|

CO2 Coalition and Heartland censor good science.

Ed Berry, PhD, Theoretical Physics, CCM

The IPCC claims these three (false) theories are true:

  1. Human CO2 causes most of the increase in atmospheric CO2 above 280 ppm.
  2. The CO2 increase above 280 ppm causes most of the global warming.
  3. This global warming causes dangerous climate change.

To read Berry (2021) and (2023) and his debate with Andrews (2023) click here: Berry Vs Andrews On Theory (1) (edberry.com)

Berry (2019, 2021, 2023) proves IPCC Theory (1) is false. The CO2 Coalition and Heartland Institute claim IPCC Theory (1) is true. But rather than learn from Berry, the CO2 Coalition and Heartland Institute attack, censor, and blacklist Berry.

None of the CO2 Coalition critiques (examples below) of Berry (2019, 2021, 2023) are even relevant. They have not hit the ball over the net, yet they think they have won the game. They have not read Berry’s papers. They merely critique his conclusion without understanding his argument. That is inexcusable bad science.

Steven Koonin’s book Unsettled repeats this IPCC scientific error (page 68).

Carbon dioxide is the single human-caused greenhouse gas with the largest influence on the climate. But it is of greatest concern also because it persists in the atmosphere/surface cycle for a very long time. About 60 percent of any CO2 emitted today will remain in the atmosphere twenty years from now, between 30 and 55 percent will still be there after a century, and between 15 and 30 percent will remain after one thousand years.

The simple fact that carbon dioxide lasts a long time in the atmosphere is a fundamental impediment to reducing human influences on the climate. Any emission adds to the concentration, which keeps increasing as long as emissions continue. In other words, CO2 is not like smog, which disappears a few days after you stop emissions; it takes centuries for the excess carbon dioxide to vanish from the atmosphere. So modest reductions in CO2 emissions would only slow the increase in concentration but not prevent it. Just to stabilize the CO2 concentration, and hence its warming influence, global emissions would have to vanish.

I would be happy if someone found a significant error in my papers, but so far, no challenger even understands my papers.

Read Berry’s papers and his debate with Andrews (2023) who provides a much better counter argument than anyone from the CO2 Coalition has written. Berry Vs Andrews On Theory (1) (edberry.com)

All the challengers, CO2 Coalition and Andrews, are wrong because they don’t get these critical points:

  1. The only hypothesis Berry uses to make his conclusions, and the IPCC uses the same hypothesis, is Outflow = Level / e-time
  2. That hypothesis means we can and should calculate the human and natural carbon cycles independently.
  3. He uses IPCC’s natural carbon cycle data and everything after that is deductive. Will Happer has checked Berry’s calculations.
  4. The independence of human and natural carbon cycles nullifies every critique so far made of Berry’s papers and makes it easy to understand Berry’s conclusion.
  5. Most who have critiqued Berry’s papers do not understand how to use distributions. Berry pioneered using distributions in cloud physics in the 1960s and 1970s. Here he uses distributions of CO2, not molecules of CO2.
  6. Berry’s paper is a breakthrough in climate change physics because it proves a key theory is wrong.

Those speaking for the CO2 Coalition’s invalid belief in IPCC’s Theory (1) include Patrick Moore, Gregory Wrightstone, and David Wojick, none of them physicists. Dave Burton of the CO2 Coalition speaks for himself.

Patrick Moore, CO2 Coalition

Patrick Moore, ecologist, co-founder of Greenpeace, was 9 years President of Greenpeace Canada and 7 years a Director of Greenpeace International. After leaving Greenpeace, Moore based his scientific reputation on his Greenpeace belief that IPCC’s Theory (1) is true and, therefore, he concludes, human carbon emissions saved life on Earth. Nice fairy tale for the kids but not good science.

Moore has a conflict of interest when he claims without a rational scientific argument that Berry’s papers are a “fraud.” As a director of the CO2 Coalition and a senior fellow at The Heartland Institute, Moore promotes false climate science to support his unproven idea the Theory (1) is true.

Patrick Moore wrote on April 22, 2017:

CO2 had been slowly declining for 140 million years, from 2,000-2,500 ppm down to 180 ppm at the height if the last glaciation 18,000 years ago.

Since then it had rebounded to 280 ppm due to outgassing from the oceans as they warmed into the Holocene interglacial.

In 100 years, human emissions have increased CO2 to 400+ ppm, restoring a balance the global carbon cycle. Humans are responsible for most of the CO2 increase since large-scale use of fossil fuel began. Very little new CO2 is added from natural sources.

Human CO2 emissions saved life on Earth from demise due to declining CO2 which would have dropped to levels below the threshold for plant survival.

But in Patrick Moore’s world, if you publish a scientific paper that contradicts his beliefs, then you are a fraud and you deserve to be censored and blacklisted. Patrick Moore is a nutcase who leads the thinking in the CO2 Coalition.

Patrick Moore wrote the following about Berry’s work:

  1. 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.
  2.  In a bit more than 100 years human emissions have bumped it back up to 400+ ppm, restoring a balance the global carbon cycle.
  3.  The error (falsehood) in Salby’s et al. position is that the CO from burning fossil fuels is an addition to the carbon in the carbon cycle. The annual cycling of carbon from plants growing in the spring to dying in the fall is already in the cycle.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. What I know is there is no other new source of CO2 being added to the atmosphere anywhere near as large as human emissions.

Moore is anti-science because:

  1. Moore claims Berry’s work is a fraud when he cannot show there is any error in Berry’s papers.
  2. Moore claims human CO2 caused all the CO2 increase but he rejects evidence that he is wrong.
  3. Salby makes no such error as Moore claims.
  4. Moore has no evidence that “very little new CO2 is added from natural sources” and he rejects evidence that proves him wrong.
  5. Moore repeats his mantra that human CO2 saved the planet, but he rejects evidence that natural CO2 saved the planet.
  6. Moore makes claims that conflict with IPCC’s data without showing where IPCC’s data is wrong.
  7. Moore makes claims that conflict with IPCC’s own data as shown by Berry.

Moore summarized his scientific argument against Berry (2021) in his closing remark in a GWR email debate on February 24, 2021,

“Please take a hike Ed. I am beyond tired of your gobbledegook.”

Now you know why the Heartland Institute did not ask Berry to present his breakthrough research at its climate conferences. Berry would have explained his breakthrough research to the audience. Moore has destroyed the science reputation of the Heartland Institute.

The CO2 Coalition and the Heartland Institute have morphed into groupthinks that support Patrick Moore’s invalid Greenpeace interpretation of physics. Like the climate alarmist groupthinks, they censor and blacklist good science.

Gregory Wrightstone, CO2 Coalition

Replies by Ed Berry are in blue.

Berry (2021) is a quite appealing theory, but also, I believe to be quite wrong. The rise of atmospheric CO2 levels is easily explained by increasing man-made emissions.

I have not spoken with all of the 110 members of the CO2 Coalition about this subject, but all of those who I have communicated with agree with me, including names held in very high regard.

The CO2 Coalition has not published on this matter as yet, as we don’t want to get into a public squabble or internecine warfare between allies.

The leadership and many of our top scientists disagree strongly with the science and conclusions presented here.

We have attempted to have meaningful scientific discussions over the last several months on this matter.

Below are some comments from a couple of our top scientists (who are respected and well-known) who may weigh in on their own, but will remain nameless here:

“A simple CO2 budget model using anthropogenic emissions does an excellent job of explaining the Mauna Loa CO2 variations during 1959-2021.”

First, what is Greg’s “top scientists” supposed to mean? Berry is a “top scientist.” His PhD thesis was a breakthrough in cloud physics. His climate papers are a breakthrough in climate science. So, let’s not play this “top scientists” game. Focus on debating the science.

Greg’s explanations contradict physics. Greg uses the invalid “authority” argument. His simple CO2 budget model flunks physics. The CO2 Coalition has publicly argued against Berry (2021), as Greg does here, but never on Berry’s website because they know Berry will win if they try to debate him.

The CO2 Coalition has not “attempted to have meaningful scientific discussions.” No CO2 Coalition member has presented a meaningful physics argument against Berry’s paper.

AND

“Ed’s analysis is, in my opinion, quite wrong. He continues to confuse:

  1. the fraction of the atmospheric CO2 molecules which actually originated from fossil fuel burning (which, as he correctly says, is very small, because they are continually recycled and so ‘diluted’ with the huge amount of ‘natural’ CO2 molecules), with
  2. the excess CO2 in the atmosphere due to the human input.

Berry does not confuse. Greg’s arguments are totally junk physics.

Greg’s problem is he is not a good physicist. He doed not understand Berry (2021). He correctly formulates the physics of IPCC carbon cycle.

