dartmouth gave me a teaching fellowship in physics. Professor John Kemeny taught me the philosophy of science as he learned it from Albert Einstein. The University of Nevada gave me a research fellowship in atmospheric physics. Professor Fred Winterberg taught me advanced theoretical physics and with it, how the masters think. He was the best student of Nobel Laurate Werner Heisenberg. He recently wrote that I was his best PhD student in 55 years.
Today, I one of the few climate scientists alive who rocked the climate world with his PhD thesis in the 1960s. I was chief scientist for airborne exploration of storms. One winter, my team flew through geyser plumes in Yellowstone National Park. I consulted on DOD top secret weather programs. I managed government programs in climate physics and weather modification. I showed FAA how to stop aircraft accidents caused by wind shear in the late 1970’s.
I am different from the rest because I am a natural competitor.
I go for the win. I could have gone pro baseball out of high school. Check my resume in athletics, soaring, and sailing.
You can compare me to a trial lawyer who plans the best way to win his case. I choose the simplest way to win our battle with the climate alarmists. I show you a simple checkmate. We don’t have time to waste if we want to help Republicans win in November.
So, if you wish, I will be your coach and show you the best way you can help Republicans win the climate battle and thereby win elections.
Please comment below or email me privately if you are interested.
ed@edberry.com
Ed,
I agree entirely. Have you looked at the Daily atmospheric Co2 levels?
After 3 months of limited human activity and by the Climate alarmists own admission, something between 17%-25% reduction in man made CO2 emission, the atmospheric CO2 level is now HIGHER than it was last year. Reducing anthropological CO2 by 17-25% has no impact on atmospheric CO2. Surely this destroys the IPCC’s hypothesis?
Paul
Dear Paul,
Please see my comment way below. But you are correct, the 2020 reduction in human carbon emissions can be used to prove the IPCC core hypothesis is invalid. Just yesterday, I was able to make that rough calculation.
Why would atmospheric CO2 concentrations be lower than last year because our emissions have dropped slightly? All we’ve done is very slowly reduce the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. CO2 needs to be removed from the climate system altogether to make a difference in atmospheric CO2 concentrations, rather than just become part of the carbon cycle, which is what happened when fossil fuels were formed. CO2 was buried underground in the form of coal, oil and gas. Through burning fossil fuels, we are returning the CO2 to the atmosphere that was there millions of years ago. It’s exactly the same stuff.
So no, this does not destroy the IPCC’s hypothesis?
Dr. Berry,
I’ve been receiving your emails for over a year and always find your reasoning very revealing. I would love to hear more about this claim as I find myself in this debate quite often (on the side asking why the alarmist claims are so hard to prove). I even set up my own amateur experiment to see if I could determine if CO2 “trapped” heat.
Please respond as I would love to hear the rest of your reasoning behind this.
V/R
Shawn
Dear Shawn,
I separate the two physical steps as follows: IPCC must show that (a) human carbon emissions have caused all the increase in CO2 above 280 ppm. That is IPCC’s core hypothesis. (b) IPCC must show that added CO2 indeed increases global temperature. IPCC has not shown these steps are true.
Meanwhile, my Physics model now proves IPCC’s core hypothesis is a fraud. This is a checkmate proof.
Thanks Ed, I am in!
Did Kemeny mention Karl Popper’s philosophy of science? It was inspired and also endorsed by Einstein.
Popper’s ideas excited the political economist Gordon Tullock and inspired him to write an account (in advance) of what has happened in the mainstream of climate science.
http://gordianknot.homestead.com/Theses/GordonTullockontheDeclineofScientificEmpires.html?_=1583007394505
Hi, I am not a physicist, but from day one, I tried to use a little common sense. The main problem with these climate change people is that they need a sense of history. Looking back twenty years won’t cut it. To better understand climate you must look back several thousand years. And that’s how you will see the normal cycles of warming and cooling. I believe it’s called “natural variability”. Go back even longer (20,000 yrs.) and you will see how the Laurentide Ice Sheet covered most of Canada and about 25% of the U.S. I believe remnants of that ice sheet can be found in northern Canada and Alaska where they continue to recede. CO2 has nothing to do with it. Thanks.
Can I just address this argument of “normal cycles” and “natural variability”. Stating something in nature happens because its natural tells us nothing as to why that event actually happens. The climate doesn’t alter because its natural, it alters because something forces it to, also known as a climate forcing.
Dear Rafe,
Kemeny mentioned Popper but he did not discuss Popper’s work at any significant length.
If the outflow is equal to level divided by response time then there is no way Spencer’s model can be true.
