1. Excellent! I check daily to see if the first model paper has been published. I am anxious for someone to respond to Kohler’s response (or lack thereof) to Harde.
    Two small items: 1) in part 2.2 ” It assumes nature will not absorb any human emissions”. “Any” should be “some” or another comparative . 2) In part 2.3 “Feynman, 2018”. I assume the 2018 is not correct.
    Thank you for this effort. Keep pushing on your “teach to world ” drive. In my opinion this mess will never stop until a majority of people, including journalists, realize the weakness of the CAGWers position. It has become so entrenched I can’t get the local Bozeman paper to print my op-ed pieces with factual statements that don’t follow the accepted Consensus”

      1. Jurgen
        Thank you for this reference. I had not seen it nor Harde’s reply before. I will review it soon. Thanks again

  2. Excellent! I check here daily to see if the first Model paper has been published.
    Two small things in this one: 1)In part 2.2 “It assumes nature will not absorb any human emissions” the “any” should be Some” of another comparative. 2) In part 2.3 “Feynman, 2018”. I assume “2018” is incorrect.
    Thanks again for your effort here. Keep up the push to “teach the world” as, in my opinion, this mess will not go away until most of the people, including journalists, know the weakness of the CAGWers position. I can’t even get my local Bozeman paper to print my op-ed’s if I include facts that don’t agree with the “consensus”.

    1. Hi DMA, Thanks for your helpful comment. I fixed item (1). Item (2) is correct because it is a 2018 reference that talks about Feynman’s presentation.
      Earlier versions of my paper were rejected by 3 journals solely on the basis that my paper contradicted the IPCC. No reviewer found anything wrong with my physics. In this version, I lead with why the IPCC is wrong because I want to hit reviewers in the face with this point. We will soon know if this helps.

      1. The rejection is unfortunate and seems arbitrary at best. Did you receive any of the reviewers comments? If so, would you be willing to share them? This story of biased review is wide spread but largely denied by those that accept the IPCC view. It may be helpful to show examples as Doug Lightfoot did and are demonstrated in the Harde episode mentioned by Jurgen above.

  3. If you are going to reference a Feynman paper you should reference Feynman’ original year of the paper via a co-reference to the researcher that referenced Feynman . The way you did it makes it seem Feynman is still alive.

  4. Looking at your Fig 2 and your table 1 for human emissions, the numbers dont jive. Fig 1 has 5.4-0.2 = 5.2 as emissions and 1.9 as sink for net of 3.3 whereas table 1 has 3.3 as emissions and 1.8 as sink for net of 1.5.

      1. I think it is dangerous to use ppm because ppm is only the result of the net effect of the whole cycle. You would be better to talk in terms of Gt C or Gt CO2 because those are measured quantities of emissions. I realize that the natural emissions have a larger error factor than the human emissions. Since the ratio of increased ppm in the atmosphere depends on a lot of things, it is dangerous to say that 1 ppm always equals 2.13GtC. The air has a varying amount of H2O so the ppm comparison breaks down. Of course this doesnt invalidate your conclusions but it is safer to stick to the IPCC units of measure.

        1. Hi Alan, I appreciate your suggestion but I have to disagree. My overriding goal is to make my paper easy to read by as many people as possible.
          Almost everyone knows the ppm numbers for atmospheric carbon dioxide but virtually no one, except specialist scientists, knows how many GtC are in the atmosphere.
          One of the first lessons I learned at Caltech is to always use consistent units throughout a report. So, I have chosen to use ppm.

  5. Perhaps if these figure diagrams are that of the IPCC, you should redo the figure diagrams using your ppm numbers and place them side by side with the IPCC figure diagrams or else make this whole thing perfectly clear like you said.

    1. Hi Alan, I added explanatory notes to the legends of Figs. 1 and 2 and Table 1 that should make the units change clear. I hesitate to modify the IPCC diagrams because then I would be accused of tampering with original data. Also, the journals do not like repeated figures because they waste journal space.

  6. Not to make the IPCC models look “better,” if that is possible, but in fact the model don’t really assume that no human emmissions are evern withdrawn. What that apparent assumption really does is presume that all increase in CO2 is due human carbon emmission and that natural emmissions are essentially constant. That is of course nonsense to begin with and reveals that the IPCC models are worse, based on astonishingly simple minded assumptions.

  7. Dr. Ed, I have commented before on another, similar item. Unfortunately I can’t attend the conference in Porto (very nice town BTW, if you have the time, the old library of the University there is fabulous), or we could have had a nice discussion…

    The essential flaw in Harde’s work indeed is that he doesn’t understand the difference between residence time and relaxation time, as both are driven by completely different processes.

    Take e.g. the massive CO2 exchange between the atmosphere and the biosphere:
    Every spring lots of new leaves grow and plants remove enormous amounts of CO2 out of the atmosphere. That goes on during summer until fall, when the leaves fall down and start to decay, producing tons of CO2 back into the atmosphere. The main driver: temperature. The main flux: some 60 GtC/season in and out.
    The same for the oceans: more CO2 out of the oceans during warmer seasons, more CO2 uptake in colder seasons, just the opposite as for vegetation. The main driver: temperature. The main flux: some 50 GtC/season in and out.
    Total seasonal fluxes: 110 GtC in and out, net fluctuation in the atmosphere: +/- 10 GtC or globally +/- 5 ppmv, mainly in the NH where most of the vegetation resides.

    Besides that, we have some 40 GtC/year of a continuous CO2 flux between warming upwelling deep oceans waters near the equator and the sinking cold waters near the poles. Main driver: temperature differences.

    Total: some 150 GtC of CO2 that is going in and out within a year between the atmosphere and other reservoirs.
    As the atmosphere contains some 800 GtC CO2, the residence time of any CO2 molecule (whatever the origin) is 800/150 = 5.3 years.

    All these flows don’t affect the total amount in the atmosphere, as long as the sum of all ins and outs are equal. That is the case if the average pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere equals the average CO2 pressure (the equilibrium pressure) of the ocean surface for the average ocean temperature. For the current ocean surface temperature, that is about 290 ppmv.