Those who argue against Berry (2021) are professionally bound to first read Berry (2021) and then reference their argument to something specific in Berry (2021). Their argument flunks physics.

 Wrightstones’ TUB OF WATER ANALOGY:

An example I use is a giant tub of water with large inflows and outflows which are equal (this is analogous to the natural state of flows of CO2 through the atmosphere). The water level in the tub will remain the same.

Then, add a small, additional ‘anthropogenic’ inflow. The water level will slowly rise over time, but most of the actual ‘anthropogenic’ water molecules that were added will have gone down the drain, due to the large rate of replacement of the water in the tub.

Nevertheless, the rise in the water level is entirely due to the additional anthropogenic inflow.”

OMG! That is the stupidest argument of all. It truly flunks physics. Read Berry’s papers to learn how to model carbon flow.

Wrightstone writes,

“Absolutely yes. Berry purposefully confuses stocks with flows.

“The only way “natural CO2″ in the atmosphere could increase over a short time period is if global biomass decreased by an equal amount. Human CO2 emissions are a 100% new addition whereas natural CO2 is in a cycle in and out.

“Unlike living photosynthetic species, fossil fuel combustion does not have a countervailing absorption of CO2 like plants do when they grow.

“Of course, over longer time periods such as the glaciation cycles in the Pleistocene, oceanic CO2 is cyclically outgassed and absorbed by the oceans, thus resulting in greater or lesser amounts in the atmosphere.

“It’s pretty simple once you make a clear delineation between stocks and flows. I compare it to a balance sheet versus a cash flow statement in finance.”

The above Coalition argument proves the Coalition does not understand physics. Greg says “it’s simple” but he over complicates the problem. Berry (2021) accurately describes how carbon flows through the carbon cycle. The Coalition does not understand Berry (2021).  

They say Berry “purposely confused stocks and flows.” First, the systems engineering term is “levels” not “stocks.” Second, they have not shown where Berry (2021) makes their claimed mistake. Third, even a quick review of Berry (2021) quickly finds Berry’s precise formulations of levels and flows for his systems model. In fact, Berry’s formulation of IPCC’s carbon cycle math may be the first time any scientist showed this proper math.

Where have all the good scientists gone?

Let’s summarize Wrightstone’s claims:

  1. The rise of atmospheric CO2 levels is easily explained by increasing man-made emissions.
  2. The CO2 Coalition has not published on this matter as yet, as we don’t want to get into a public squabble or internecine warfare between allies.
  3. The leadership and many of our top scientists disagree strongly with the science and conclusions presented here [by Berry (2021)].
  4. We have attempted to have meaningful scientific discussions over the last several months on this matter.
  5. A simple CO2 budget model using anthropogenic emissions does an excellent job of explaining the Mauna Loa CO2 variations during 1959-2021.”
  6. He continues to confuse the fraction of the atmospheric CO2 molecules which actually originated from fossil fuel burning with the excess CO2 in the atmosphere due to the human input.
  7. THE TUB OF WATER ANALOGY: 
    An example I use is a giant tub of water with large inflows and outflows which are equal (this is analogous to the natural state of flows of CO2 through the atmosphere). The water level in the tub will remain the same. 
    Then, add a small, additional ‘anthropogenic’ inflow. The water level will slowly rise over time, but most of the actual ‘anthropogenic’ water molecules that were added will have gone down the drain, due to the large rate of replacement of the water in the tub.
    Nevertheless, the rise in the water level is entirely due to the additional anthropogenic inflow.”
  8. Berry purposefully confuses stocks with flows. The only way “natural CO2″ in the atmosphere could increase over a short time period is if global biomass decreased by an equal amount.
  9. Human CO2 emissions are a 100% new addition whereas natural CO2 is in a cycle in and out. Unlike living photosynthetic species, fossil fuel combustion does not have a countervailing absorption of CO2 like plants do when they grow.
  10. It’s pretty simple once you make a clear delineation between stocks and flows.

Berry replies to Wrightstone’s ten statements:

  1. The rise of atmospheric CO2 levels is NOT easily explained by increasing man-made emissions and the CO2 Coalition has not shown any such argument in a debatable form.
  2. Science discussions and debates can be productive to science. The problem is the CO2 Coalition is not be open to the possibility that it may be wrong.
  3. In science, votes don’t count. Only good scientific arguments count. But the CO2 Coalition has not provided even one good scientific argument on Berry (2021).
  4. You have NOT attempted to have meaningful scientific discussions over the last several months on this matter.
  5. No, a simple CO2 budget model using anthropogenic emissions does NOT properly explain the Mauna Loa CO2 variations during 1959-2021, and you have not provided any such explanation that we can discuss.
  6. Anyone who understands Berry (2021) will understand it does not make the confusion that CO2 Coalition claims. Berry (2021) is one of the few papers that properly explains the effects of natural and human CO2 on atmospheric CO2. This CO2 Coalition claim shows its members do not understand simple physics.
  7. THE TUB OF WATER ANALOGY: 
    The general description of your analogy matches that used by Berry (2021). However, the CO2 Coalition’s conclusion, “Nevertheless, the rise in the water level is entirely due to the additional anthropogenic inflow,” does NOT follow from its premises. The CO2 Coalition flunks physics 101 and logic 101. It does not understand the valid physics in Berry (2021).
  8. The word “purposefully” shows a strong emotional bias by the CO2 Coalition. Berry (2021) does not confuse “stocks with flows.” Rather, the CO2 Coalition does not understand how to formulate a valid systems model where levels set flows and flow set new levels. The CO2 Coalition claims, “The only way “natural CO2″ in the atmosphere could increase over a short time period is if global biomass decreased by an equal amount.” That is not a valid claim, and it shows the CO2 Coalition does not understand physics.
  9. The claim, “Human CO2 emissions are a 100% new addition whereas natural CO2 is in a cycle in and out,” matches how Berry (2021) calculates the effect of human CO2, although Berry describes this much better than the CO2 Coalition. The claim, “Unlike living photosynthetic species, fossil fuel combustion does not have a countervailing absorption of CO2 like plants do when they grow,” shows the CO2 Coalition fundamentally misunderstands how to calculate the effect of human CO2.
  10. The CO2 Coalition does not delineate between human and natural carbon. Therefore, the CO2 Coalition is wrong about Berry (2021) and science.

David Wojick, CO2 Coalition 

  1. No doubt the IPCC is wrong but there are skeptical climate scientists that do not accept Ed Berry’s argument, including me.
  2. In my case it is not the calculations, but the conclusion that is the problem. Given the huge natural CO2 flux it is indeed true that the remaining mass of our emissions is much less than the total mass of the CO2 increase.
  3. But it simply does not follow that this small fraction is the fraction of our causality. Causality is not that simple.
  4. My view is that we have no idea what is causing the CO2 increase, because we have no information of the specific behavior of the myriad natural sources and sinks, on land and in the oceans, that in combination create the huge flux. We also do not know what happens to the molecules while they are in the air.
  5. For example, there is evidence that most of our emitted molecules are absorbed locally and never make it into the general atmospheric reservoir. Or maybe they do. Some scientists argue that the warming ocean is causing the increase.
  6. We might be causing all of the increase or none of it, or something in between, such as along the lines of Ed Berry’s argument.
  7. There are plausible arguments for many possibilities, so I think we simply do not know.
  8. These myriad natural emissions and absorptions are each collectively 20 times our emissions and so big that about 25% of the atmospheric CO2 is exchanged every year.
  9. None are measured. This is the huge CO2 flux and since nothing is measured or tracked, we have no idea why the concentration is increasing.
  10. Because about 25% of the atmospheric CO2 is removed and replaced every year the half-life residence time of our emitted molecules is less than 3 years. Almost all is gone in 6 to 8 years. There is a big literature on this. The replacement math gets hairy.
  11. The common saying that only about 50% gets removed is confusing the ratio of the increase to our emissions with the flux. The increase is presently about 50% of our emissions but almost 100% of our molecules are gone in 8 years or less.
  12. That the increase is a buildup of our emissions is a useful (to the alarmists) falsehood. The reality is nothing like that.
  13. I have no quarrel with his calculations, but they do not prove his conclusion.
  14. I can describe a case where our emitted molecules cause the entire increase, but they are then replaced by natural molecules in the flux, giving his numbers.
  15. I am not saying this is what happens, just that we do not know that it does not happen, so his conclusion does not follow from his calculations.
  16. The point is one of logic, which happens to be my field, especially the logic of scientific reasoning.

Berry’s reply

David’s logic of scientific reasoning misses the critical physics in Berry’s papers. He is not even in the ballpark. He scores zero out of 16 points. All his points are garbage-in, garbage out. GIGO. David’s logic fails because he does not connect his logic to the problem. He did not read Berry’s papers before he wrote his critique. Yes, Berry’s calculations do prove Berry’s conclusion.

