1. This is an excellent example of why we should always question political views and motives – “follow the money.” There are many things that we can control and “nature” is not one of them!

  2. Great job in trying to get people to scientifically understand this hoax. Logic doesn’t seem to have anything to do with where the politicians are going. Keep it up Ed!!!

    1. Hi Warren, WUWT has invited me to send my papers to them. To be honest, I have been too busy to accept their kind invitation. And this post about my poster is totally new.

        1. Hi Warren, Thank you for reminding me. So, I just added at the top of my post the link to the AMS publication of my abstract with a link to the pdf of my paper. Yes, you can find my paper listed in the AMS conference program for January 8.

  3. Obviously, marketing is a significant (only?) factor in this issue. The poster seems to me to have the potential to go a long way toward educating the general public if we could just find a way to break through the media bias on global warming. Great work, Ed. Thank you!

  4. Thank you Dr Berry for your explanation of how the CO2 cycle works. I am doing my best to understand it fully and you have definitely been the best help to this point.
    There are a couple of things that are bothering me so I would like to ask a couple of questions to see if I am understanding this correctly.

    It is my understanding that the claim is the entire increase from 280 pm to 410 ppm is from man made sources, being primarily from the burning of fossil fuels.
    You would then have to assume that the carbon sinks can somehow differentiate between natural and man made sources and are rejecting the man made CO2.
    If this is true, then what is the point of propane/natural gas fueled CO2 greenhouse generators?

    If it’s not the source , then you would have to assume that it’s the extra amount added to the atmosphere.

    My other question is if our 5% contribution to the total amount of CO2 is enough to turn the planet into a fireball hurling through space, then how close were we to burning up before at the extremely low number of 280 ppm?

    The last point that I have is more political.
    A very recent report claims that we have 12 years left until the oceans boil and fire falls from the sky.
    According to the Paris agreement, China and India, 2 of the 3 largest emitters are not required to cap their emissions until 2030 (12 more years).
    How serious can they really be?
    When you look at all of the claims being made with a little common sense, things just don’t seem to add up.

    1. Dear Doug,
      The IPCC claims human CO2 emissions have caused the entire increase from 280 pm to 410 ppm. This claim violates physics. The IPCC claims the atmosphere traps 15 percent of all human CO2 forever but allows natural CO2 to flow freely out of the atmosphere. This IPCC claim requires that nature can tell the difference between natural CO2 and human CO2 which it cannot do.

      Higher CO2 levels in greenhouses increase plant growth.

      The human 5% contribution to the total amount of CO2 will NOT turn the planet into a fireball. Even nature’s contribution of 95% will not burn up the planet. CO2 increase has very little effect on temperature. But my point is alarmists incorrectly blame climate change on human CO2 which is insignificant compared to natural CO2. No one has proved there is any reason to restrict human CO2 emissions

      The report you mention that claims we have 12 years left until the oceans boil and fire falls from the sky is junk science. It is science fiction meant to scare the people.

      The Paris agreement, even if obeyed by all countries, would have no measurable effect on climate. The Paris agreement is about transferring money from countries like America to third-world countries. The claim that human emissions cause dangerous global warming, or even measurable global warming, violates common sense as well as physics.

      1. The IPCC claims human CO2 emissions have caused the entire increase from 280 pm to 410 ppm. This claim violates physics.

        No, it doesn’t. If a system is in flux balance and you add a new flux, this can cause the content of that system to increase even if the new flux is much smaller than the other fluxes into, and out of, the system.

        Also, it seems that you think that the IPCC is claiming that all of the molecules that make up the increase from 280ppm to 410ppm are from human emissions. This is not the case. The point is that the reason that the atmospheric concentration has increased from 280ppm to 410ppm is because of human emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere. This doesn’t mean that all of these molecules are still in the atmosphere (the residence time for a molecule is only a few years) but the rise would not have occured had it not been for our emissions.

        1. Dear “and then there’s physics”,

          Once again, you prove you do not understand the physics I have presented. In fact, it is clear you have not even read my preprint I link to at the top if this post. Therefore, your comment is without foundation because it does not even address the physics of this issue.