    Now humans add extra CO2 outside the natural, temperature driven cycle. Does that affect the seasonal cycle? Hardly. There is very little difference between the amounts cycling 60 years ago and today. Why? Because removing any CO2 above the old equilibrium is by increased pressure, not by temperature. That is a completely different mechanism and that has its own decay rate, completely independent of the residence time.

    Based on the past 60 years of data, that e-fold decay rate (adjustment time) is:
    pressure above equilibrium / removal rate
    110 ppmv / 2.15 ppmv/year = about 51 years

    Much slower than the residence time, but much faster than the Bern model, as there is no saturation of the (deep ocean) sinks is in sight and vegetation only grows faster with more CO2…

    1. FE
      My question is “why should the fossil fuel CO2 be considered a new or extra source? Why is it different from a new volcano or some new forest fires or a burning coal seam? The temperature moves the sources and sinks toward a balance that is never quite reached. Surely there are fluctuations in these sources and sinks greater than the whole fossil fuel source. Is the relaxation time applicable to all sources of CO2 or just human caused CO2?

      1. DMA,

        Sinks don’t make any differentiation between human and natural CO2, the IPCC never said that or implied that, it is just a wrong interpretation by some skeptics. What the IPCC says is that all increase in CO2 mass in the atmosphere is from the human contribution, as the natural balance shows more sink than source, as well as for the oceans as for vegetation. See e.g.:
        https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel2331/mean.shtml for the oceans and
        http://www.bowdoin.edu/~mbattle/papers_posters_and_talks/BenderGBC2005.pdf for the biosphere.

        The CO2 fluxes can be distinguished between oceans and vegetation by looking at the O2/N2 and δ13C balances: if a CO2 change is caused by the oceans, then O2/N2 is hardly influenced, only by the O2 solubility with temperature and the δ13C level in the atmosphere goes up with the CO2 flux. If the CO2 flux is from vegetation, for each molecule CO2 moved, 1.1 molecule O2 is moved in the other direction and the δ13C level goes opposite to the CO2 flux.

        Another remarkable point is that the year by year variability in natural balance is quite small, compared to the enormous – mainly seasonal – CO2 fluxes: +/- 1.5 ppmv for the extremes: Pinatubo and large El Niño’s. That variability is only half the current yearly human contribution. See: http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em2.jpg
        That includes volcanoes, ocean surface temperature changes, coal seems/vegetation burning,…

        A complete overview, why human emissions are the cause of the increase is here:
        That doesn’t imply that there is any danger from the CO2 increase (to the contrary…), which is a complete separate discussion than the origin of the increase…

        1. Dear Ferdinand,

          You wrote:

          “the IPCC says that all increase in CO2 mass in the atmosphere is from the human contribution, as the natural balance shows more sink than source, as well as for the oceans as for vegetation.”

          I agree that is what the IPCC says. However, my preprint shows (a) that this IPCC claim violates the Equivalence Principle and (b) that IPCC’s argument to support its claim fails logic.

          The O2/N2 ratio confirms that burning fossil fuels decreases atmospheric O2, but the reduction of O2 has no relationship to the amount that human CO2 increases the level of atmospheric CO2.

          The 13C argument also does not prove the IPCC claim. The IPCC agrees that the 13C12C ration has decreased about 20 percent, which also agrees with the data in your post. However, plant and human CO2 have only 2 percent less 13C than other sources. So, an inflow of 4 percent human CO2 and 96 percent natural CO2, cannot explain a 20 percent drop in 13C. The 13C data only prove there is something we do not yet understand about 13C.

        2. Dear Ferdinad,

          In CO2_origin you claim “There are only two fast main sources of CO2 to the atmosphere, besides the burning of fossil fuels: oceans and vegetation.” But what about the CO2 flux from the decomposition of carbonic minerals under meteoric precipitation and under different temperature conditions?

      2. DMA,

        The relaxation time is the same for any amount of CO2 -whatever the source- above the -temperature controlled- dynamic equilibrium between atmosphere and ocean surface.

        The point is that over the past at least 800,000 years all changes in natural sources and/or sinks were small enough to get equalised after a few years to centuries (for the resolution in oldest ice cores) towards the dynamic equilibrium.
        Human emissions are increasing – slightly quadratic – over time, which makes that at least over the past 60 years, the sinks only increased at about half the rate of the human emissions. The other half remained in the atmosphere…

    2. Dear Ferdinand,

      Welcome to the discussion. Thank you for your comments. I will reply after I finish reading the papers you linked to so I can be sure I understand your arguments.

      I will be sure to check the University library in Porto.

    3. Dear Ferdinand,

      You wrote:

      “Because removing any CO2 above the old equilibrium is by increased pressure, not by temperature. That is a completely different mechanism and that has its own decay rate, completely independent of the residence time.”

      “Based on the past 60 years of data, that e-fold decay rate (adjustment time) is:
      pressure above equilibrium / removal rate 110 ppmv / 2.15 ppmv/year = about 51 years”

      It is easy to falsify these assumptions.

      (1) Nature itself fluctuates by more than humans emit. Therefore, nature itself would initiate any “new” process without the presence of human emissions.

      (2) There is no special process that treats human-produced CO2 differently than natural-produced CO2. Any such hypothesis violates the Equivalence Principle.

      (3) Outflow from the atmosphere is proportional to level (which you call pressure). This is true for both human and natural emissions, independently and in total.

      (4) All sinks act in parallel, not in series. Therefore, one sink or a “new” sink cannot impede flow to another sink. Like holes in the bottom of a bucket of water, the presence of a small hole does not restrict the flow out of a larger hole. More outflow allows a lower level to balance outflow to inflow and reduces residence time.

      (5) There is only one residence time, which is the equilibrium level divided by inflow, or level divided by outflow. There is no special “relaxation” time or “e-fold decay rate”. These times are imaginary inventions created to justify incorrect assumptions and incorrect conclusions.

