by Ed Berry
The CO2 Coalition and Heartland Institute sold their souls to Greenpeace.
In what may be the most significant takeover of conservative climate leadership in America, the CO2 Coalition and the Heartland Institute appointed Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore as Chairman of the CO2 Coalition’s Board of Directors in May 2019, a position that also controls the Heartland Institute.
Patrick Moore, a far-left Trojan Horse, wasted no time in debasing these once conservative organizations and turning them into liberal WEF puppet groups that no longer stand for climate truth. Now, the CO2 Coalition and the Heartland Institute promote climate policies that resemble those of the IPCC, Our Children’s Trust, and WEF.
The CO2 Coalition leaders, including Patrick Moore, Will Happer, Richard Lindzen, and Gordon Fulks, reject Berry’s work and have barred Berry from participating in their discussions and programs, even though they have never identified an error in Berry’s work and conclusions.
Here, we trace their response to Berry’s work to their inability to understand basic climate physics and to their apparent intent to deceive President Trump and the world with their WEF climate propaganda.
The late Richard Courtney, a UK professional reviewer and climate scientist, made these comments in well-attended email conversations regarding Berry’s peer-reviewed publications.
To understand this post, you must follow the scientific issue: Berry’s 2019, 2021, and 2023 publications show that human CO2 emissions have very little effect on atmospheric CO2 levels. Berry’s finding is thereby a scientific basis to overturn all climate laws, regulations, taxes, and beliefs and to defeat all climate lawsuits.
Richard Courtney wrote in a public email discussion on November 21, 2019,
My 2008 paper, which you reference, says, “In light of the above considerations, the relatively large increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration in the twentieth century (some 30%) was likely caused by the preceding increase in mean temperature. The main cause may be desorption from the oceans. The observed half-century time lag is not surprising.”
Assessment of this conclusion requires a quantitative model of the carbon cycle, but – as previously explained – such a model cannot be constructed because the rate constants are not known for mechanisms operating in the carbon cycle.
Your “physics model” quantifies the anthropogenic and natural contributions to changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration without need for knowledge of rate constants for individual mechanisms. This is a breakthrough in understanding which Segalstadt, Harde, Salby and myself all failed to make.
Richard Courtney wrote on June 22, 2020,
Please note that the importance of the “physics model” of Ed Berry is that it removes the need for knowledge of the rate constants operating in the carbon cycle. I again say I think this is a breakthrough in understanding, which other workers and I failed to make.
Richard Courtney wrote on February 26, 2021,
The attribution model study we reported in 2005 is a caution to all IPCC recommendations because it demonstrates the rise in atmospheric CO2 may be entirely natural and suggests it is mostly natural.
We and others failed to confirm the conclusion above because we did not know the rate constants governing the carbon cycle.
The ‘Physics Model’ by Ed Berry overcomes the need to know the rate constants in the carbon cycle, and this is a breakthrough in understanding the cause of the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Richard Courtney wrote on September 13, 2021,
Importantly, Ed Berry builds on a finding in my paper to make a breakthrough in understanding (which I and others failed to make).
This has enabled him to assess the data in a way that quantifies the natural and anthropogenic contributions to the cause of the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration measured at Mauna Loa since 1958.
Enter Patrick Moore:
After leaving Greenpeace, Moore built his reputation on the claim that human CO2 stopped the decline in CO2 levels and thereby saved Earth and all living creatures from CO2 starvation. While this is a good story for a disaster movie, Moore isn’t about to let climate science damage his reputation or business.
Moore first learned of Berry’s work in 2019 and immediately told his many Twitter followers that “Berry is a fraud” because his work contradicts Moore’s belief that human CO2 caused all the CO2 increase.