          Forget the “it seems that you think” comments. If you read my paper, you would see that Figs. 2 and 3 prove the outflow equals level divided by residence time. And, according to the IPCC, this proves the residence time equals the adjustment time, which means your comment about “molecules” makes no point at all. Maybe you have not even read what IPCC says.

          In summary, your comment merely echoes the IPCC unfounded position without contradicted anything in my preprint post. You make climate alarmists look irrational.

          If you think you have a physics point to make, please do so by commenting under my preprint: https://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/agw-hypothesis/contradictions-to-ipccs-climate-change-theory/

  5. The best information on the earth’s carbon cycle is published by the Global Carbon Budget Project. As a scientist who has published on nutrient cycles in lakes, I find the publications of the Global Carbon Budget Project impressive in scope, detail, and accuracy. Ed Berry’s work is contrary to just about all scientific studies. I wonder how his AMS presentation will be received. Dr. William R. DeMott

    1. Dear William,

      Thank you for your comment. Of course, as a scientist, you realize that you are using the invalid argument that a vote determines scientific validity. Whereas, real scientific progress is done by negating a popular theory.

      Therefore, can you show how my use of the carbon cycle differs from “just about all scientific studies”?

      Can you make a scientific argument that all these “scientific studies” are correct and my use of the carbon cycle is wrong?

  6. The residence time and adjustment time are not the same. The 14C from bomb tests only really tells you about the residence time because the decay in 14C isn’t showing you the *removal* of carbon from the atmosphere, but the *replacement* of 14C with lighter isotopes from the oceans and terrestrial biosphere. ISTR the second or third IPCC report even has a section warning specifically against this misunderstanding, and the first has an warning against conflating residence and adjustment times.

    FWIW, I wrote an accessible paper explaining why the residence time argument (in that case proposed by Essenhigh, but it is an error that has been made many many times over the years), which was published in Energy and Fuels (https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef200914u) but you can get a free pre-print here http://theoval.cmp.uea.ac.uk/publications/pdf/ef2011a.pdf .

    1. Dear Gavin,

      Thank you for your comment and link. If you had read my preprint linked at the top of this post, you would have found that I referenced your paper in my Introduction, Section 4.2, and References.

      Your paper did a good job for 2011, but it is now out of date. In addition to the errors I mention in my section 4.2, your paper fails in other areas. For example, your repetition of the IPCC argument that attempts to prove human emissions caused all the increase because nature is a net absorber, fails logic (my section 5.1). Adjustment time does equal residence time (my section 2.4). Your paper uses “generally accepted anthropogenic origin” as an argument when it has no function as a scientific argument.

      But the main error in your paper, OK in 2011 but outdated in 2018, is the idea that the small amount of human CO2 inflow can cause the swing of atmospheric CO2 from 280 ppm to 410 ppm. Your model is simply wrong… and far too complex. It loses by Occam’s razor as well as by physics.

      Compare they physics model I derive in my Appendix 1. The physics model is simple. It applies equally to human CO2 and natural CO2 and to their totals. It defines a “balance level” that is similar to your Ceq but is more general and meaningful.

      Your Eq. (3) for example includes F0e which should be zero. This causes your equation following your Eq. (6) to be wrong because your C0Ae is the same as my Lo, or the initial level, whereas it should be replaced by my (Lb – Lo).

      The physics model shows there is no accumulation of CO2 from either human or natural CO2 inflow. It shows that each inflow sets a balance level and the balance levels add together. It shows that if natural emissions had remained constant since 1750 that human CO2 would add only about 18 ppm to the natural 280 ppm for a total of 298 ppm. And it shows very simply that natural emissions increased since 1750 enough to increase the level of atmospheric CO2 from 280 to 392 ppm.

      Please go study my preprint. It shows why the physics model explains the data and why the IPCC model and your model do not explain the data.

      1. Dr Ed. I note that your rather lengthy response did not actually address the specific criticism I made of your argument. Sadly over the years I have learned that this sort of evasion indicates that further discussion is unlikely to prove productive, so I will leave it there.

        1. Dear Gavin,
          Do you mean I did not address your comment: “The residence time and adjustment time are not the same. The 14C from bomb tests only really tells you about the residence time because the decay in 14C isn’t showing you the *removal* of carbon from the atmosphere, but the *replacement* of 14C with lighter isotopes from the oceans and terrestrial biosphere. ISTR the second or third IPCC report even has a section warning specifically against this misunderstanding, and the first has a warning against conflating residence and adjustment times.”