Dear Stephen,
You are correct. Spencer’s model is incorrect.
ok coach, i’m in. what is the strategy? i haven’t been able to convince my own kids (mid 30’s) as to the hoax of man made climate change but am willing to try again.
Dear Tom,
My principal goal after I finish the scientific writeup of the latest version of my preprint will be to make the scientific argument simple for the public to understand. Stay tuned.
I’ve just come upon your excellent site, Dr Ed.
With reference to….”my preprint will be to make the scientific argument simple for the public to understand”
I can help you there, with my first comment in this thread and subsequent argument. Note that Joe Postma chimes in, brilliantly. I hope you are on the same wavelength as Joe.?
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2020/04/climate-rebuttals-to-crack-the-activist-grip-on-our-mind/
There’s a bit of further follow up here…
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2020/04/academic-tells-us-to-use-maori-stars-for-planning/
Keep up the good work, Ed… you’re on the right side of history.
Ed. Thank you for this article and great website. You have been very helpful in my own efforts to fight climate alarmism. I have even started a rudimentary website (climatecraze.com) to share with family and friends — and yes many are liberals. I am not asking for assistance at this time, but do appreciate your email updates. I’ve even started giving talks to our local community in addition to posting opinion articles in the local online news source showing the political fraud behind CO2 alarmism, like this one … https://www.villages-news.com/2020/03/12/beer-and-soda-drinkers-have-no-respect-for-obama/
Dear John,
Keep up your efforts. You are doing an excellent job.
A drunk was on his knees under a streetlamp searching, A fellow came along and asked him what he was looking for, The drunk replied, “I lost the keys to my car.” The fellow asked where he had dropped the keys. “Over there”, the drunk pointed to the shadows down the road. The fellow asked why he was looking here if he had dropped the keys over there. The drunk replied, “There is more light here”.
In my opinion, the same thinking is why climatologists focus on atmospheric physics. More data data has been collected at points on land than at points in the oceans, at least until the Argo system was deployed. But the mass of the atmosphere is equivalent to only about the top 10 meters of the oceans, while the effective mass of the oceans subject to warming is in the order of 200 times the mass of the atmosphere. Clearly, the oceans drive the Earth’s climate. But observations are difficult to interpret because of the many oceanic oscillations, including the PDO, ENSO, AMO, NAO and AMOC, Some of these oceanic oscillations fluctuate over such long time periods that warm periods or cool periods can appear as trends. Others, such as ENSO, vary in intensity over periods as long a centuries and millennia. PDO and ENSO are known to vary in-phase and out-of-phase, the combination strengthening or weakening over time.
I suggest that climatologists have been looking in the wrong place for climate change and further, that it will be at least 30 years before data from the Argo system will clarify the role of the oceans in the Earth’s climate system.
This view is similar to that of Huber Lamb, who argued that what is needed is not action based upon policy determined by our present state of knowledge, but rather watchful waiting during which time we gather more and better observations.
Hubert Lamb and the Transformation of Climate Science by Bernie Lewin
Foreword by Professor Richard Lindzen
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2015/02/Lamb.pdf
Climate, History and the Modern World: Second Edition, download PDF
https://tinyurl.com/yc3rqts3
A little dated but comprehensive. Includes more discussion of natural climate variability than more recent accounts of climate.
Dear Ed, the COVID-19 pandemic completly confirmed your model as well as the model of Dr. M. Salby:
https://blog.friendsofscience.org/2020/05/22/global-climate-experiment-associated-with-covid-19-pandemic/
Pavel
Dear Pavel,
Thank you for the reference. Just yesterday, I was able to run the Physics carbon cycle model for both natural and human inflows. The data in your reference support the Physics model and the conclusion that the IPCC core hypothesis is a fraud.
Everyone seems to be missing the point that CO2 does not cause heating. It is like all other constituents of the earth’s atmosphere and acts like a blanket which slows heating and cooling but does not make the earth hotter.
The idea that CO2 molecules catch the radiated heat from the ground and sent part of it back again goes against the laws of physics. If it did that, the earth would have been getting hotter continually from when it was formed.
All the computer simulations show a rising temperature with time, and that is obviously not the case in real life.
If you look at the broader picture and consider the true cause of climate change, which is the earth’s orbit and the power of the sun, you will find that we are at the end of the present warm period and are starting the long slow descent into the next ice age. This will take about 5000 years to reach the bottom of the decline. Don’t worry about who is causing the increase in CO2, it doesn’t matter, and the vegetation loves it.