      1. Dear Ed,
        This is a minor point, but it may be relevant to your readers. I suggest that you should not invoke Einstein, nor the “equivalence principle” in your work. In the first place, the “equivalence principle” was brought forth by Einstein to try and convince an ignorant public that gravitational mass and inertia mass are indistinguishable from one another. Physical experiment has demonstrated a 30% difference between gravitational mass and inertial mass, falsifying the so-called “equivalence principle”. (The relevant experiment was performed during the late 1990s.)
        E’s version of relativity is going to be abolished soon due to overwhelming evidence that it is a non-physical swindle.
        For example, see: http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/index.html
        E’s version of relativity, along with most of quantum physics, will soon be items for historical discussions.

        The situation regarding E’s version of relativity is similar to the situation regarding “global warming”. Both are frauds designed to bilk money from an ignorant, brainwashed, and unsuspecting public by the use of repetitive, extensive, and expensive promotions, Hollywood-style.

        Both these Hollywood productions (relativity and “global warming”) are facades made of lies and fantasies, which appear real on the surface, but on closer inspection, these structures are nothing more than “stage sets”, made of painted wood, designed to result in believable appearances for the viewers of the given Hollywood fantasy production.

        Least we forget, a great deal of time and effort and money goes into making such Hollywood fantasies. And of course, those who are in positions to make vast profits from the popularity of such facades, in the public eye, take great pains to ensure the successes of their fraudulent presentations, so as to recoup their investments in the Hollywood presentations and take fraudulent profits, unmolested by facts.

        The means and methods of, scams, swindles, and frauds are all based on lies, and based on appearances, while painting over the actual facts and turning the actual facts into appearing to be something else, or false.

        In the words of Mark Twain, “It is easier to fool people than it is to convince them they have been fooled.”

        I suggest not using the tainted term “equivalence principle”, which is bringing in a lie to try and support a valid understanding. Rather, I would point to the fact that carbon dioxide remains carbon dioxide, regardless of its position in the so-called “carbon cycle”.

        Best Wishes,

  8. Congratulations Dr. Ed!
    When I saw the announcement of this conference I thought “This is where Dr. Berry should be.”
    Best wishes for your trip and presentation.

  9. I have a question.
    Does Dr. Berry have a theory on the decline of O2 in the atmosphere?
    I would also like to say this.
    Let’s take point 2 for granted for the purpose of dialogue. It is stated “Any climate change resulting from increased CO2 is caused 96 percent by natural CO2 and only 4 percent by human CO2.”
    As stated, that is rather alarming, even if one considers CO2 a minor forcing, and many consider it a major forcing.
    Imagine a 4% change in albedo.
    Imagine a 4% change in the ppm of aerosols.
    Imagine a 4% change in cloud cover.
    Imagine a 4% change in radiation coming from the sun. ( obviously that’s a very strong forcing to start with ).
    Imagine a 4% change in the rate of evaporation for some hypothetical reason.
    Imagine a 4% change in any of things in a very short timeframe, ( say a hundred years ).
    Even if one assumes a given parameter has a minor forcing, a 4% change in that parameter, up or down, seems rationally, to be quite powerfull. 4% of something is a lot of something in my book.
    The only way a 4% change can be easily dismissed is if the forcing is virtually negligible. And there is much to suggest CO2 forcing is not negligible.
    Essentially what I’m suggesting is that the ability to alter a component capable of forcing by 4% ( your statement ) is extraordinary in itself.
    Love to know your thoughts O2 decline.

    Li D Australia

    1. After some pondering I realise a grave error in this statement.
      “Any climate change resulting from increased CO2 is caused 96 percent by natural CO2 and only 4 percent by human CO2.”
      All science aside it’s not literally correct.
      Let us choose a time say 10000 years ago. It would be reasonable to state Anthropogenic emissions are negligible.
      ( I could argue land management changes especially in Australia, may have a small impact but will ignore that for now, and in fact that impact is likely emissions neutral anyway, and it’s more of an albedo change)
      So, at this time 100% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is doing whatever it does. Forcing whatever it’s forcing. This results in a climate state we can call x.
      To this, add a continuous stream of 4% anthropogenic CO2. This results, after a time, when everything is balanced out, sinks have done their thing and feedbacks too, in a climate state called y.
      It’s different than x.
      It is reasonable to say the difference is 100% due to the introduced stream.
      It’s only fair to attribute a 96% forcing
      share when there is a starting point of
      null or zero CO2 at all.
      Again, it’s ok to attribute 96% to the new climate state y, but what you have written is that it’s the difference between x and y and that is wrong.
      You might wish to reconsider or at least rephrase.
      Also, I noticed in a different set of writing some analogies. None of them considered time as a relevant factor.

      Li D

      1. Dear Li,

        Thank you for your comment. I may need to improve the wording in my sentence that you quote. So I will try to explain it better.

        My sentence refers to the first question, namely, “How much do human emissions increase atmospheric carbon dioxide?” And this question relates to the time after 1750.

        The IPCC claims that human emissions have caused and continue to cause ALL the increase in CO2 since 1750, when it assumes the level was 280 ppm. Today the level is about 410 ppm, so IPCC claims human emissions increased atmospheric CO2 by 130 ppm.

        Against that background, I conclude that human emissions today increase atmospheric CO2 by only 18 ppm and nature causes the rest of the increase. (You may challenge my scientific conclusion separately but in this discussion, we assume my conclusion is correct.)

        Therefore, I conclude, if the human-caused increase is only 18 ppm out of 410 ppm, then to the extent that more atmospheric CO2 causes climate change, human emissions cause only 4 percent of that change and nature causes 96 percent.

        I understand there are other ways to calculate this percentage. For example, we could use the increase above 280 ppm, or 130 ppm, as our base. In this case, I would argue that the human-caused increase is 18/130 or 14 percent and nature has caused 86 percent.

        Either way, my point (based upon my conclusion which I said you can challenge separately) is that it is wrong to claim human emissions cause ALL the increase in atmospheric CO2 since 1750. Therefore, it is wrong to claim human emissions cause ALL of any CO2-caused climate change since 1750. Nature has been the dominant party in any such change.