          As I noted, my preprint section 2.4 shows your comment, repeating the IPCC claim, is incorrect. The 14C data decay towards their balance level with an outflow equal to level divided by residence time. That, according to the IPCC, means residence time equals adjustment time. Therefore, your argument using “replacement” is invalid. The “misunderstanding” is on the side of the IPCC.

          But since you did not use the correct equation or description of how the 14C data approach their balance level, perhaps you do not understand how simple this explanation really is. It is proof that your paper and the IPCC are wrong.

          I am “evading” nothing. The IPCC is evading consideration of the truth. According to the scientific method, the burden of proof is on the side of the proposer of a theory. The IPCC and all the papers that support the IPCC have not addressed the contradictions to the IPCC climate theory. Therefore, the IPCC theory cannot be supported by science.

  7. It is especially not worth continuing a discussion when one side can (and does) silently edit their comments and the other can’t.

    You have still not addressed the criticism, note that your response didn’t mention the effect of lighter isotopes.

  8. Dear Gavin,
    All parties are given 5 minutes to edit their comments … unless for some reason that feature is not working for you. (I don’t write the WordPress software and they did just upgrade to WP 5.0.)

    In summary, I read your paper but you have not read my paper. How can we have a scientific discussion under those circumstances? You disagree with my paper ONLY because you disagree with its conclusions, which is not how science works. You have not produced ANY rebuttal to anything in my paper.

    If you had read or had even quickly scanned my paper, you would have seen that I address the 14C and 13C issues in my sections 3.1 and 3.2. The conclusion is the data support the physics model rather than the IPCC model.

    1. “You disagree with my paper ONLY because you disagree with its conclusions”

      You are now a mind reader? Impressive!

      No actually I disagree with your argument because it contains an obvious flaw that you cannot address and hence substitute an evasive response “you have not read my paper”.

      Your sections 3.1 and 3.2 do not address the issue that I have raised. If the natural exchange fluxes between the atmosphere and oceans swaps a molecule of CO2 containing 14C from the atmosphere with a molecule containing 13C from the oceans, then the level of atmospheric CO2 has not changed at all, but the amount of 14C in the atmosphere will have fallen. This is what is very likely to happen because the concentration of 14C in the ocean is much less than in the atmosphere. These exchange fluxes are vast, so this kind of exchange happens very often. That is why the 14C decay tells you about the residence time (the mean length of time an individual molecule stays in the atmosphere), but very little about adjustment time (the rate at which atmospheric CO2 responds to changes in the sources and sinks).

      Here is another example. Consider a basin containing 10L of water, with a tap that pours in 1L of water per minute and a regulated drain that extracts 1L of water per minute. This system has an infinite adjustment time, because the inflow and outflow are constant, however, it has a residence time of 10 minutes (the capacity of the basin divided by the outflow). Now let’s inject a small amount of red dye into the water (corresponding to the bomb test 14C). The adjustment time is still infinite, but withing an hour or so, there will be almost no red dye left in the water at all. The rate at which the red dye disappears tells you the residence time.

      If you want an example with a finite adjustment time, then consider a basin where the regulated drain extracts 1L per minute, plus a small fraction of the amount of water above the 10L mark, say a millionth of the amount per minute. Again the red dye will still tell you about the residence time, but virtually nothing about the adjustment time.

      1. Here is information about Gavin Cawley: https://www.edx.org/bio/gavin-cawley
        Gavin Cawley
        Senior Lecturer in Computing Sciences
        University of East Anglia

        “Gavin Cawley is a computer scientist, with a background in electronic engineering, and research interests in machine learning. He has worked on a number of research projects with the School of Environmental Sciences and the Climatic Research Unit at UEA, during which he developed an interest in predictive uncertainty in statistical modelling. In 2011, he published a paper in the journal Energy and Fuels addressing the misunderstandings of the carbon cycle covered in his lecture.

        “For Denial101x, Gavin will discuss some common misunderstandings of the global carbon cycle that persist in the public debate on climate change, even though there are multiple lines of evidence that very strongly support the mainstream scientific position.”