Here is Moore’s physics-deprived background:
PhD, Ecology, Institute of Resource Ecology, University of British Columbia, 1974, co-founder and 15-year leader of Greenpeace, nine years President of Greenpeace Canada, seven years Director of Greenpeace International, 15-year Greenpeace policy leader who helped make Greenpeace the world’s largest environmental activist organization, leader of the “Principles of Sustainable Forestry” adopted by a majority of the industry, Chair of Environmental Studies at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy in 2014, an independent ecologist/environmentalist with Ecosense Environmental Inc.
Moore will never agree that Climate Assumptions (1) and (2) are false and the Climate Equivalence Principle (CEP) is true because those truths contradict his fundamental beliefs. As an eco-freak, he follows his emotions rather than good science.
The old Heartland Institute would have asked Berry to make a scientific presentation at its conferences. But under Moore, this is forbidden. They don’t allow any discussion of science that contradicts the beliefs of the CO2 Coalition’s leaders.
Here’s Patrick Moore’s arrogant 2021 email against Berry’s proof that CEP is true and Assumption (1) is false in a well-attended email debate:
From: Patrick Moore <pmoore@ecosense.me>
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2021, 10:19 AM
Subject: Re: [GWR] Origin of Atmospheric CO2: Answer to EdPlease take a hike Ed. I am beyond tired of your gobbledegook. This, for example “I do not need to provide you with evidence to explain how nature caused most of the CO2 increase”.
What is there in science beyond “evidence”, leading to deduction, leading to conclusions?
Your invocation of Einstein is pure conceit.
Sayonara.
Cheers, Patrick Moore
Reversing the scientific method, Moore thinks it is impossible to prove an assumption is false without providing an alternative assumption.
Moore calls Berry’s explanation of the scientific method “pure conceit” because Berry happened to learn the scientific method at Dartmouth College from John Kemeny, who learned it when he worked as a mathematician for Albert Einstein.
Patrick Moore made this public proclamation about Berry’s publications:
I am sorry to see this fraudulent argument continuing. Humans are responsible for most of the CO2 increase since large-scale use of fossil fuel began. In a bit more than 100 years, human emissions have bumped it back up to 400+ ppm, restoring a balance in the global carbon cycle.
The vast majority of new carbon going into the atmosphere as CO2 is from fossil fuel combustion and cement production, with other minor components. Very little new CO2 is added from natural sources.
Human CO2 emissions are entirely beneficial and in fact have saved life on Earth from any untimely demise due to declining CO2 which would eventually have dropped to levels that were below the threshold for plant survival.
One thing we do know is that only about 50% of our annual emissions, all of which go into the atmosphere, remain in the atmosphere as measured by the annual increase in atmospheric CO2.
What I know is there is no other new source of CO2 being added to the atmosphere anywhere near as large as human emissions.
Here’s my rebuttal to Moore’s proclamations:
Dear Patrick,
Restating your belief that human CO2 causes most of the CO2 increase avoids the science. Then you simply claim that human CO2 caused the increase in about 100 years.
To proceed with proper science, you must first acknowledge that your claim is an assumption.
You claim that natural CO2 inflow has remained constant, but that’s an assumption. You don’t know how much new carbon comes from natural sources. It is impossible to measure because no measurement can separate human from natural carbon atoms or CO2 molecules.
You say human CO2 emissions are beneficial, but that is irrelevant to this discussion. Until you can prove that human CO2 caused almost all the CO2 increase and that the natural CO2 level would have decreased, you have no basis to argue that human CO2 saved the planet.
You have no data that shows that half of human CO2 emissions stay in the atmosphere. The increase itself is not evidence that human CO2 caused it.
However, my 2023 paper explains how Delta 14C data show that human CO2 makes up less than about 3% of atmospheric CO2. This is a very simple proof that your belief is wrong.
Marilyn vos Savant wrote about such scientists:
What is surprising is not that most scientists are wrong, but in how fiercely they defend being wrong.
Below are some irrational comments by other CO2 Coalition members in a 2022 email debate about Berry (2021), followed by my rebuttals.
Greg Wrightstone:
The water level in a tub with equal inflows and outflows will remain the same (analogous to natural CO2).