        1. Thank you for reply.
          I remain certain the wording is inaccurate. What you describe as the ” base ” is wrong.
          The base is zero atmospheric content ( and zero forcing ).
          One has a pile of 4 four bricks stacked vertically at a moment in time to create height x.One brick is then added on top resulting in height y. The change in height is 100 percent due to the fifth brick.
          The change in height is directly comparable to your line
          “Any climate change resulting from increased CO2…”
          I hope this is clear now.

          Li D

  10. Hi Ferdinand, Li, and everyone else,
    I just noticed all the figures are missing in this post and in all my posts. I need to fix this before continuing the discussions. This happened after I migrated my site to a new server just 2 days ago. I did not notice this error until now. So, without the figures, you really cannot understand my post.

    1. Dr. Ed,

      Indeed did miss the figures, but am familiar enough with the IPCC graphs to know the background… We will wait until they appear…

  11. Dear Dr. Ed,

    Back to basics…

    The first problem I did see was in table 1. That is based on the IPCC’s Fig.1 &2 where the natural fluxes were shown when in balance. Then you give the human contribution as 3.3 ppmv/year of which 1.8 is removed and 1.5 ppmv/year remains in the atmosphere.

    That is not what the IPCC said or implied. There is no (or hardly) any human contribution in the removal of any CO2. All human CO2 in the first place is emitted into the atmosphere and it is the extra pressure which increases the natural sinks (and decreases some natural sources). That makes that the natural fluxes are not anymore in balance and you need to add the “human sinks” to the natural sinks as a mix of both, as there is no differentiation of the sinks between human and natural CO2 (except for the small isotopic changes)

    Let us show that with as start the natural fluxes in balance at 290 ppmv (for the current ocean surface temperature) and a yearly addition of 3.3 ppmv “human” CO2:

    Year 1:
    290 ppmv + 3.3 ppmv = 293.3 ppmv (a mix of 1.1% human and 98.9 natural CO2)
    extra pressure: 3.3 ppmv
    sink rate from the extra pressure: 3.3 * 0.02 = 0.07 ppmv (of which 1.1% human)
    (0.02 := 2.15/110 is the linear sink rate for any extra CO2 above the dynamic equilibrium as seen in the past 60 years)
    net increase: 3.23 ppmv, entirely caused by the human addition.
    new level: 293.23 ppmv

    Year 2:
    293.293 ppmv + 3.3 ppmv = 296.593 ppmv (whatever the mix human/natural)
    extra pressure: 6.593 ppmv
    sink rate from the extra pressure: 6.593 * 0.02 = 0.13 ppmv
    net increase: 6.58 ppmv, entirely caused by the human addition.
    Year X:
    400 ppmv + 3.3 ppmv = 403 ppmv (with about 10% human CO2 in the mix)
    extra pressure: 113 ppmv
    sink rate from the extra pressure: 113 * 0.02 = 2.26 ppmv
    net increase: 1.04 ppmv, entirely caused by the human addition.

    FIgures are not exact what is measured today, as humans started with very small emissions, increasing slightly quadratic over time and currently about 4.5 ppmv/year. That made that both the sinks and the increase in the atmosphere also increased slightly quadratic over time at about half the rate of human emissions. Just coincidence as result of the increasing emissions… See;

    1. Dear Ferdinand,

      Thank you again for your comment. I will respond to your most recent comment first, while I acknowledge I owe you replies on your earlier comments.

      My Table 1 shows exactly what the IPCC claims in its two figures. Whether or not IPCC’s figures were what IPCC “said or implied” is open to question. In either case, IPCC’s figure for human CO2 is wrong. It does not comply with the proper use of systems models and it violates the Equivalence Principle. Further, as I show in my Section 2.3, IPCC’s Bern model shows that the IPCC used its assumption shown in my Fig. 2, in its climate models.

      Please note that your use of the term “pressure” is likely the same thing I call “level.” The partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere is directly proportional to level, and an increase in level increases outflow. Alternatively, your term “pressure” may mean inflow.

      The problem I find with your year-by-year examples is they have no model to back them up. They merely assume the IPCC assumption is correct. But you can’t prove an assumption is correct by using the assumption in an argument.

      In my Section 3, I propose a model to explain how the atmosphere processes inflows of CO2. My model is the ultimate in simplicity, so it has the advantage of Occam’s Razor. Uniquely, my model exactly reproduces the decay of 14C data following the termination of atomic bomb tests. So, until a better model comes along that can also reproduce the 14C data, I propose my model best explains how 12C CO2 flows through our atmosphere.

      My model shows how inflows set equilibrium levels, and how the existing level will move towards its equilibrium level until outflow equals inflow. My model allows calculation of human CO2 and natural CO2 either independently or in total.

      Your examples use temperature increase to calculate an increase in “pressure.” My Section 2.6 mentions how my model can include this effect. My model suggests temperature increase will increase inflow rather than directly increasing the level.

      In summary, I think my model explains what happens to human CO2 more accurately than your examples. I think your examples use the unwarranted IPCC assumption, namely, that human emissions are the primary cause of the increase in atmospheric CO2 since 1750. Before you can use that assumption, you must provide a good argument to support the assumption. My Section 2.2 proves the IPCC argument for the assumption is wrong.

      1. Dear Dr. Ed,

        It is not the first time that the IPCC wordings and graphs are too simplistic that these can be misinterpretated.

        That happens here again. Take their Fig. 3.1.b (your figure 1b), where they show the human perturbation. That shows human emissions and part of that is taken away by plants and oceans. That can be misinterpretated as that plants and oceans specifically absorb 50% of the original human emissions, but the IPCC never said that or implied that. All what they imply is that the extra CO2 input (not even from one year) caused the extra CO2 output, whatever the origin of the input (in this case known) or CO2 removed. They give a hint in the text:

        “These uptake components represent imbalances in the large natural two-way fluxes between atmosphere and ocean and between atmosphere and land.”