        Gavin teaches a course entitled, “Making Sense of Climate Science Denial”

      2. Dear Gavin,

        Now that I see you are a “computer scientist” and not a physicist, I better understand your problem. You simply do not understand physics well enough to understand climate physics … but you attempt to play physics anyway. You wrote,

        “That is why the 14C decay tells you about the residence time (the mean length of time an individual molecule stays in the atmosphere), but very little about adjustment time (the rate at which atmospheric CO2 responds to changes in the sources and sinks).”

        In fact, the 14C decay tells us everything about your “adjustment time.” If you can understand Appendix A of my preprint, you will understand how the physics model explains your “adjustment time.”

        The physics model begins with the continuity equation and adds only ONE assumption: Outflow = Level divided by residence time. Nothing could be simpler. That is all it takes to fully explain the data and how inflow sets the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.

        My preprint shows how the physics model exactly reproduces the 14CO2 data. This means the physics model properly describes how inflow sets a balance level and how level approaches its balance level.

        The physics model exactly predicts your “adjustment time.” Therefore, the key conclusion of your comment is wrong and your whole argument is wrong. Your argument is wrong because you have not used the proper model (theory) to describe how CO2 flows through the atmosphere. You add complexity where there is no need for complexity. Your model cannot predict the data.

        You do not understand simple things like (a) data prevails over theory, and (b) a simple theory that explains the data prevails over a complex theory, and (c) if a theory makes one false prediction then the theory is wrong. Your theory loses on all three points. The physics theory I describe wins on all three points.

        Incidentally, your use of adjustment time conflicts with IPCC’s use of adjustment time. The IPCC clearly states that when outflow equals level divided by residence time, which the data show it does, then adjustment time equals residence time.

        I think you should stop teaching your course about “Making Sense of Climate Denial” when you deny the physics of climate.

        1. Dear Gavin,
          I evade nothing. You, on the other hand, evade physics.

          Your comments illustrate why so many people “believe” human CO2 causes global warming. It is because they do not understand, or refuse to understand, the physics of climate.

          It is not proper science to believe something that is so easily shown to be wrong. It is not proper science to attempt to defend the indefensible. It is not proper science to not admit a theory is wrong when it makes a wrong prediction.

        2. “Now that I see you are a “computer scientist” and not a physicist, I better understand your problem.”

          yawn more ad-hominems, I note that you still haven’t addressed the criticism, just evasive bluster about your model, while ignoring the thought experiment altogether. I think that is a sufficient indication that further discussion is pointless.

          This is a pity as there is nothing that does climate skeptics more harm than clinging onto canards like the residence time argument that was refuted decades ago. See Fred Singer’s article https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2012/02/climate_deniers_are_giving_us_skeptics_a_bad_name.html

        3. Dear Gavin,
          You are correct about one thing: “further discussion is pointless.” Fred Singer’ article also makes good points. You should add Murry Salby’s book “Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate” to your reading list.

          The fact is you are a computer scientist who plays climate physics. You are part of the problem. Your comments help explain why the IPCC climate models can’t make correct climate predictions.

          You and others have inserted your inaccurate claims into climate physics literature. You as a group, for example, publish claims that Harde (2017) is wrong when it is you who are so blatantly wrong.

          Your adjustment time / residence time argument is completely wrong. You even disagree with the IPCC in your argument.

          Thank you anyway for your participation in the comments on my post. Best wishes.

        4. I think that this adjustment time grows out of an assumption that the amount of CO2 the atmosphere can hold is somewhat fixed and “extra” additions from humans or volcanoes or termites has to be removed by sinks that sequester the CO2 almost permanently. The error I see in this approach is that the level control for the atmosphere is temperature not availability of sinks. As far as I know there is no evidence that any of the major sinks are saturated. In fact they are demonstrably expanding as the level rises. The evidence is that the level is nearly unaffected by how much we emit (https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/12/19/co2responsiveness/) so it will be mostly unaffected if we quit emitting. The processes outside the atmosphere that effect the carbon cycle are immaterial to the evolution of atmospheric CO2 and therefore the adjustment time based on them reduces to residence time.