First of all, I have downloaded and 854 articles on global warming, including 20 of Ed Berry’s. I love that this is available to laypersons like myself. So thank you!
In your email, you said: “Please comment online or email me if you are interested.” I might be able to help, at least put up a web page, (registered but just a “coming soon” landing page, https://www.a-g-w.org).
Second, similar to Freeman Dyson’s views, it appears to me that more global warming, (regardless of cause), would only benefit all life on earth. Russia and Canada are the two larges landmasses and they would gain massive amounts of agricultural area for every mile the permafrost line moves further south.
I have a question that has always bothered me as a layperson. It seems logical that because the earth and ocean are warmer than the atmosphere, that the thicker, (greater mass), of the atmospheric composition, the slower the heat transfer to space because it takes time for the energy to transfer to occur. Therefore the more CO2 present in the atmosphere the warmer the atmosphere because it would reach an equilibrium that is at a higher temperature. What are the top couple of reasons why this kind of thinking is wrong so I can explain it to others?
Thanks in advance
You are probably right, but I think you are missing the most important point: that the climate polity is misguided and a disaster EVEN IF IPCC IS RIGHT ABOUT THE PROBLEM WITH GLOBAL WARMING.
Why: because the climate policies applied (Paris Agreements etc) have no influcence whatsover on CO2-emission levels. They just redistribute fossil energy demand and emissions from West to East.
This is the real big SCAM, to invest huge sums to achieve nothing, just wasting all the money.
Ake – “from west to east”
On 25th May Timera Energy, who are LNG consultants, describe how Asia and China are buying up LNG, which is currently at ultra-low prices. Meanwhile us Europeans squander our hard earned cash on subsidies for windfarms!
(source Paul Homewood’s notalotofpeoleknowthat blog)
Slightly off topic, but surely wind energy is dead when climate madness is. With few and unimportant exceptions.
But a bit alarming that neither Ed himself or anybody else is responding to my short statement. Does that simple logic has to be explained? In the land of the free??
Dear Ake,
Indeed, you are correct about the other parts of the scam. I chose to focus on the physics problem without the politics. My Physics carbon cycle model now proves the IPCC core hypothesis is invalid using simple physics and no politics.
Thank you, Ed, but surely economics is not the same as politics and is also much easier for voters to comprehent than physics. So the sceptic movement has good reason to make better use of this important tool – even more decisive, I beliveve, than your carbon models, regardsless their excellence.
In both cases, their is no room for political arguments.
Best regards.
Åk
This is too complicated for the average voter to understand, IMHO. Unfortunately, the media’s “Big Lie” works, and it works very well.
The simpler the message, the better. For just one example:
“CO2 has risen by 40%+ over the past century, but global T remains well within historical parameters. Therefore, more CO2 does not cause global warming.”
That’s even too complicated, IMHO. The public probably has an average IQ of ≈85 – 90, and as George Carlin said, half of those are below average. So the example has to be über-simple, and repeated constantly until it begins to sink in.
It will be very difficult to effectively counter the media’s “climate change” lie, so maybe the panic over the Covid-19 virus has a silver lining if it distracts the public from worrying about the fake “climate change” scare.
Dear Dave,
Difficult as it may be, this will be my task.
I continue to believe my simple argument that our carbon emissions have little effect on the level of CO2 is the simplest possible argument because it does not require the use of temperature. In addition, it has the advantage of being a checkmate argument without resort to opinions, messy data, or politics.
Agree, but my economic argument (May 23) is even easier to grasp:
“Deals like Paris or Kyoto have ZERO impact on universal carbon levels, they only redistribute CO2 emissions from west to east. 0nly a global carbon tax can achieve such goals – and this approach has never been on the table, and never will.” Case closed!
All is fake for political reasons, making it easier for western governments to raise taxes, with environment gains as a false excuse.
I am a member of TRCS. Your research and conclusion match those of the TRCS. Combatting and proving that climate is not controlled by humans is an almost insurmountable task. That 73% refuses to budge from their totally inept positions on climate. Indoctrination by pseudo-scientists (the Gore type) and highly educated economists, psychologists, sociologist, and others who have not a clue regarding the science involved in climate research. Then, there are the modelers who predict and predict.
I am involved in setting new goals for TRCS in the hopes that we can reach a much wider audience. I will keep you posted on our progress and I will also suggest that TRCS stay in close contact with you.
Howard. Thanks for your input. I never knew of your organization and will pass on your site to others. Good to know NASA still has the right stuff — James Hansen excluded.
Good luck on achieving a much needed change of heading. Somewhere in its lurch for headlines, NASA lost the plot. Pity about its latest leadership.