        What they say is that the imbalance between natural sources and sinks is caused by the human perturbation, not that the sinks prefer human CO2 above natural CO2…

        Indeed level and pressure are intermixable in this case, only pCO2 is usually in real air and ppmv is in dry air, but that difference is not relevant here.

        “The problem I find with your year-by-year examples is they have no model to back them up.”

        My “model” is the same as in your Fig 4, with one essential difference:

        The equilibrium level is not set by the inflow, but by the temperature of the ocean surface layer.
        If the natural inflow increases by e.g. 10% (a huge change!) by increasing upwelling waters near the equator, initially the CO2 level will go up, but that will get compensated by increasing sinks until the CO2 level again matches the average pCO2 of the oceans, at a higher level (about +30 ppmv).
        The point is that there is zero evidence of any increase in natural CO2 inputs. There is hardly an increase in the seasonal cycle and no measurable increase in the equator-poles flux.

        The equilibrium between atmosphere and ocean surface is governed by Henry’s law and the solubility of CO2 in seawater with temperature. That level is exactly the same for one sample of seawater in a closed bottle as for the dynamics of the full ocean surface, including the exchanges with the deep oceans. That is confirmed by over 3 million seawater samples taken over the centuries.

        Then my take on what happens in the atmosphere:
        if a system in dynamic equilibrium is disturbed by a perturbation, then the equilibrium will react by compensating for the perturbation (Le Chatelier’s principle).

        In the case of the extra CO2 above equilibrium, the reaction of the sinks is surprisingly linear:
        In 1959: 25 ppmv extra above equilibrium, sink rate 0.5 ppmv/year, 50 years e-fold decay rate
        In 1988: 60 ppmv, 1.13 ppmv/year, 53 years e-fold decay rate
        In 2012: 110 ppmv / 2.15 ppmv/year = 51.2 years
        The imbalance between natural sources and combined sinks is simply linear with the extra amount of CO2 above equilibrium.

        There is a big problem with using the 14C decay rate as example for the 12CO2 decay rate: what is going into the deep oceans in 1960 was the 14C level of that time, what comes out is the 14C level of ~1000 years ago, less than half the level of the 1960’s. That makes that the extra 14C decay is about 3 times faster than an extra 12CO2 decay. Even so the 14C decay is 3 times longer than the 5.3 years residence time… See:

        More about the difference between residence time and decay rate coming…

        1. Dear Ferdinand,

          You do a very good job of explaining your position, and I appreciate it. So, to continue:

          If you used the same model as in my Fig. 4, then you would agree that emissions set inflow, and inflows set equilibrium levels, and actual levels will approach their equilibrium levels with a 1/e residence time.

          My model describes the only way our atmosphere can balance changing inflows. It does it by adjusting the level until outflow equals inflow. My model describes how nature balances. The IPCC merely claims nature balances without understanding how it balances. Which is why the IPCC makes serious errors in physics.

          A key insight from my model is that inflows do not continue to add to the level. Inflows merely set equilibrium levels. So, if human emissions add 4 percent to nature’s inflows and then remained constant, these human inflows would add 4 percent to nature’s level and no more. No human CO2 would stick forever or have a longer residence time than the level divided by the outflow.

          It is even worse for the IPCC. According to its claims and core argument, even an addition of human CO2 less than one-percent of nature’s emissions would have started the buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere. The IPCC argument implies even the addition of one human-produced CO2 molecule would have initiated an irreversible process. Fundamentally, the IPCC model does not work.

          All processes external to the atmosphere system can affect the atmosphere level only by changing the inflow or outflow. No external process can change the level directly. To claim otherwise invalidates the systems model. That applies to your claim that the temperature of the ocean surface layer sets the equilibrium level. It can’t. It can only change the inflow to the atmosphere system. Then the atmosphere will change its level according to inflow and outflow.

          All arguments that claim an external process directly changes the level are invalid. All arguments that claim human emissions add a new, very-long residence time are invalid. Because if they were valid then nature itself would have gone unbalanced long ago.

          Regarding the 14C data, the data clearly show how the 14C CO2 outflow exceeded its inflow. The natural inflow supports the 100 percent equilibrium level while the outflow was proportional to the level. Since my model properly uses inflow and outflow, my model nails the 14C data when its residence time is set to 14.4 years, equal to a half-life of 10 years. The slow processes in the deep ocean are irrelevant to this simulation. One only needs to set the 12C CO2 residence time to level divided by outflow to set the model to simulate 12C CO2.

          This test is very relevant to any model that purports to model CO2 in the atmosphere. My model passes this test and the IPCC model fails this test. This proves it is not valid to support the IPCC model.

          I think all your arguments are based upon the invalid IPCC model.

        2. Dear Dr. Ed.

          I do use your model, but I disagree that the natural inflows set the setpoint of the CO2 levels in the atmosphere. That would only be the case if there were huge changes in the natural inflows, for which no evidence exists.

          The equilibrium level in the past 800,000 pre-industrial years was set by temperature and the CO2 solubility in seawater, while in/outflows were adjusted accordingly. Over glacial and interglacial periods, there is a quite linear relationship of about 8 ppmv/K for Antarctic temperatures. Adjusted for the polar enhancement in temperature, that translates to about 16 ppmv/K, not by coincidence the measured change in solubility of CO2 in seawater:

          Thus in “my” (and the IPCC’s) model, ocean surface temperature sets the equilibrium level by adjusting the natural CO2 inflows and outflows, mainly from/to the oceans. Have a look at how that happens:
          In https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel2331/exchange.shtml
          Feely e.a. show that the pCO2 of the oceans ranges from about 750 μatm in the tropics to about 150 μatm at the poles. In both cases that implements a CO2 flux of about 40 GtC into the atmosphere at the equator and 40 GtC out near the poles. Any CO2 flux over the air-water border is linear in ratio to the pCO2 difference between both.