Go here to read what Berry wrote: Berry Vs Andrews On Theory (1) (edberry.com)

David Wojick, CO2 Coalition on WUWT

January 16, 2022, 10:01 am

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.

My view is that we have no idea why the increase is happening, because we are neither measuring the myriad natural emissions or the natural absorptions, nor tracking our molecules in the atmosphere. There is even evidence that most of our molecules never get out of the boundary layer into the general atmosphere.

In short there are several hypotheses as to what the mechanism of the CO2 increase is and we do not know which, if any, is true.

Berry’s reply

David has not read Berry’s paper. David’s argument fails physics. David presents painfully poor arguments that demonstrate he does not understand what he is talking about.

Dave Burton, CO2 Coalition member

Ed, I am a CO2 Coalition member. I do not speak for anyone except myself, but I am confident that at least 90% of the other CO2 Coalition members would agree what I (and Ferdinand, Richard, and others), have explained.

We have sufficiently precise data (I’m using 2021 numbers) from which we know, beyond serious dispute, that since 1958.

  • Mankind has added about 180 ppmv of CO2 to the atmosphere [from coal, oil & natural gas, and concrete].
  • The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by about 101 ppmv.
  • The difference is (1440 – 808) = 632 Gt = 79 ppmv CO2.

That’s the net sum of all the non-anthropogenic CO2 fluxes, in both directions: a net removal of 79 ppmv of CO2 from the atmosphere. (“Non-anthropogenic” is what we call “nature.”)

Mankind added 180 ppmv of CO2 to the atmosphere. But the measured increase is only 101 ppmv.

So, nature removed (180 – 101) = 79 ppmv.

Therefore, Nature has reduced (not increased!) the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by a net sum of 79 ppmv since 1958. 

That means claims – that nature is responsible for any part of the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration since 1958 – are wrong.

Berry replies to Dave Burton as follows:

Dear Dave.

You show data, since 1958, as follows:

  • total human carbon emissions were 180 ppmv
  • atmospheric CO2 has increased by 101 ppmv
  • The difference (180 – 101) is 79 ppmv

No problem so far, but then you say,

“So, nature removed (180 – 101) = 79 ppmv”

Your conclusion is not a logical consequence of your three bullets.

Please go here to see the Berry (2023) rebuttal to your argument: Berry Vs Andrews On Theory (1) (edberry.com)

You unknowingly assumed that human CO2 caused all the increase to “prove” human CO2 caused all the increase, which is circular reasoning. Otherwise, there is no logical reason to subtract 101 from 180.

Based on your estimate that at least 90% of the CO2 Coalition members agree with you, we can conclude at least 90% of the CO2 Coalition members are incompetent in physics.

Ed

Ferdinand Engelbeen

January 16, 2022, 11:48 am

Why do skeptics always look at a balance as only income and zero expenses?

The human contribution is currently about 5% of the inputs, but 0% of the outputs.
Natural inputs are 95%, but natural outputs are 97.5% of all inputs.
The difference of 2.5% is what (temporarily) remains in the atmosphere, (near) completely caused by human emissions, not by nature, as that is more sink than source…

That is what one calls the carbon mass balance. with BOTH sides of the balance!

Berry replies to Ferdinand Engelbeen

Your comment does not apply to my papers. I invite you to read my papers before you comment.

Berry Vs Andrews On Theory (1) (edberry.com)

Roy W Spencer, CO2 Coalition

January 16, 2022, 7:05 am

I can’t believe there are still people (e.g. these authors) 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 then you add another, much weaker source of inflow, the water level will rise, even though over the long term most of the actual molecules of water you added went down the drain. It’s not rocket science.

Berry replies to Roy Spencer

It might as well be rocket-science because you do not understand it. It’s painful to see a good scientist like you make such bad claims in public. You should have read Berry’s paper before you commented.

In summary, the CO2 Coalition has not shown there is any significant error in Berry (2021).

The CO2 Coalition continues to claim IPCC’s’ theory (1) is true, even though Berry has proven the CO2 Coalition’s core argument is wrong.

Until someone shows there is a significant error in Berry (2021), there is no scientific basis to claim IPCC’s theory (1) is true.
Post Views: 1,600

54 Comments

  1. Dear Doug,
    Again, if you are just trying to convince yourself, choose what you wish. But if your job is convince a judge or jury, it is best to try to prove all three IPCC theories are wrong.
    Ed

    Reply

    1. The plaintiffs have never been able to prove their weak case because there is nothing that they assert that has anything to do with CO₂. A warming planet is the only thing that they have to try to ‘prove’ that an increase in CO₂ is responsible for, and that is ludicrous because it discounts that bright orb in the sky that is 99.86% of all of the mass of the entire Solar System, the Sun.
      “Averaged over all land and ocean surfaces, temperatures warmed roughly 1.53°F (0.85ºC) from 1880 to 2012, according to theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (see page 3 of the IPCC’sClimate Change 2013:”
      https://www2.ucar.edu/news/how-much-has-global-temperature-risen-last-100-years

      Since 1850, the average global temperature has risen by approximately 0.76⁰C or 1.37⁰F since the start of the Industrial Revolution. 1.37⁰F in 170 years doesn’t seem like runaway warming of the planet that is not caused by any increase in that amount of the essential for all terrestrial life on Earth, the trace gas, CO₂.

      “Average global temps
      In the 1880s: 56.7 F.
      1920s to 1980s: 57.2 F.
      Circa 2000 to 2010: 58.1 F.
      These are not ‘hot’ temps. Below 60 degrees most people start putting on sweaters and jackets. At 58⁰F in your living room you’re probably gonna turn up the heat! It is a good temp for longer term wine storage”.
      https://www.iceagenow.info/temperatures-have-been-falling-for-8000-years/
      58.1⁰F – 56.7⁰F = 1.4 ⁰F in 130 years is nothing to wreak a nation’s economy over, unless that is the climate alarmist plan.

      This is a record of the Earth’s temperature compiled during the last 30 years from all over the planet and below are the results of that study—the Earth’s temperature is dropping while the amount of CO₂ in the Earth’s atmosphere is increasing.
      The Earth’s Temperature
      Currently: 56.59°F/13.66°C
      Deviation: -0.61°F/-0.34°C
      Stations processed last hour: 69051
      Last station processed: Valparaiso, United States
      Update time: 2022-08-24 08:46:27 UTC
      http://www.temperature.global/

      Reply

    2. If there are those that really want to ‘believe’ that it is the trace gas CO₂, [Aug. 21, 2022 416.35 ppm] that is essential for all terrestrial life on the Earth, that causes the Earth’s climate to change or its temperature to increase, then I ask them to apply logic and explain how it could be possible for this trace gas, CO₂, that is 1.6 times heavier than the atmosphere that it is in; so, it does what heavy things do, and CO₂ sinks out of the atmosphere to be used by the plant life that MUST have CO₂ to exist and grow, or it is taken up by water. This is a system that has been in force since the Earth was formed over 4.5 billion years ago and now somehow it is being questioned, how can that be?

      How can anyone use logic to explain how this small amount of a trace gas, CO₂, can do everything that some are now trying to say that it has the power to cause; such as causing the Earth’s climate to change and the Earth’s temperature to rise in unusual manners?

      A part per million is like 1 drop of ink in a large kitchen sink.
      A large kitchen sink is about 13-14 gallons. There are 100 drops in one teaspoon, and 768 teaspoons per gallon.
      Some other things that are one part per million are…
      One drop in the fuel tank of a mid-sized car
      One inch in 16 miles
      About one minute in two years
      One car in a line of bumper-to-bumper traffic from Cleveland to San Francisco.
      One penny in $10,000.
      I know that you understand that these additional ppm of CO₂ are spread out over this 16 miles in different one inch segments and wouldn’t it be a task to be told to sort out the 416 pennies from the number that it would take to make up $10,000.
      At 416 parts per million, CO₂ is a minor constituent of earth’s atmosphere– less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth’s current atmosphere is CO₂ impoverished.

      Let’s picture this in another way to really get an idea of the scale of CO₂ compared to the total atmosphere. The Eiffel Tower in Paris is 324 meters high (1063ft). If the height of the Eiffel Tower represented the total size of the atmosphere then the natural level of CO₂ would be 8.75 centimeters of that height (3.4 inches) and the amount added by humans up until today would be an extra 3.76 centimeters (1.5 inches)

      Thus, the 3.2 trillion tons of CO₂ in today’s 5.5 quadrillion ton atmosphere represents 6.3kg of CO₂ above each square metre of Earth, which perhaps doesn’t sound a lot. If it covered the planet in a film of dry ice, it would be just 3.7mm thick.