If we add a small, additional anthropogenic inflow, the rise in the water level will be entirely due to the additional anthropogenic inflow.
I reply to Greg Wrightstone as follows:
Congratulations, Greg. Your first sentence is correct, but your second sentence does not follow the same physics as your first sentence. Your small anthropogenic inflow will independently move toward a balance level set by its inflow. That’s the part that you miss.
Roy Spencer:
I can’t believe there are still people who don’t realize that humans can theoretically be responsible for 100% of the CO2 rise, while the fraction of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere remains quite small.
It’s because of the huge surface reservoir combined with very large natural fluxes in and out of the surface.
The residence time of a single CO2 molecule can be very short, yet all of the rise of total atmospheric CO2 be due to anthropogenic emissions.
If you have a very large tub of water with water flowing in and out at exactly the same rate, the water level remains the same. But if you then add another, much weaker source of inflow, the water level will rise, even though over the long term most of the water molecules you added went down the drain. It’s not rocket science.
I reply to Roy Spencer as follows:
It’s rocket science to you, Roy, because your physics is wrong.
Like Greg, you miss the part about how your small anthropogenic inflow will independently move toward a balance level set by its inflow. According to the CEP, human carbon flows through the carbon cycle using the same e-times as natural carbon.
David Wojick:
The huge natural CO2 flux causes roughly 25% of the atmospheric molecules to be replaced every year, including our emitted molecules. Thus, the percentage and mass of our molecules is indeed small compared to that of the total CO2 increase since 1750.
However, it does not follow that our emissions have not caused that increase, especially since the annual increase is considerably smaller than our annual emissions. It could just be that our molecules first cause the increase then are replaced by natural molecules in the great flux.
I am not saying we have caused the increase, just that it is possible, and this study does not change that.
I reply to David Wojick as follows:
David, your first sentence says only that the e-time for CO2 to flow out of the atmosphere is 4 years. But e-time is irrelevant to whether human CO2 is the dominant cause of the CO2 increase because natural and human CO2 have the same e-time.
So, nothing follows from your first paragraph, and your second paragraph makes no sense at all.
Your last paragraph shows you do not understand the carbon cycle, which is very simple for those who understand flow models.
Dave Burton wrote in 2022 (summarized because Burton’s extensive details change nothing):
Total human CO2 inflow since 1958 = 180 ppm. The total CO2 increase is 100 ppm. So, nature removed 80 ppm.
Therefore, nature could not have caused the CO2 increase because it was busy removing CO2 from the atmosphere.
I reply to Dave Burton as follows:
Dear Dave, I will apply your argument to natural CO2 to show that it’s nonsense.
According to IPCC data, to maintain the 280 ppm level, natural CO2 inflow into the atmosphere from land is 108 GtC per year and from the surface ocean is s 60 GtC per year, for a total inflow of 168 GtC per year.
So, for the 68 years since 1958, the total natural inflow was 11,424 GtC. Dividing by 2.12 turns these GtC into 5,389 ppm, which is 29.937 times greater than your human 180 ppm.
In other words, your total human inflow is only about 3% of total natural inflow since 1958.
So, your argument that the human added 3% has become 33% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is irrational.
Summary
The Climate Equivalence Principle (CEP) says human and natural CO2 flow through the carbon cycle independently and with the same time constants. Berry’s CEP and resulting carbon-cycle model are, according to Richard Courtney, the most important climate-science breakthroughs since 1980.
The CO2 Coalition and the Heartland Institute have blocked this critical information from the public.
All climate alarmism rests on the IPCC’s science fiction that human CO2 takes much longer to leave the atmosphere than natural CO2. This claim violates the CEP and proves wrong the CO2 Coalition’s position on climate change.
See Climate Miracle p19 and https://edberry.com/the-cep-changes-everything-about-climate/
Previous Comments:
DMA says:It is unfortunate that so many really good scientists have made this mistake. I hope you are wrong about the results of the coming lawsuits and agree that your proposed defense is far better. Before I heard of Salby or you I was skeptical of our emissions controlling the concentration.