Dear Howard,
Thank you for your comment. My Preprint#3 is much simpler than the one shown on my website now. Its proof that IPCC is wrong is solid. Other scientists have checked my calculations and have shown them to be correct. I expect all good scientists will agree with my preprint that the IPCC core hypothesis is wrong.
TRCS??
The Right Climate Stuff?
Teach Resource Center(s)?
Something else?
Alas , it is not that the politicians require convincing of the issues, it is more that they need to be convinced that it is in their best interest to concede to the best interest of the country than that of government lobbyists.
We need a ground swell of the already brain washed populous. Any strategy to win this battle needs to be directed at increasing the general rage of the community against the ruling class and political elite. We need the politically naive man in the street to realise that it is all a con and that this country is being prostituted for the benefit of political donors and their interests.
Keep up the good work and lets hope Trump is triumphant.
Ed,
Have you tried using your physics model approach to assess the impact of the reduction in human CO2 emissions from the response the the coronavirus on atmospheric CO2 levels? It would be interesting to see what the Bern model would predict.
Dear Kevin, Yes. First, I had to finish the updates on my Physics model so that could be done properly. These updates included running both human and natural emissions simultaneously yet independently. So, just yesterday, I made my first test.
Using annual resolution, I set the 2020 emissions to be 90 percent of 2019. This shows an easily observable fall in the CO2 level ASSUMING the IPCC core hypothesis is true, and no observable change if we assume the IPCC core hypothesis is false. The next step will be to do this calculation using monthly resolution but I must complete the last few details of my paper before I get side tracked on that test.
But this simple test does show that the 2020 reduction in human carbon emissions WILL be another way to prove the IPCC core hypothesis is wrong.
Using primitive math and calculated projections of CO2 emissions and average yearly sequestration I came up with a conservative 13% and 47% a year could be attributed to anthropocentric CO2 emissions. I noticed the IPCC does quote the 46% (from their own model(s) projections) but conveniently leaves out the lower 12-13%.
Callendar, Keeling and the IPCC left out thousands of regional readings (from expert chemists no less) of CO2 levels which fluctuated between lower levels of 250 ppm and 550 ppm taken at lower altitudes, some even ground level.
I beg to differ, or at least a logical argument does.
Imagine you have a water tank that’s about half full of water, but what’s flowing into the tank equals what’s flowing out (so the water level remains the same). Now start filling buckets and tipping them into the tank. Water is water, so when the water level in the tank rises (because the inflow exceeds the outflow) you can’t split what you’ve added to the tank from what was flowing in naturally. Further, the reason why the water level is rising is pretty obviously because you’re adding water.
The bigger question to ask about CO2 is whether an increase from current levels (regardless of how they were reached) will cause much warming and the answer is “No”.
You must keep in mind that only about one in thirty of the added buckets comes from a well measured source so you cannot conclude that the source is the only cause of rise.
The fundamental assumption of the greenhouse gas theory, (that because O2 and N2 do not absorb visible or infrared light they are heated by the Earth’s surface) violates the laws of thermodynamics stating that all matter absorbs radiated energy. These gases are absorbing over 90% of the higher energy UV emitted by the sun and converting it to kinetic energy.
This is shown by the energy of the different oxygen compounds in the layers of the atmosphere.
Troposphere: O2, CO2, H20: Stratosphere: O2, O3.
Mesosphere and Thermosphere: nitrogen-oxygen molecules:
Top layer: Helium and oxygen atoms.
The greater the altitude the greater the kinetic energy of the matter. Since objects transfer energy, not temperature, the flow of energy is from the higher altitudes to the lower altitudes and the Earth is not heating the atmosphere.
The problem arises from the belief that a thermometer measures the kinetic energy of the molecules. (The barometer does not measure the mass of the molecules either, both measure the momentum of the molecules).
In the troposphere, the primary transfer of energy is done by collisions and obeys the conservation of momentum.
The measurement of a thermometer is a function of two variables: the velocity (energy) of the molecules and the mass (number of molecules). By comparing the inverse of density (the volume of a constant number of molecules) at different altitudes it shows that the kinetic energy of the molecule increases slowly in the troposphere (due to water) then exponentially at higher altitudes. This shows the source of energy for the atmosphere is the sun, not the Earth. (There is no source of energy at the top of the stratosphere heating the molecules.)
The GHGT violates the laws of thermodynamics. (According to the conservation of momentum an object with more energy will transfer energy to an object with less energy, regardless of mass, so a cold object (less kinetic energy) can heat (add energy) to a hotter object.)