      Quote by Klaus P. Heiss, formerly of Princeton University and Mathematica, space engineer, NASA, the US Atomic Energy Commission, Office of Naval Research, International Astronautics Academy: “The 20th Century increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continuously. Man-made CO2 grew exponentially; however, global temperatures fell between 1940 and 1975, during the time span as the global industrial production almost exploded….The entire atmospheric carbon dioxide, of which man-made CO2 is only a fraction of, is not to blame for global warming….Carbon dioxide is not responsible for the warming of the global climate over the last 150 years. But what then? For more than 90 percent are changes in the Earth-Sun relationship to the climate fluctuations. One is the sun’s activities themselves, such as the recently discovered 22-year cycles occur and sunspots.”

      Reply

      1. Also, according to the IPCC, 4 years is the average time a CO2 molecule is in the atmosphere.

        Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an extreme example. Its turnover time is only about 4 years because of the rapid exchange between the atmosphere and the ocean and terrestrial biota. However, a large part of that CO2 is returned to the atmosphere within a few years. The adjustment time of CO2 in the atmosphere is determined from the rates of removal of carbon by a range of processes with timescales from months to hundreds of thousands of years. As a result, 15 to 40% of an emitted CO2 pulse will remain in the atmosphere longer than 1,000 years, 10 to 25% will remain about ten thousand years, and the rest will be removed over several hundred thousand years.
        https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Annex_VII.pdf

        This assumes the temperature stays the same. The Earth is still in an 11,000-year warm period within a 2.588 million-year ice age(25% of the land in the northern hemisphere is frozen over 2 years).
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation

        Reply

  2. Fraunhofer Bands, micron re-radiation windows, albedo, thermal balance and the Melankovich Mechanism are just a few of the things that climate activists ignore. As an aside, I would also recommend Donna La Framboise’s book The Delinquent Teenager which exposes the way IPPC papers are produced.

    Reply

  3. Nature has been removing CO2 from the atmosphere for the past 540 million years. We came close to a dead planet at 280ppmv. Present (more than welcome) rise is NOT caused by humans. Past decades antropogenic emissions have tripled; the steady rise as measured at Mauna Loa since 1958 did not budge. Hence, observations support the calculations by Prof.Murry Salby and Dr.Ed Berry. End of story.

    Reply

  4. Dr. Ed, thank you for leaving this in my inbox. Dave Burton is a “Mass Balancer”. Anthro CO2 could be forcing itself into the ocean via henry’s law (at a ratio of 50 ocean, to 1 atmosphere) all the while that natural outgassing due to warming/ henry’s law is causing the rise. Two processes going on, but the rise would be largely natural. i think that “miltophiles” make the same sort of flawed reasoning when they claim that high gas prices cause deflation. Sure, if people spend more on gas, they spend less on other things. However, as a business expense, high gas prices cause inflation across the board in greater measure (than any resultant deflation). Two processes going on in the accounting of both the carbon budget and inflation, false attribution by the “mass balancers” & the “miltophiles”.

    Reply

    1. If we captured all the anthro CO2 and piped it into a cave at the bottom of the ocean (or underground as some have actually suggested), then nature would still be a net sink for carbon — the cave being “natural”. Would the observed rise in CO2 be natural, then, or would it be anthropogenic? (dr. ed, and richard if you’re reading, these “mass-balancers” really aren’t that difficult to beat)…

      Reply

      1. fonzie, you and Dave Burton each mention “richard”. I wonder if either of you means me.
        I have refuted the ‘mass balance argument’ in many places including repeatedly on this web site. Indeed, Ed Berry claims he was prompted to conduct his analysis of the carbon cycle by a paper I wrote and which he has posted on this web site at https://edberry.com/blog/climate/climate-co2-temp/limits-to-carbon-dioxide-concentation/ . David Andrews attempted to refute that paper in the thread beneath it at the link. His attempt consisted lies about what I had written. When I forced him to admit the lies his only response was untrue personal abuse.
        I am surprised the Heartland Institute opposes the papers from Ed Berry. The first page of my paper states I provided it for the Heartland Institute, and the web site of the Heartland Institute provides a video of me presenting it for them; see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQtRB60kU60 (people not interested in the science may want to watch my intro. to that presentation which was the first presentation at the conference that morning so I decided to gain attention with a a mock ‘fire and brimstone’ sermon which amused some people enough for them to copy it to their web sites.
        Richard

        Reply

  5. This comment that Ed Berry made about Patrick Moore is astounding and not true, according to what I know about Patrick Moore.
    “Most of the above CO2 Coalition claims come from ecologist Patrick Moore.
    After Moore converted his belief system from Greenpeace to climate fiction, he built his reputation on his invalid assumption that human CO2 has caused all the increase in atmospheric CO2, or that IPCC’s theory (1) is true.
    Moore criticizes all papers that prove IPCC’s theory (1) is wrong because these papers threaten his professional reputation. Moore has influenced the CO2 Coalition and the Heartland Institute to reject true climate science”.

    If folks go to this link, they will get an idea of what Dr Patrick Moore’s actual views of CO₂ are and it is not like what some are trying to get folks to believe.

    Greenpeace co-founder Dr Patrick Moore says we need much more CO2 in the atmosphere
    https://cairnsnews.org/2020/01/13/greenpeace-co-founder-dr-patrick-moore-says-we-need-much-more-co2-in-the-atmosphere/

    Reply

    1. Dear Doug,

      I stand by my statement.

      You misinterpret the link you provided about Moore. Yes, Moore says we need more CO2. I agree with that statement. But that link hides Moore’s unscientific claim that human CO2 emissions have caused all the CO2 increase since 1750.

      I have had several discussions with Moore in this email group: “global-warming-realists@googlegroups.com” – Maybe you can search this email group and find these discussions. I can retrieve and publish Moore’s irrational claims the past public email discussions I have had with Moore on this issue.

      Because he is incompetent in physics, he told his many Twitter followers that I am a fraud. Nice guy. He claims the papers by Salby, Harde, Berry, and others are wrong because they disagree with his feelings. His arguments violate physics because he cannot pass physics 101.

      Stick with Eric Grimsrud, who is much more competent than Partick Moore in climate physics.

      Reply

      1. Dr. Ed Berry,

        I’m not a scientist at all. I’m a motorcycle freedom fighter and I’ve been fighting for humanity and scientific transparency for over a decade. As you can imagine, the entire motorcycle and auto industry and all the aftermarket organizations have been bullied into submission by the green movement and environmental alarmists (doomsday).

        I have done all I can to inform the motorcycle and some of the automotive industry of the facts. I am hoping that I might be able to put a coalition of organizations together to sign-off on a resolution to force our lovely government to offer the public scientific transparency (honesty) through a hearing and to put Climate Doom on trial, on a national stage.

        The most absurd aspect of this entire debate revolves around scientific integrity which Al Gore threw out the window. Just this issue is destroying our country, but I believe we can do something about it, like you did in Montana.

        Don’t you think we need a unified front against the tyranny? There must be a way.

        KRB

        Reply

  6. Why do some of us feel compelled to say ‘we are not scientists’? Could it be that we are all starting to realise that not only has science been corrupted but that humans know far less than they think they do. It seems we are all prone to dogma what is important is to own up and admit that vulnerability.
    Given the freefall in trust of so called experts we plebs have to, no must, resort to plain common sense.
    Dr Ed Berry has shown very clearly the inadequacies of the CO2 Coalition’s response, their lack of common sense in very basic terms is astounding. But then the job of challenging Gregory Wrightstone’s public statement and Dave Burton’s reply is a must do and Dr Ed Berry’s patience should be applauded.
    Perhaps a further public statement should be issued by the CO2 Coalition apologising for their unscientific words.
    My guess is that none should hold their breath.

    Reply

    1. Your statement above “True scientists are always open to evidence that their claims may not be true.” is perfect.
      I am disappointed about Patrick Moore as I had some faith in him but that cannot be a reason for me to not to question, nor for him to put image before science.
      We are living in a time of great disappointment.
      For me science is a search for truth. Surely truth in the humanities can be ambiguous but in nature truth is not defined by emotion. My opinion so far.
      “He need not fear its holding, if he can but tell how to lay on. Its edges will never blunt. It will cut flesh and bones and soul and spirit and all.” Valliant-for-Truth in Pilgrim’s Progress by John Bunyan

      Reply

      1. Dear Doug,

        Your 2015 quote from Patrick Moore is revealing if you read the whole quote. He has no background in physics, math, numerical modelling, engineering, probability, statistics, or the scientific method. For most of his life, he has been wrong in science, and he is still wrong. As a result, he is mucking up progress in carbon cycle physics.