        5. Dear DMA,
          Your comment is relevant.
          Also, there is more of the discussion between Gavin and me here: https://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/agw-hypothesis/contradictions-to-ipccs-climate-change-theory/#comment-51539

          When you get there, scroll up to my Section 4.2, which I have revised based upon Gavin’s comments and my rereading of his paper. Overall, Gavin’s comment helped me correct and improve my preprint. I will send it to be published after I get more feedback from my AMS presentation on January 8.

  9. I’ve not fully absorbed all of your paper yet, which I’ve just downloaded. The way I see it, the decay of 14CO2 concentration is a proxy for total CO2 leaving the atmosphere and being utilised by biota and dissolved in the oceans? Those sinks surely cannot be selective in whether they absorb 14CO2 or CO2?

    1. Dear Tony,

      You are correct. The 14CO2 undergo the same processes as 12CO2. The only difference is 12CO2 is faster than 14CO2 because it is a lighter molecule. Since 14CO2 follows the physics model, 12CO2 will also follow the physics model but with a shorter residence time. The ONLY assumption used in the physics model is Outflow = Level / Residence Time. That is as simple as we can ever get.

      By contrast, the IPCC model uses a large number of assumptions, none of which can predict real data.

      The subtle part about the physics model compared to every other model use is it applies to every definition of CO2 independently and in total. So, we don’t use an equation that adds human to natural CO2 as the IPCC does, because it is best to use the physics equation independently. The physics model lets human CO2 act exactly like natural CO2, as it should. The inflow of each sets its own balance level. To see how the sum of human and natural CO2 change the level of atmospheric CO2, we simply add their balance levels, e.g., for today we add 392 pm to 18 ppm to get 410 ppm.

      The physics model makes it obvious that human CO2 did not cause the rise in atmospheric CO2 from 280 ppm to 410 ppm. The IPCC idea that human CO2 upset the natural balance is irrational because nature cannot tell the difference between human and natural CO2 in the atmosphere. The IPCC idea requires that nature treats human CO2 differently than it treats natural CO2, which is impossible.

      Similarly, natural and human 12CO2 obey the same residence times. The IPCC Bern model claims human CO2 sticks in the atmosphere while it lets natural CO2 flow freely through the atmosphere. The IPCC model does not obey simple physics.

  10. Thanks for your prompt reply – I’ll continue with your paper & get back to you if I’ve got any more questions.

  11. Like Eli Whitney’s cotton gin, your presentation makes one wonder, “Why didn’t I think of that!”

    Your presentation makes the physics explanation glaringly obvious. Outflow is proportional to level.

    Could we say that the sequestration rate of CO2 is approximately proportional to partial pressure of CO2?

    This formulation would provide a link to the observed greening of the planet via enhanced photosynthesis and reduced evapotranspiration.

  12. Hi Ed

    Being an Economic Analyst ( you can read some of my pre-retirement stuff on the website) I am a rank amateur in Climate Physics. That said I have been reading about AGW (now Climate Change) for years. It is frustrating to say the least, to see the “fake Science” being peddled by Politicians from the Left in the more advanced and emerging Economies as well as Environmentalists. They seem to think of AGW as the magic bullet that will allow take over the world with their bonehead theories and false claims of the evils of the Industrial sectors of the world economy.

    But I do have one question and I apologize in advance if the answer to my question is obvious to the expert. You have said that their is no need to differentiate between man-made and naturally created CO2 when applying the equation calculating Residence time and Outflow. (Is there a difference ?) Also does the rate of Sequestration change depending on the source. And finally is there a possibility of a rapid unlooked-for increase in Residence Time thus overwhelming the rate of Outflow? Say from a volcano or a bunch of SUV’s?


    1. Dear JLK, Sorry for my delay in answering your question. I have been very busy preparing my paper for a journal. Anyway …
      Human and natural CO2 molecules are identical. Therefore, nature must process them the same. No molecule contains a record of its history. Therefore, the rate of sequestration cannot depend on the source of the CO2 molecule.
      We can’t predict the future of e-time for the atmosphere CO2 system. We don’t have the necessary data to do so. The IPCC assumes “human” CO2 has overloaded the carbonate system. But that would increase e-time. Since e-time has been constant, the IPCC assumption is wrong.

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.