          If the temperature of the ocean surface increases everywhere with 1 K, the pCO2(aq) of the sea surface will increase everywhere with about 16 μatm. That increases the CO2 input near the equator with (750+16-400)/(750-400) or near 5% for 400 μatm in the atmosphere. The opposite happens near the poles with a reduction of the outflow of near 5% too. The net effect is that the CO2 level in the atmosphere increases until inflows and outflows are equal again at about 16 ppmv above the old equilibrium. The same 16 ppmv/K as for warming a single sample of seawater… See:

          The fundamental difference between the approaches thus is that in your case the inflows govern the equilibrium, while in my (and the IPCC’s) case temperature governs the equilibrium. The latter is what is observed over the past 800,000 years (and beyond).

          The other fundamental difference between us is that once in equilibrium, indeed one CO2 molecule extra disturbes the equilibrium, whatever the quantities involved in maintaining the equilibrium. That is for next reaction…

        3. Dear Dr. Ed,

          Now again about residence time and excess decay rate…

          In essence, it is the same discussion as about the turnover of goods and thus capital in a factory and the gain (or loss) of capital of the same factory at the end of the fiscal year. The residence time of capital in a factory has little connection to the final result of the same factory. If you double the turnover, the factory may lose money, get a break even or make more profit…

          To begin with, the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere indeed is total amount / throughput. using IPCC figures, that is about 800 GtC / 150 GtC/year or a residence time of 5.3 years.
          Remark: some 60 GtC/year from the 120 GtC/year between atmosphere and vegetation is diurnal: 60 GtC absorption during the day, 60 GtC respiration at night. That doesn’t even reach the bulk of the atmosphere and is only locally measurable, and doesn’t influence global levels.

          What about the rest of the 150 GtC? As said before, there is never 150 GtC extra in the atmosphere at any moment in time. Indeed almost all in and out flows work in parallel and compensate each other: sinks at the poles compensate for inputs at the equator, ocean emissions are (over)compensated by vegetation uptake. Thus the real natural input at any moment in time is near zero (with a + and – 10 GtC unbalance over the seasons). Thus there is near zero reason for the sinks to go beyond the inputs, as there is near zero increase of pCO2 in the atmosphere from the natural inputs at any moment in time (and the seasonal disturbance is as well positive as negative).

          The only drive to increase the outputs is if the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, which is only possible by adding some extra CO2 beyond the natural inputs. Then the extra output is enturely caused by the extra input above the natural ones.

          Any limited amount of extra CO2 added doesn’t change the residence time that much (some 4% in IPCC figures), but it adds to the total CO2 pressure in the atmosphere above the temperature dictated equilibrium. That causes the extra output with its own decay rate of around 50 years. Nothing at all to do with the residence time.

          Arthur Rörsch e.a. could show 6 different ways to calculate different possible causes of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. All 6 were mathematically possible, but only one did fit all observations: the human contribution. All the others did violate one or more observations.
          That includes the increase from natural inflows, as that violates the mass balance, the δ13C balance, the solubility of CO2 in seawater,…

        4. Dear Ferdinand,
          Where did you find the sink rates you used in your example?

          In the case of the extra CO2 above equilibrium, the reaction of the sinks is surprisingly linear:
          In 1959: 25 ppmv extra above equilibrium, sink rate 0.5 ppmv/year, 50 years e-fold decay rate
          In 1988: 60 ppmv, 1.13 ppmv/year, 53 years e-fold decay rate
          In 2012: 110 ppmv / 2.15 ppmv/year = 51.2 years

        5. Dear Dr. Ed,

          Sink rates are emission inventories minus measured increase in the atmosphere, the latter averaged to avoid the year-by-year variability in sink rate ( which is BTW dominated by the uptake/release of the tropical forests).

          Carbon dioxide emissions inventory from the US Department of Energy (DOE):
          updated for recent years at:
          Yearly averaged carbon dioxide concentrations at Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii, 1958 to last full year, NOAA:

          In graph form:

  12. Ferdinand
    The graph in the last link does not say anything about the total sink rate other than it is greater than the human emission rate. If there are any other emissions that could be quantified they would form a similar graph. The important graph is total emissions less total sinks which is basically the Mona Loa record. The problem is that total emissions is not known very well and the uncertainty in that number is far greater than the whole human emission figure. For the referenced graph to show the total sink rate you have to assume that human emissions are the only increasing source but I don’t think that is a valid assumption. If it is, what mechanism controls the growth of atmospheric CO2 such that increases or decreases in the human emission rates don’t effect the rate of increase shown in the Mona Loa record?

    1. DMA,

      It doesn’t matter at all what the total (natural) emissions are, it only matters that human emissions are larger than the net result of all natural emissions and sinks together.

      Take a local bank, where you have a deposit. Each month you save $ 100 to your account, no withdrawals.
      At the end of the fiscal year the local bank shows its annual revenue: a net gain of $ 600.
      Does it matter how much the thousands of other clients have saved or withdrawed in the same year?
      Not at all: without your savings, the bank would have shown a net loss.

      In figures:
      Increase in the atmosphere = natural emissions + human emissions – natural sinks
      If natural sources were 10 GtC:
      4.5 GtC= 10 GtC + 9 GtC – Y GtC
      Y = 14.5 GtC

      For 150 GtC (current estimates):
      4.5 GtC = 150 GtC + 9 GtC – Y GtC
      Y = 154.5 GtC

      For 1000 GtC:
      4.5 GtC = 1000 GtC + 9 GtC – Y GtC
      Y = 1004.5 GtC

      Even if one doesn’t know any individual natural CO2 flux, one knows the net result of all natural in and out fluxes together and that result is negative for each year in the past 60 years. Thus the natural cycle is not responsible for the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere…

    2. DMA,

      Should have added that the sink rate in the graph is not caused by the human emissions of one year, but of the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere above the (temperature controlled) equilibrium between the atmosphere and the ocean surface. That the sink rate is half the emissions is pure coincidence and the result of the slightly quadratic increase in emissions over time with as result a slightly quadratic increase in the atmosphere and thus of sink rate…

      If e.g. last year the emissions would be 10% lower than in previous year, then the net effect would be a smaller increase in sink rate, as the increase in the atmosphere would be 4 GtC i.s.o. 4.5 GtC or from 110 ppmv up to 112 ppmv above equilibrium i.s.o. 112.3 ppmv, hardly measurable in the temperature caused year to year variability of the CO2 increase.