        He is still an extreme environmental activist. That is the only job he knows. He rejects the physics that proves nature is the dominant cause of the rise in atmospheric CO2 since 1750. Our planet is healing itself and Patrick does not get it. He claims humans caused this healing. He promotes his own “religion” similar to the religions he complains about.

        Sure, he is right about some things, but everyone is right about some things. It’s where people are wrong that affects everyone else in the world. It’s time for Moore to get out of the way of progress in physics.

        Here is Patrick’s last email to me about my work (now in my 2021 paper) that shows nature is the dominant cause of the recent CO2 increase. He thinks my paper is wrong because it does not show how nature has caused the increase. His claim conflicts with the scientific method and he criticizes my reference to Einstein and the scientific method that I made in a previous email.

        From: Patrick Moore Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2021 10:19 AM
        To: Edwin Berry
        Cc: global-warming-realists@googlegroups.com

        Subject: Re: [GWR] Origin of Atmospheric CO2: Answer to Ed

        Please 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
        pmoore@ecosense.me
        pmoore4068@gmail.com
        Canada & US – 604-220-6500
        Mexico: +52-1-624-174-4433
        or Mexico free: 1-250-999-9078
        Celebrate CO2

        Reply

  7. Thanks so much DR. Berry for your rentless fight for the truth on clima-science! It is’nt really about scince, it’s about politcs and lot’s of money and control. The little book of Klaus Schwab and Thierry Malleret about the fourth industriel revolution says it all. Scince falsly so called is misused to leed humanity astray and in to perdition. That mankind accept there own distruction for saving the planet and the elite, wich then can profit to the full what they want to deprive us now. So we have to be wise as serpent and harmles as doves to get a simple message understandable to all, so they can crasp it and wake up.

    Reply

  8. The importance of this debate is that the alarmists claim we can fix their perceived climate crisis by stopping our CO2 emissions and their policies are devastating to humans, the environment and the economy. If more of the scientists would review and critique Dr. Ed’s paper, they would join the few of us that point out that ” There is no fix! We didn’t cause your problem!”

    I agree with nearly all of Dr. Moore’s analysis of the benefits of CO2 and the lack of evidence that it will eventually cause a problem but wouldn’t his argument be better served by adding this truth?

    Almost everyone I know realizes we cannot afford the Green New Deal but some of them feel like we should do something. No one that knows the truth in Dr.Ed’s paper thinks there is anything we can do. Those that accept Dr. Moore’s main points know there is no reason to do anything.

    Reply

    1. Dear DMA,

      Thank you for your comment.

      The Dems via Our Children’s Trust of Oregon has filed climate lawsuits against several states, including Montana. How do we win these lawsuits?

      I propose the defense attacks all three assumptions these lawsuits use to make their conclusions. Moore would propose we allow the plaintiffs their first assumption that human CO2 indeed caused all the CO2 increase.

      My proposed defense has the best chance to win. Moore’s position gives away our most powerful argument against the plaintiffs. That can make all the difference in the outcome of these lawsuits.

      Reply

      1. Dr. Ed
        Your point is well taken and well suited for the court room argument. That type of case should require some reckoning of damages to even gain standing to initiate the case. Also to win such a case there will be a high standard of proof required. Your work removes both of those foundational requirements.

        Reply

  10. Dear Dr. Ed;
    Your claiming that I have lost our debate is only your opinion. Since you have not supplied what I have asked for and that is the empirical evidence that carbon dioxide is what drives the Earth’s climate and causes the Earth’s temperature to change it is you who has lost our little debate.
    Please remember, that if CO₂ has no influence on the Earth’s climate or its temperature, then what difference would it make what any one projects about what CO₂ will do in the future, or has done in the past?
    We Live in Cold Times
    6,221 views
    Apr 26, 2021
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WE0zHZPQJzA

    Reply

    1. Dear Doug,

      You wrote:

      “All that you need to do is to supply what I have asked for and that is the empirical evidence that carbon dioxide is what drives the Earth’s climate and cause the Earth’s temperature to change.”

      You are describing Theory (2) and I have already said Theory (2) is incorrect.

      Now, you demand that I supply evidence that Theory (2) is correct. Where have you been in our whole debate?

      Reply

  11. You are being very suppositious to assume that you know what I believe, about basically anything, when you write this to me;
    “You would have us believe that the time we now live in is the first time in the Earth’s 4.5-billion-year history that it would have dropped its atmospheric CO2 level below 150 ppm and thereby killed off all vegetable and animal life on the planet – and that only human CO2 emissions miraculously saved all life on Planet Earth.
    “And you believe this without evidence to support your belief and in the face of the physical evidence that proves your belief is wrong.”

    I believe that there is evidence that the Earth was several times a ‘snowball’ and in that condition life as we know it would not have been possible; so how in hell would “only human CO2 emissions miraculously saved all life on Planet Earth”?

    Below is my evidence that supports my believe that the Earth was a ‘snowball’.
    “Because BIFs are the geologic signature of an anoxic ocean, their reappearance after a long absence is cited as strong evidence that sea ice over of Earth’s oceans was indeed global. That is, they were entirely or almost-entirely sealed off from interacting with the oxygenated atmosphere. Any dissolved oxygen in the oceans was consumed through chemical reactions, but was not replaced by diffusion from the atmosphere. This allowed deep sea black smokers to again permeate ocean water with dissolved iron”.
    https://opengeology.org/historicalgeology/case-studies/snowball-earth/

    The Red Dog Mine above the Arctic Circle where I was employed for over 14 years mined zinc and lead that was deposited by deep sea black smokers.

    Reply

    1. Dear Doug,

      In case you have forgotten, we are debating IPCC Theory (1) – that says human CO2 emissions have caused all the CO2 increase above 280 ppm – and these two facts:
      (a) I and other scientists have proved Theory (1) is false.
      (b) Patrick Moore claims Theory (1) is true and that my proof “is a fraud.”

      You have argued that Patrick Moore is correct, and you have provided endless data and information in your attempt to support your argument. But none of your data or information show that (a) is wrong.

      You support Patrick Moore because you are swayed by his storybook claim that human CO2 saved planet Earth from dropping its atmospheric CO2 level below 150 ppm for long enough to kill all life on Earth.

      Rather than taking your arguments apart limb by limb, which would take another book (and it appears you have not read Climate Miracle), I simply restated Patrick Moore’s claim in a way that shows his argument is irrational. I wrote:

      “You would have us believe that the time we now live in is the first time in the Earth’s 4.5-billion-year history that it would have dropped its atmospheric CO2 level below 150 ppm and thereby killed off all vegetable and animal life on the planet – and that only human CO2 emissions miraculously saved all life on Planet Earth.
      “And you believe this without evidence to support your belief and in the face of the physical evidence that proves your belief is wrong.”

      That is Patrick Moore’s argument that you have supported. But now you will neither confirm nor deny my above statement, which is Patrick Moore’s core argument.

      Because, if you confirm my statement, you will be a nutcase like Partick Moore. If you deny my statement, you will deny Patrick Moore’s claim that Theory (1) is true and lose your argument in this debate.

      Either way, you lose. You are in checkmate, and you will not admit it.

      Reply

      1. There has been mass subversion and infiltration of institutions and groups undermining our societies. There is no reason to believe that the CO2 Coalition is an exception to this.
        Who knows what the answer is.
        By dismissing the first of Dr Ed Berry’s three objectives they thwart his passionate effort and the presentation of his work. If someone’s work is dismissed without sound reason we are all in serious trouble as science becomes dogma. We live between magic and science, they are both needed, have their place, and neither should be neglected.
        J Doug Swallow is quite right, “Ad hominem arguments about “deniers” need not apply.” It seems that this is what debate has been reduced to, an outcome that should be resisted by good people when realised.
        The public statement by the CO2 Coalition is not a professional response going by the presentation published in this article. It seems to me to be an attack without principled science.
        Whether prejudiced or not, my common sense tells me that every action has a reaction. The natural CO2 balance and interconnected systems would react to human emissions which precludes any simplistic assumptions made by the untrustworthy IPCC or anyone else.
         

        Reply

  12. CO2 Coalition’s statement of disagreement with Dr. Ed is akin to Kohler’s attempted refutation of Harde. Their reason can be approximated with “He is wrong because I would have done it differently”. They, both CO2 Coalition and Kohler, should state where the object of their disagreement is in error and possibly even suggest actions that would correct the error and enhance the contested paper. If they cannot refute it reasonably they should incorporate its truth into their work. That is science where disagreeing on process is just argument.