A question I asked over 10 years ago and haven’t got an acceptable answer yet. We are told the increase in atmosphere CO2 is entirely anthropogenic because it is less than our emissions. I point out the atmospheric growth rate doesn’t seem to be dependent on the emissions rate. So I ask my question:
What is the mechanism that controls the absorption of our variable rate emissions so just enough of this years emissions are left to maintain the linear atmospheric growth rate?According to https://climatechangetracker.org/co2/human-induced-yearly-co2-emissions our emissions have flattened out for about 10 years. According to http://www.climate4you.com/ atmospheric concentration has grown linearly.Until that question can be answered I think it is reasonable to accept Salby’s explanation that the anthropogenic emissions are such a small part of the flux they are lost in the noise of the measurements. That is, I think, compatible with your more detailed work.Reply
Dr. Ed says:
- Dear DMA,
Let’s ask a slightly different question.
Rather than ask for the mechanism that absorbs our emissions, let’s ask if we can write a physics equation that describes the absorption of our emissions. This is the equation for outflow.
Outflow = Level / e-time
Then we derive the balance level where outflow equals inflow. This changes this equation to:
Inflow = Balance Level / e-time
or
Balance Level = Inflow * e-time
Therefore, the inflow of human CO2 into the atmosphere sets a balance level. If inflow is constant, the level will move to the balance level where outflow equals inflow, and then the level will remain constant. This describes how IPCC’s level of natural CO2 can remain constant at 280 ppm.
A first-order approximation to calculating the human CO2 balance level is:
Human balance level = Natural balance level * (human inflow / natural inflow)
where the e-times cancel out because they are identical.
Inserting numbers, we get:
Human balance level = 280 ppm * ( 3 / 97) = 8.7 ppm
CEP tells us that human and natural carbon and CO2 follow the same rules.
because the latest data show human inflow is 3% and natural inflow is 97%
Bob Williams says:
- For those of us without your background, this may be an ignorant suggestion but would it be possible to produce an experiment with a large enclosed container that had 4 entrances placing CO2 into the container at the rate for each of the input sources and an outflow for the CO2 based on the estimated CO2 half life with the human input percent for each input source labelled using C14 as the marker for Human CO2? Then show that after X # of days the ratio of human CO2 to other sources remains steady. Thus, showing its half life is exactly the same as natural CO2. I am assuming that C14 would not change the rate of exit. I do not know if this is true.
I think models that can be visualized by the average person are useful in persuasion like your buckets discussion. But doing it with the actual gases could be helpful. The experiment is static of course and could be attacked as not representative of the real world and climate dynamics but it could show that all CO2 is treated the same as far as a constant input and output. Not my field of study as my degrees are in chemistry and pharmacy. Thanks for you response.
Regards
BobReply
Dear Bob,I do not understand your proposed experiment, but here are some comments anyway:If we put human and natural CO2 in the same container, we can’t measure their relative total masses because we can’t measure whether a CO2 is human or natural.But, suppose we have two identical tanks and two chambers. We make one chamber mostly natural CO2 by growing trees, and the other chamber mostly human CO2 by burning candles or gasoline.Then we could pump human CO2 into one tank and natural CO2 into the other. We set the pressure in each tank to the same value. Then, we have a preinstalled small valve that we can open on each tank. We open the two valves simultaneously and record the pressure in each tank as a function of time.Since human and natural CO2 are identical, I would expect the pressure in each tank to decrease at exactly the same rate.
CO2 level in the atmosphere is controlled by this differential equation:
dCO2/dt = Inflow – Outflow
The solution to this differential equation is the basis of Dr. Berry’s model. If someone can provide a different differential equation that describes carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere that makes any sense, then please do. A model with different eTimes for natural and human carbon does not make any physical sense. The CO2 Coalition somehow does not understand this.