  13. Edwin,
    The roof leaks at the top.

    Climatology has certain traditions that it adopted from its parent discipline, meteorology. One of those traditions is that their theoretical aspects are based on conversation and not empiricism. Or, I guess we could say, the connection to empiricism is suggestive and not literal.

    In empirical sciences the experimental evidence comes first and the narrative follows. In conversational sciences the narrative comes first and its significance is interpreted by “experts.” No empiricism necessarily follows. And any empiricism that is externally applied is summarily dismissed if it disagrees with the “expert” opinion.

    In short, with conversational sciences like meteorology and climatology, truth is determined by consensus and authority.

    The public is naïve, gullible, and generally unaware that climatological conclusions, like global warming, are based on conversation and not empiricism.

    Exposing climatology as empirically inept won’t solve the problem since the conversational tradition is rooted in meteorology and not climatology

    The roof leaks at the top:
    The ‘Missing Link’ of Meteorology’s Theory of Storms

    James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

    1. Hi James,
      You write, “conversational sciences like meteorology and climatology, truth is determined by consensus and authority.” Your view is a diversion from the truth. It is a political attempt to diffuse the fact that the alarmist version of climate change is wrong. Nice try.

      Those who base meteorology and climatology on consensus and authority are substituting politics for science. You are merely describing how the alarmists turn science into politics but that does not change the truth about the science.

      The sciences of meteorology and climatology derive from physics, chemistry, and geology, and they are based on evidence. My post proves the alarmist version of climate change violates physics. Therefore, the alarmist version of climate change is scientifically wrong.

    2. Hi Dr. Ed,

      Thank you for such a rapid response.

      You write: “Your view is a diversion from the truth. It is a political attempt to diffuse the fact that the alarmist version of climate change is wrong. Nice try.”

      I am on your side. I disproved the alarmist version of climate change a long time ago, as have many others both before and after my disproof. My disproof is generally ignored. The same will be the case for yours as the novelty wears off. Welcome to the club.

      Climatology and meteorology are not beholden to empiricism. For example, the convection model of storm theory is not based on anything empirical–it has never been tested, measured or concisely defined (just like AGW). It is based on an analogy to a pot boiling on a stove. Likewise global warming is based on an analogy to a greenhouse.

      Most people are incredulous that conversational sciences can possibly be as effective as I am suggesting here. I am guessing you are incredulous that you can be so easily fooled. You are wrong. And you can prove it to yourself by way of coming to grips with the fact that you never noticed that the empirical basis of the convection model of storm theory is nowhere to be found.

      I discovered the empirical shortcomings of meteorology after I discovered them in climatology. My reasoning was very simple. Knowing that the origins of climatology are in meteorology, I reasoned that if AGW is as bad as it appears then meteorology must also have skeletons in its closet. So I did something that nobody has done before, I looked at the convection model of storm theory with scrutiny. I found numerous fatal flaws and I found that meteorologists have long ago established a tradition of ignoring these fatal flaws.

      My point is that you/we cannot defeat a conversational science based on empiricism because conversational sciences are based on allegories that appeal to the base sensations of the public. The only way to defeat a conversational science is to reveal it as such to the public. And the best way to reveal it to the public is to start with meteorology since this is the spring from which it sprang (or is it sprung?). The conversational tradition is the problem and its roots are in meteorology, not climatology.

      James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
      The Moist Air Convection Myth

  14. Dr. Ed,

    In the hope that I have pricked your interest and not your ire, here are some more details on my theory of storms and atmospheric flow.

    Starting from jet streams, vortices grow (upstream) along wind shear boundaries in the troposphere (mostly along the top of the troposphere) channeling low pressure energy, targeting moist air at lower altitude, deliver this low pressure energy to various locations on the surface of our planet, causing uplift of this moist air and what we witness as storms. This–vortice activity–is what underlies storms, not convection.

    Convection of moist air does occur but its role in this theory is much more subtle than is its role under the convection model of storm theory. And, in stark contrast to the convection model, moist air has negative buoyancy (moist air is heavier than dry air). (Negative buoyance of moist air is instrumental in the formation of long, flat moist/dry wind shear boundaries that are essential for the formation of a water-based plasma that forms the sheath of vortices–a plasma that literally spins up on wind shear boundaries.

    Vortices are the pressure relief valves of the atmosphere. In other words, vortices are the means by which relative thermal equilibrium is achieve on the surface of our planet:

    1. Dear James,
      Thank you for your comments. In my view, you do not understand what you think you understand about meteorology. Somewhere, years ago perhaps, you got off on the wrong track.

      So, while your comments are welcome, I am much too busy to make the necessary extensive replies it would take to show you why your views on meteorology are completely wrong. I suggest you study some good textbooks on meteorology and atmospheric physics.

  15. Ivar Giaver states:
    Global warming has become a new religion, because you can’t discuss it. And that’s not right. So, science comes in many forms: 1) real science; 2) pathological science, where one fools oneself; 3) fraudulent science, which is rare; ; 4) Junk science; 5) pseudoscience.

    Just like global warming, meteorology’s theory on storms and atmospheric flow is a religion. Because you can’t discuss it. And that’s not right. As you have demonstrated vividly in this thread, you (Ed Berry) cannot/will not discuss it.

    So, it certainly is not #1, real science. I don’t think you are being deliberately fraudulent. So that leaves 2) Pathological science, 4) Junk science, and 5) pseudoscience. I suppose we can let our audience decide which of these three is most applicable.

    There are three blatantly non-scientific notions associated with meteorology’s “convection model” of storms and atmospheric flow: 1) Convection, 2) Dry layer capping, and 3) Latent heat. All of these are based on notions that involve half-baked observations, cartoonishly silly analogies, and blatant speculation.

    Convection: Based on an analogy to a pot boiling on a stove. It is poorly defined, immeasurable, untested and untestable. It was proposed as a conjecture by Espy, pre civil war, and was accepted by consensus despite never having been tested empirically. It’s underlying theory is wrought with unverified assumptions, like the notion that H2O magically turns gaseous at temperatures far below what has ever been detected in a laboratory.

    Dry layer capping: Based on observation of dry layers above flat moist layers. It explanation involves the blatantly stupid assertion that dry layers of gaseous air have structural capabilities. (Meteorologists are especially strict about maintaining the vagueness of this explanation.)

    Latent heat: Based on the observation that evaporation produces cooling and the not unreasonable assertion that uplift of moist air and resulting condensation produce warming at higher altitudes. But–strangely–this notion is also harnessed to explain the cold gusty winds of storms and lateral flow (“advection). And so, in a desperate bid to explain the energy of storms, meteorologist dramatize latent heat as kind of magic wand that they then abuse to explain all of the remaining drama of storms.

    Nothing about Meteorology’s theory on storms doesn’t maintain some degree of blatantly obvious stupidity–thus the reason none of these pretentious believers–virtually all meteorologists (except myself)–will discuss it.

    What is, in my opinion, and even more glaring shortcoming of this convection model of storm theory is what it fails to explain: 1) the spinning motion witnessed in storms, 2) the lateral flow associated with jet streams, and 3) vortices.

    Since the climate dopes have employed the same pseudoscientific methods that have been long championed by meteorologists, it is blatantly hypocritical for Ed Berry to be dumping on climate scientists who are doing nothing but following the example that Ed and all meteorologists have established a long time ago.

    Why Meteorology (Storm Theory) is a Cargo Cult Science

    James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

    1. Dear James,
      You have done a lot of handwaving about your theory of storms. But you have not produced any evidence to show how accepted meteorology is incorrect. Evidence means data. Yet, you have accused me and all credible meteorologists of being hypocritical.

      So, to back up your claims, can you show examples where the following meteorological textbooks have made errors that conflict with data?

      Hess: Introduction to Meteorology
      Fleagle and Businger: An Introduction to Atmospheric Physics
      Haltiner and Martin: Dynamic and Physical Meteorology
      Mason: The Physics of Clouds
      Salby: Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate
      Khvorostyanov and Curry: Thermodynamics, Kinetics, and Microphysics of Clouds

      Please be specific by referring to equations, paragraphs, and pages that disagree with your claims. When you have proven your competence, we and other visitors on this site can have a scientific discussion of your personal theories that contradict data and are therefore wrong.

      Surely, if you are competent, this task will be easy for you.

  16. This is the tactic all religions employ when confronted with skeptics. “Here is a bible. Prove to me that this is not the word if God. ”

    Sorry, but in science the burden of proof is on those that make extraordinary claims. I do not maintain that water turns gaseous at temperatures far below its known boiling temperature. You do. I do not maintain that dry air acts as a flat shield to contain upwelling moist air from below. You do. I do not maintain that latent heat somehow (magic I presume) causes the gusty winds of storms. You do.

    Of course you have zero chance of substantiating any of this. But that is not my problem. You believe it. Not me.

    Defend what you believe. Or admit what is plainly obvious–you have not thought about any of this since it was introduced to you as an undergrad.

    James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

    1. Dear James,

      The spam filter caught all your comments that followed my request that you detail your position so we could have a scientific conversation. The spam filter apparently rejected your comments after you began using “SOB” in your replies.

      Your reply above to my request demonstrates that you are a fraud. You claim, without proof, that I “believe” certain things that you disagree with. Likely, you are unable to understand any parts of the standard meteorological books I listed. I gave you the opportunity and you failed. You did not find anything in the six textbooks I listed to demonstrate your claims.

      You are a simply another moronic blowhard climate alarmist from San Jose, California, who does not understand science or meteorology or climate.

  17. Dr. Ed
    In trying to explain your preprint concept to a friend I happened onto what I think is good physical example. It was fairly easy for him to grasp. I wrote a letter to the Bozeman Chronicle but doubt they will print it. They rarely print mine that contest the consensus position. I share the LTE with you for your review:

    I recently saw an analysis of the effect of uncertainty in atmospheric CO2 flux , (https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/05/31/the-carbon-cycle-measurement-problem/), that confirms the the work of Professor Salby, Professor Harde and Dr. Barry showing that human emissions have little effect on the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. I thought of a reasonable example to illustrate this point.
    Suppose you have a very accurate gauging station on the Gallatin and another accurate gauge on Haylite Creek. You note that the increase in Haylite flow exceeds that for the Gallatin. Without knowing the other inflows and outflows you cannot assert that all of the increase in the Gallatin came from Haylite . Changes in Cottonwood Creek and Taylor Fork and all the others as well as the canal take outs make that assertion impossible. It is only valid to say the Haylite flow increase was larger than Gallatin increase. Even if the Gallatin flow had been nearly constant each year for the whole record and showed a small percent increase in the same years as Haylite’s increase you cannot conclude the increase was due only to the one well measured stream.
    The comparison with CO2 is obvious: We have good data showing fossil fuel emissions are larger than atmospheric increase but huge uncertainties in other much larger sources and all sinks. The referenced analysis concludes “ Therefore, the IPCC carbon cycle balance does not contain useful information that may be used to ascertain the impact of fossil fuel emissions on the carbon cycle or on the climate system.”
    In my words, the human addition to CO2 is lost in the natural CO2 cycle noise and its effect on global temperature is undetectable. The IPCC’s contention that all recent increases are human caused is indefensible. Reducing human emissions is all pain no gain.

    It was the use of the local drainage my friend was familiar with that helped him see how it has to work.

  18. Have we definitely agreed that the anthropogenic contribution is only 18 ppm while the natural emissions make up all of the remaining 392 ppm? To my thinking, until that proportion is agreed upon by all involved in the discussion/debate, the remainder of the article is simply speculation.
    Where have I gone 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.