    Reply

  13. Dr. Ed: Just a thought from a layman: If IPCC folks are right wrt their BERN model, wouldn’t the consequence be that those who are dreaming about capturing CO2 directly from the atmosphere need to invent a filter that only capture those CO2 molecules coming from the combustion of fossil fuel? If it is so that “natural” carbon with a residence time governed by the natural carbon cycle is removed, then this will be fruitless all the time it is “our” CO2 molecules that builds up in the atmosphere and has sort of no way to go within the natural cycle?
    If you remove “natural” CO2 from the atmosphere, this will lead to an imbalance which will lead to increased inflow from natural reservoirs ref. Henrys law etc.

    If I have a point, then those who support such projects has to tell the investors about the BERN model and ask for a such filter. Here is an example. https://www.1pointfive.com/dac-technology?gclid=Cj0KCQjwguGYBhDRARIsAHgRm48BmoNg1csvNJo9Dl__WR5_pshpsxPAvikjekyDwKi545W1DcQ4bVEaAud1EALw_wcB

    Reply

  14. The Earth has volcanic eruptions, pretty much every year, and those eruptions put more CO2 into the atmosphere.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_volcanic_eruptions_in_the_21st_century

    Over the last 50 years, the Sun has emitted more Solar Irradiance than at any time in the last 500 years. That has warmed the oceans more than they would have been without the irradiance and a warmer ocean releases more CO2 into the atmosphere and absorbs less CO2 from the atmosphere adding to the CO2 in the atmosphere.
    Total Solar Irradiance during the Last Five Centuries
    https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.10115

    Reply
  15. Pingback: The Impact Of Human CO2 On Atmospheric CO2 - Published Paper

  16. We have 4.5 million people dying each year from moderately cold weather-related causes, mainly from strokes and heart attacks caused by moderate cold, while only about 500,000 are dying from heat-related causes and most of them were also from moderate heat.
    ARTICLES| VOLUME 5, ISSUE 7, E415-E425, JULY 01, 2021
    ‘Global, regional, and national burden of mortality associated with non-optimal ambient temperatures from 2000 to 2019: a three-stage modelling study’
    https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00081-4/fulltext
    “Globally, 5 083 173 deaths (95% empirical CI [eCI] 4 087 967–5 965 520) were associated with non-optimal temperatures per year, accounting for 9·43% (95% eCI 7·58–11·07) of all deaths (8·52% [6·19–10·47] were cold-related and 0·91% [0·56–1·36] were heat-related).”
    https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00081-4/fulltext

    Reply

    1. “Cold, not heat, is by far the greater killer of humanity. Today, cool and cold weather kills about 20 times as many people as warm and hot weather. Excess Winter Deaths, defined as more deaths in the four winter months than equivalent non-winter months, total over two million souls per year, in both cold and warm climates.
      https://thsresearch.wordpress.com/2019/09/05/the-next-great-extinction-event-will-not-be-global-warming-it-will-be-global-cooling/

      Q- Does global warming or global cooling cause more deaths?
      john walker
      You
      https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-effects-of-climate-change-to-the-urban-poor/answer/John-Walker-922

      What are the effects of climate change to the urban poor?
      Answer by John Walker
      ·
      10/26/20
      I have written a 500+ page treatise skeptical of CAGW

      Global cooling, which some climate scientists and solar physicists are predicting, is usually devastating to the poor, both in urban and rural areas. But urban poor tend to suffer even more due to lack of sufficient energy to keep warm in the winter and to obtain food due to increased crop failures. Rural poor are frequently more prepared and self-sufficient, a long as it does not get too cold.

      “Cold, not heat, is by far the greater killer of humanity. Today, cool and cold weather kills about 20 times as many people as warm and hot weather. Excess Winter Deaths, defined as more deaths in the four winter months than equivalent non-winter months, total over two million souls per year, in both cold and warm climates.

      “Humanity barely survived the last glacial period that ended only 11,500 years ago…The re-entry into the glacial period will be a major extinction event for humanity, possibly the end of modern civilization. Not only will our land surface be devastated by glaciers, but CO2 concentrations will drop so low that C3 crop photosynthesis, the source of almost all our foods, will be barely sustainable.”

      The Next Great Extinction Event Will Not be Global Warming – It Will Be Global Cooling

      The number of excess winter deaths is increasing among the poor in many so-called “progressive” nations because of the steeply rising costs of energy due to the irresponsible and unwarranted process of rapidly switching to renewables from fossil fuels:

      “Last winter England and Wales experienced over 50,000 excess winter deaths. That British per-capita excess winter death rate was ~three times the average excess winter death rate of the USA and Canada.” Excess winter mortality in England and Wales: 2017 to 2018 (provisional) and 2016 to 2017 (final)

      “The number of Excess Winter Deaths and shattered lives caused by runaway energy costs in the developed world and lack of access to modern energy in the developing world probably exceeds the tens of millions of malaria deaths caused by the DDT ban; Excess Winter Deaths (more deaths in winter than non-winter months) total about two million souls per year, which demonstrates that Earth is colder-than-optimum for humanity.” https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/14/hypothesis-radical-greens-are-the-great-killers-of-our-age/

      “Cold weather kills 20 times as many people as hot weather, according to an international study analyzing over 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 countries.” – https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/21/an-inconvenient-truth-from-medical-research-cold-is-far-worse-than-global-warming-at-killing-people/

      As expected, hypothetical catastrophic anthropogenic CO2 global warming promoters, like NASA, NOAA and many climatologists, fallaciously claim that heat is more dangerous, while medical organizations, the CDC and epidemiologists have the data which proves cold is more dangerous: https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/Which-Kills-More-People-Extreme-Heat-or-Extreme-Cold

      Reply

  17. I’m very surprised at Dr. Spencer’s argument in the CO2 Coalition. Dr. Spencer, outflow is proportional to the level. That is the hypothesis. This idea that outflow is proportional to some level above a baseline level has no basis in physics. Show me where in any physics book.

    Reply

  18. During the height of the China virus pandemic world economic production and therefore CO2 emissions reduced by up to 40% in some of the months in 2020. If humans are responsible for all the increase in CO2 we should have seen some variation in the increase due to that decrease in emissions. There was no variation. This is strong evidence for the increase being natural.

    Reply

    1. Dear Cohenite,
      Berry (2021) may be the first scientific publication to make that point.
      Even with the dramatic decrease in human CO2 emissions, the atmospheric CO2 increase continued undisturbed. This is overwhelming evidence that human emissions do not cause the CO2 increase and, therefore, it is senseless to attempt to reduce human CO2 emissions.
      All climate laws, regulations, taxes, carbon capture, and justifications for grid-connected wind and solar energy are irrational, uneconomical, and unethical.

      Reply

  19. The fact that natural emissions of CO2 far outweigh anthropogenic emissions has been proven by statistical analysis and by observation. Anthropogenic emissions are so small in comparison that they have almost NO effect on total atmospheric CO2.

    Statistical detrending reveals there is NO correlation between the rate of human emissions and the rate in the increase in total atmospheric CO2 levels:
    RESPONSIVENESS OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 TO ANTHROPOGENIC EMISSIONS: A NOTE -JAMAL MUNSHI, “A statistically significant correlation between annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions and the annual rate of accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere over a 53-year sample period from 1959-2011 is likely to be spurious because it vanishes when the two series are detrended. The results do not indicate a measurable year to year effect of annual anthropogenic emissions on the annual rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere. It was found that the observed correlation between these variables derives solely from a common direction in their long term trends and not from a correspondence in their annual fluctuations. As a corollary to this finding, a further study reveals that change in atmospheric CO2 is responsive to surface temperature both in long term trends and in short term annual fluctuations.” https://www.academia.edu/14863648/RESPONSIVENESS_OF_ATMOSPHERIC_CO2_TO_ANTHROPOGENIC_EMISSIONS_A_NOTE?email_work_card=view-paper

    Statistical detrending eliminates the correlation of
    — atmospheric CO2 concentration and fossil fuel CO2 emissions;
    — ocean CO2 levels and fossil fuel CO2 emissions;
    — rate of global warming and rate of industrial CO2 emissions;
    — rate of sea level rise and rate of industrial CO2 emissions; and
    — rate of Arctic sea ice melt and rate of global warming.
    https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/05/27/spurious/

    Here is observational proof:
    When the Covid19 lockdowns in 2020 caused a significant decrease in industrial CO2 emissions, measured total atmospheric levels exhibited NO change whatsoever:
    https://earth.stanford.edu/news/covid-lockdown-causes-record-drop-carbon-emissions-2020#gs.8hv7fb

    And after 2000, the rate of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use tripled, but atmospheric CO2 continued to rise at the pre-2000 rate, again showing that the primary source of rising atmospheric CO2 is from natural causes, not fossil fuels.
    Prof Murry Salby, Atmospheric Physicist: Atmospheric Carbon, 18 July 2016, University College. See Dr. Salby’s presentation here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGZqWMEpyUM

    Furthermore, recent compilation of satellite temp data by Dr John Christy at the University of Alabama in Huntsville has revealed there has been NO net warming since 2014, despite the continued rise in CO2:
    Satellite data: No warming from 2014 to 2022
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/01/04/the-new-pause-lengthens-100-months-with-no-warming-at-all/
    Satellite temp data is much more reliable than land-based thermometers. Many of the latter are affected by the urban heat island effect and other problems. They do not cover the entire Earth and oceans, but satellite measurements can.

    What proof does anyone have that human emissions constitute the primary source of the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels? None. All they have is speculation based upon a spurious correlation and unreliable and easily manipulated climate computer models. BTW, volcanic and undersea hydrothermal vents (of which there are hundreds of thousands and probably a lot more) emit huge amounts of CO2 with the identical isotopic composition as fossil fuel emissions:
    “Natural volcanic and man-made CO2 emissions have the exact same and very distinctive carbon isotopic fingerprint. It is therefore scientifically impossible to distinguish the difference between volcanic CO2 and human-induced CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels. This major problem with the AGW principle has been rationalized away by consensus climate scientists who insist, based upon supposedly reliable research, that volcanic emissions are minuscule in comparison to human-induced CO2 emissions.

    “To put this calculation process into perspective, the Earth is home to 1,500 land volcanoes and 900,000 seafloor volcanoes/hydrothermal vents. By sampling just an extremely small percent of these volcanic features it is impossible to imagine that the calculation is correct.” https://www.academia.edu/40573989/Discovery_of_Massive_Volcanic_CO2_Emissions_Rebuts_human_caused_Global_Warming_Theory…geological_heat_flow_is_possibly_the_root_cause_of_changes_to_our_oceans?auto=download

    It’s extremely difficult to understand why anyone would still believe anthropogenic emissions are the primary source. But the scientific method does not seem to apply to catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.

    Reply

    1. Dear David,
      Thank you very much for your explanations and valuable links to good articles that further prove IPCC’s Theory (1) is false.

      Reply

  20. I am not a climate scientist, but I majored in Physics in college. The arguments against your theories are mainly political, in my opinion. The whole “ anthropomorphic” climate change ignores thousands of years of “natural” climate change. All of Earth’ s climate is a result of solar energy and its variance. The tiny influence of human activity can, and does affect weather in parts of the earth, i.e. forest removal or river diversion, but the Earth rapidly (decades) rebounds. Al Gore, AOC, and Greta Thunburg can’t change that. Thank you for what you do.

    Reply

  21. I am not totally up to speed on the current climate dogmas so will not comment in detail. However you were already a legend half a century ago when I worked with DR. W.T. Scott at the Desert Research Instititute and continued on to a masters degree under Heisenberg’s “greatest student” Herr Professor F. Winterberg. Keep up the good fight for us.

    Reply

    1. Hey P.J.,
      Wow, nice to make your acquaintance again after all these years. Dr. Scott and Dr. Winterberg were my PhD mentors, and I am very grateful for all they taught me about physics. They are the professors who raised the quality of the University of Nevada physics department to the levels of Caltech and other great universities.
      Sadly, I am not sure that this greatness has continued under the present physics department because I see lots of people from the U of N who are out promoting the myth that our CO2 emissions are endangering the planet.

      Reply

  22. This is sad, we all have our understanding of the how and why things happen or not, and insulting those who view matters differently is wrong, it’s only questions that hone ideas. I remember being told that teaching a subject improved ones own understanding by the students questions.

    With my background in vacuum valve wireless I followed Prof Happer with wavelength, resonance, harmonics, octaves and antenna propagation, these fit in with my understanding and I can explain from my own resources.

    In Logic after CO2 has been released by heat, it seems wrong to claim it can now be a cause of warming. Another supporting fact only countered by confusion and red herrings in debate.

    I like Doctor Ed Berry’s explanation, he supports what I understand to be true. So does the Penn University experiment where its noted that above 350ppm dry CO2 no measurable heating was found confirming the diminishing effects decreasing on a log scale. Not quite what they had in mind.

    Reply

  23. Some great arguments. All wrong to some extent (including totally) as it happens. The key to the increase in atmospheric CO2 is Henry’s Law. Sadly (a) most people know nothing about it and (b) those that do realise that with respect to sea water and its complicated, physical, chemical, physical -chemical and biological interactions with CO2 it is a tricky area. However, overall in a warming world Henry’s Law establishes the balance between disolved CO2 in the seas and atmospheric CO2. If one lights fires on land or drives SUvs around this contributes to the partial pressure of CO2 and effectively surpresses what would otherwise have bubbled out of the sea to maintain the proper balance for small and gradual overall temperature increases. Incidentally this argument alone makes a complete nonsence of attempts to reduce anthropogenic emissions and in the UK attempts at national economic Hari Kari otherwise known as Net Zero.

    Reply

  24. Dr. Berry,
    I used process engineering logic and IPCC’s human and natural CO2 fluxes to calculate that the human contribution to the atmosphere. My calculated answer was 20ppm. After about 2 months of being confident that my calculations and logic were correct, I realized a flaw. I considered all of the CO2 flux from vegetation decay going into the atmosphere to be a natural CO2 input into the atmosphere as generally characterized in the literature.
    However, I realized that vegetation is mostly created by photosynthesis of atmospheric CO2. Thus, the CO2 in the decaying vegetation also contains human CO2 that would approximate the ratio of human to natural CO2 in the atmosphere. I now conclude that humans are contributing 51 ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere once I corrected for this not so obvious flaw.
    I am wondering if this same flaw could be affecting your analysis and conclusion. Your calculations may be accurate and your logic solid but your answer wrong because of this inappropriate handling of human CO2 recycled via vegetation.
    Ed Sebesta, MSChE

    Reply

  25. Dear Ed,
    Thank you for your comment and question.
    Recognize what my papers intend to accomplish. My focus is on proving IPCC’s Theory (1) is false because than alone overturns all the political justifications for restricting human CO2 emissions.
    I focus on proving a theory is false because that is the best way to make progress in science.
    Therefore, I use IPCC’s own data and natural carbon cycle to prove its Theory (1) is wrong. That is a checkmate.
    If I used other data or other carbon cycle models, then the IPCC could claim proof does not apply to their claim that Theory (1) is true.
    IPCC’s natural carbon cycle data claims to properly consider photosynthesis and other processes.
    Here are the basics that I use that no one else seems to use:
    1. Outflow = Level / e-time.
    2. This means the human and natural carbon cycles are independent.
    3. This independence makes it very easy to calculate IPCC’s true human carbon cycle.
    And, if you read my 2023 preprint that I link to, you will find my other argument using the delta 14C data. These data show the effect of human CO2 on the CO2 level is very close to zero.
    This is independent evidence that reality is closer to zero than my calculations using IPCC’s own data.

    Reply

  26. Dave Burton,
    Nature has added about 3700ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere since 1958. So you’re saying nature removed about half of human CO2 and all of the added natural CO2, leaving 320ppm of the natural CO2? You’re confusing me. How did nature do that?

    Reply

    1. Dear Stephen,
      Good question.
      But no matter how Dave Burton may answer your question, remember the following:
      (a) The human and natural carbon cycles are independent, so the human cycle removes only human carbon, and the natural cycle removes only natural carbon.
      I know that sounds a little impossible because all CO2 molecules are identical mixed together. However. we don’t follow individual molecules. We only follow the separate distributions of human and natural CO2 molecules theoretically.
      (b) You can understand why Dave Burton is wrong more easily if you read my (Berry, 2023) answer to David Andrews here:

      https://edberry.com/blog/climate/climate-physics/berry-vs-andrews/

      Reply

  27. Thanks, Dr. Berry,
    your logic is strong, and it’s astonishing to see accomplished scientists criticizing your theory using such flawed logic. It must be the level of education that has gone down the toilet in the latest decades.

    Reply

    1. Dear Max,
      In 1959-1960, I was a Teaching Fellow in Physics at Dartmouth College. I was the only physics student who took John Kemeny’s excellent Philosophy of Science course. This was one of most important “physics” courses of my life. I used it thoroughly in doing my theoretical PhD thesis at the U of Nevada.
      Very few physics PhD’s have a clue about the Scientific Method and that shows when they try to do the simple stuff in climate physics.

      Reply

  28. Why all this theory? I have absolutely no idea why no one measures the amount of fossil fuel in the air?

    I was going to do it but found this was done in 1958 by G.J. Fergusson as published in the Royal Society.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1958.0021

    You can date the CO2 in the air, the basic principle of radio carbon dating. And while Fergusson thought fossil fuel CO2 might be 14% he in fact measured 2.05%+/-0.15%.

    Today we know much more because we saw how all the C14 vanished from 1971 to 2023 which confirmed Fergusson’s half life of 5 years not the 80 years claimed as their standard by the IPCC.

    CO2 is incredibly soluble and compressible, which is why 98% is in the oceans already. And like the gas which is 1% to 4% of the atmosphere, H2O, CO2 boils off all the time. I think a lot more physicists need to understand the principles of equilibrium at a gas/water interface. CO2 is in rapid equilibrium described by Henry’s Law. And excess CO2 is rapidly absorbed in the rapid massive exchange of gases including O2 (for the fish), CO2 and H2O. And this exchange controls all our weather of course. And Henry’s law is simple. Slighly higher surface and more CO2.

    I would also suggest to Dr. Moore that the cycles of CO2 observed are NOT dying and regenerating plant matter. That is far too small. What they are are the seasonal variation of the surface of the biggest reserve of CO2 on this planet, the vast oceans which cover 72% of the surface to an average depth of 3.4km. So a weight 340x that of the thin air above and with a specific heat 4x that of air, 1500 x the heat contained in the air.

    So I would suggest that you throw all these theories out the window and start with the facts. How much fossil fuel CO2 is in the air? It’s just under 3%. And just debunk Fergusson’s paper in 1958 before you start arguing about something you can directly and simply measure.

    Reply

  29. THE LEFT’S CLIMATE AND COVID SCAMS HAVE SQUANDERED TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF SCARCE GLOBAL RESOURCES AND WASTED MANY MILLIONS OF LIVES

    We correctly called the Climate-and-Green-Energy scam in Jan2002, and I correctly called the Covid Lockdowns-and-“Vaccines” scam on 21Mar2020.
    I originally published to save trillions of dollars and millions of lives. Now I publish to provide evidence – for Nuremberg 2.0!

    Most of you understand the Covid-19 scam – neither the Lockdowns nor the “Vaccines” were ever justified – the scam was about money and control – destroy the economy, peddle costly, toxic “vaccines” and reduce global population – 13 million deaths to end 2022 increasing to 19 million by end2023.

    Read the following to understand the Climate scam. My co-authors and I wrote the following correct observations in 2002
    1. “Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”
    2. “The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”
    – by Sallie Baliunas (Astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian), Tim Patterson (Paleoclimatologist, Carleton U), Allan MacRae (Professional Engineer, retired (Queen’s U, U of Alberta)
    http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/KyotoAPEGA2002REV1.pdf

    Allan MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., Calgary
    https://energy-experts-international.com/

    SCIENTIFIC COMPETENCE – THE ABILITY TO CORRECTLY PREDICT
    https://correctpredictions.ca/

    PROOF: ATMOSPHERIC CO2 CHANGES DO NOT LEAD, THEY LAG ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATURE CHANGES IN TIME – THE FUTURE CANNOT CAUSE THE PAST.

    I received the following email today from my friend Dr Ole Humlum, Norwegian Climate Scientist, in his monthly update:
    http://www.climate4you.com/Text/Climate4you_January_2023.pdf See page 46.
    Humlum and his Norwegian co-authors published the following very important climate paper in the journal Science in Jan2013.
    It is a very important paper because it proved that the alleged “fossil-fuel driven Global Warming crisis” was false – this “CAGW crisis” cannot exist!

    THE PHASE RELATION BETWEEN ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE AND GLOBAL TEMPERATURE – SCIENCEDIRECT
    Ole Humlum a b, Kjell Stordahl c, Jan-Erik Solheim d
    Global and Planetary Change, Volume 100, January 2013, Pages 51-69
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921818112001658?v=s5
    Highlights of this paper:
    ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.
    ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.
    ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.
    ► Changes in ocean temperatures explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.
    ► Changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

    Unknown to Humlum et al, I published the same conclusions in 2008:

    CARBON DIOXIDE IS NOT THE PRIMARY CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING, THE FUTURE CAN NOT CAUSE THE PAST
    By Allan M.R. MacRae, January 2008
    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2vsTMacRae.pdf
    [excerpt]
    In fact, strong evidence exists that disproves the IPCC’s scientific position. The attached Excel spreadsheet (“CO2 vs T”) shows that variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration lag (occur after) variations in Earth’s Surface Temperature by ~9 months (Figures 2, 3 and 4). The IPCC states that increasing atmospheric CO2 is the primary cause of global warming – in effect, the IPCC states that the future is causing the past. The IPCC’s core scientific conclusion is illogical and false.

    Look at this stunning correlation from my 2008 paper:
    dCO2/dt vs UAH Lower Troposphere Global Atmospheric Temperature Anomaly
    https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/mean:12/derivative/plot/uah6/from:1979/scale:0.18/offset:0.17
    The rate of change dCO2/dt changes ~contemporaneously with temperature change, but its integral CO2 changes do NOT lead, they LAG temperature changes in time.

    Unknown to me, Kuo et al published similar conclusions in the journal Nature in 1990:

    COHERENCE ESTABLISHED BETWEEN ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE AND GLOBAL TEMPERATURE
    Cynthia Kuo, Craig Lindberg & David J. Thomson, Nature volume 343, pages709–714 (February 1990)
    https://www.nature.com/articles/343709a0
    Abstract
    The hypothesis that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is related to observable changes in the climate is tested using modern methods of time-series analysis. The results confirm that average global temperature is increasing, and that temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide are significantly correlated over the past thirty years. Changes in carbon dioxide content lag those in temperature by five months.

    All three of these very important scientific papers have been deliberately “swept under the rug” by Climate fraudsters to support their Global Warming scam.
    _______________________

    CO2, GLOBAL WARMING, CLIMATE AND ENERGY June 15, 2019
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/15/co2-global-warming-climate-and-energy-2/
    “Global warming alarmism, which falsely assumes that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes catastrophic global warming, is disproved – essentially, it assumes that the future is causing the past.”

    Reply

  30. CO2 has increased by about 50% since 1750. This is huge. I have made a detailed study of Regina, Saskatchewan’s weather history. Beginning 1883. Since then, we have had somewhat warmer winters and slightly cooler summers.
    The conclusion is obvious. co2 and methane have not had ANY significant influence on our weather. co2 comprises ONLY 1/24 of 1 % of our air and methane is only 1.8 parts per million. Such amounts are MUCH TOO SMALL to have any significant affect on our weather. Clearly the widespread supposition that they are now causing significant climate change can best be described as the HOAX OF THE 21ST CENTURY, On average our hottest day occurs on about july 15. Since 1950 we have had
    ONLY 3 record highs with 28 record highs before 1950. What has produced some minor climate change is the fact that the earths orbit is elliptical … not circular. And varies by 3 million miles. ( 91.5 -94.5 million). we in the northern hemisphere are closest to the sun in Jan. which has given us somewhat warmer winters. WE are furthest away in July which has given us slightly cooler summers. Since 1883 we in Regina have had 191 record highs before 1950 and only 175 record highs after 1950. Anomalies ….. June 1988.. the average temp was 3 degrees Celcius higher than any june before or since. In the first week of Feb. 1947, we had a gigantic blizzard. some bushes had drifts 25 feet deep. the train tracks near our farm were covered with 10 feet of snow. I have the pictures to prove it.
    FLOODS. … in the past 50 years especially, farmers have been pushing their bush and draining their sloughs. Water that used to stay on the uplands now rushes to the lowlands producing huge floods all over N. America. I’ve seen it all with my own esyes.

    Reply

  31. THE ABYSMAL FAILURE OF THE GLOBAL WARMING ALARMISTS’ PREDICTIVE TRACK RECORD.
    ”THE LEFT LIES ABOUT EVERYTHING!”
    “Rode and Fischbeck, professor of Social & Decision Sciences and Engineering & Public Policy, collected 79 predictions of climate-caused apocalypse going back to the first Earth Day in 1970. With the passage of time, many of these forecasts have since expired; the dates have come and gone uneventfully. In fact, 48 (61%) of the predictions have already expired as of the end of 2020.”
    For 60:40 predictions, the odds of being this wrong are 1 in 13 quintillion; for 70:30 predictions, the odds are 1 in 13 septillion. It’s not just climate scientists being randomly mistaken – they must have known they were not telling the truth.
    https://CorrectPredictions.ca/

    SCIENTIFIC COMPETENCE – THE ABILITY TO CORRECTLY PREDICT
    Allan MacRae, October 20, 2021. Updated February 5, 2023
    “The ability to correctly predict is the best objective measure of scientific and technical competence.”
    Our scientific predictions on both Climate and Covid are infinitely more accurate than the mainstream narratives, which have been false and baselessly alarmist to date.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *