1. Sadly physics was not my strong point but this all sounds quite logical to my microbiology brain! Thank you for continuing to bring common sense and actual science to this topic.

  2. Ed, I support your position on CO2 and the Equivalence Principle.
    I have prepared a presentation with “Evidence for Global Cooling” which is aimed at anyone who has completed high school science. So my idea is similar to yours.
    The slides with notes and links are available online at https://goo.gl/3qwtaS
    Please feel free to publish this link and comment on the evidence I present.
    Most of the evidence examples do not in any way depend on the human-generated CO2, but typical have an astrophysical basis.
    Good luck with your plan to spread the word.

    1. Hi Helen, good question. My reply is: because 97 percent of so-called “scientists” do not understand the scientific method, the philosophy of science, logic, follow their political preferences rather than science, or are ecologists, medical doctors, lawyers, chiropractors, who think they understand physics better than majors in physics, chemistry, geology, or engineering.

  3. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary proofs. The Warmongers fail the test.
    Ed ,
    I do not have any problems with your observations but with Einsteins’s assertion that gravitational and enertial forces could not be distinguished.
    Ask what happens in the two cases if the location of the force is repeatedly moved laterally at right angles to its initial direction. Gravitation is a central force, given enough lateral moves it will generate a circle. The Enertial will still be pointing parallel to its initial direction.
    Does it make any difference? At any given instance…no but in the greater scheme of things I am sure not.

    1. Hi Rod, Einstein did a simple thought experiment. Suppose you are in an elevator that is accelerating upward. You cannot do any experiment in the elevator that will tell whether you are pulled to the floor because the elevator is accelerating upward or because a gravitational force is pulling on you.

      Today, you can do the same experiment in space. If your spaceship is accelerating, you cannot measure from inside the ship whether you are accelerating or in a strong gravitational field. It does not matter what direction you are accelerating. Conclusion: Gravitation is the same as an inertial force.

      Therefore, Einstein concluded (after some cool math that uses tensor analysis), that the gravity of the sun will attract light, which has no mass. Experimental physicists then measured the path of light from a distant star as it passed close to the sun, and confirmed that Einstein was correct.

      1. Thank Ed, Sorry I ought to have stayed in the elevator.
        With a pendulum, if you very carefully measure the direction it points down in the corners of the elevator you will find that with a simple acceleration scenario all pendulums will be exactly parallel ( ignoring the gavitational attractions between the bobs )
        For the gravitational field all the pendulums point to the center of gravity. Not parallel to one another.
        I never read his original explanation but we can be sure Einstein was referring to a single point in the elevator and as usual was right, the retelling wrong. Similar problem with the Twins Paradox in Special Relativity…no accelerations in Sp Rel. For a twin to head off and return at high speed entails lots of accelerations. In the limit may be it does not matter but explanations can be the very devil!
        I enjoy your posts, I always learn something. Rod

        1. Hi Rod, OK, now I think I get your point. A gravity source can be represented as a point. If the elevator is wide enough, we could measure the distance to the gravity source by the difference in the angles to the gravity source from the corners of the elevator, assuming the elevator floor is flat. Whereas, an inertial force would show no difference in the angles.

          Good point. And I think the answer gets very complicated.

          According to Einstein’s theory, gravity is merely a curvature in space-time. Maybe (and I stress “maybe” because this calculation is above my pay grade) the elevator floor follows a space-time curve that we cannot measure, and this space-time curve removes the difference in the measured angles at the corners. Then the measured result of gravity would match the result of the inertial force.

  4. I just read your paper, or did my best to comprehend what I could. Absolutely fascinating. I’m only 30 but my generation have been trained by this dogma of C02 since my public schooling in elementary years. The scope of the deception is staggering.

    1. Hi David, thank you for your note. I would be happy to help you and others to understand my paper if you organize a meeting of your friends and ask me to speak to them.

  5. Ed, your logic and analogies are fundamentally flawed. Using your lake analogy, if someone pours a bag of salt each month into the river, the salt concentration in the lake will continue to rise regardless of the level of water at the dam. Using your original teacup analogy, the 95 percent coffee poured into the cup is no longer 95 percent after a cycle, it later contains a portion of the 5 percent cream that is continuously added. Thats why the concentration of cream in the cup continues to rise. CO2 does not disappear into the ether or float off to Jupiter, it remains in the system. To some extent, it is cumulative. Common sense and logic dictate that when you dig up and release carbon that has been sequestered out of the cycle for millions of years, the ‘natural balance’ is upset.

    1. Hi Stan, thank you for your challenge, and you are always welcome to make such challenges. That is how science works.

      To help new readers, Stan refers to my previous article for much of his comment. It is fair for Stan to insert his challenge here because I closed comments on my previous article.

      Stan, rather than showing there is an error in my lake analogy, your challenge merely defines a strawman that does not match my analogy.

      Your challenge to my tea-cup analogy has no model equation to back it up. My tea-cup analogy is a direct conclusion of my Model. It is simple math. Since you have not successfully challenged my Model, then your challenge of my tea-cup analogy is invalid.

      Clearly, you are not following the system I defined. My system includes only CO2 in the atmosphere plus the inflows and outflows. Everything outside my system is included in the inflows and outflows.

      Your comment that the release of carbon that has been sequestered for millions of years will upset the “natural balance” does not affect my model or any conclusions of my model. The only way such release of sequestered carbon can affect my model is to change the inflow or outflow.

      To continue your challenge on a scientific basis, you need to prove such release changes the inflow or outflow. And if it does change the inflow or outflow, my model is still valid.

      That is the power of defining a system as a prerequisite to constructing a model. My model properly shows how CO2 flows through the atmosphere no matter what the source of the CO2. It is something the IPCC should have done but did not do. Nothing in your challenge changes the validity of my model or my analogies.

  6. The IPCC claims human emissions have caused all the rise in the level of CO2 in the atmosphere since 1750……
    “The IPCC claims human CO2 emissions will linger in the atmosphere for hundreds of years and 15 percent of it will remain forever. That claim is a result of IPCC’s Big Idea and it violates the Equivalence Principle. Nature’s CO2 has a half-life in the atmosphere of only 2.8 years. Human CO2 also has a half-life of 2.8 years.”

    It is because most logical people realize that at .04% of the atmosphere and 418 ppm of that atmosphere, that this essential for all life on earth trace gas, CO₂, has basically nothing to do with what the earth’s climate does. Logic and knowledge of past known climatic periods in earth’s history makes it obvious that it is the sun that drives the climate. It is because of these obvious facts that honest people acknowledge, that the IPCC must do as much as possible to try to make CO₂ out to be a devil in the sky and how can it be that if there is so little of it and what there is, humans haven’t caused it to be in the atmosphere? Once a lie is propagated, it must be kept alive by dreaming up other absurd lies to try to keep it alive and well and that is the case with the case of anthropogenic global warming caused by CO₂. This all explains why the IPCC has to tell us that CO₂ that humans release in the atmosphere stays there until the end of time.

    I have discussions on this topic with some of the irrational true believers that somehow, with no proof, believe that CO₂ is an unseen devil in the sky capable of, in the immediate future, destroying the planet and everything on it by causeing it to incinerate. When I point out to them the fact that CO₂ is 1.6 times more dense that the rest of the “air” in which it resides, they say that makes no difference due to it being mixed magically due to convection currents with the rest of the atmosphere. Mentioning that at 18,000′ there is about 1/2 of the atmosphere that there is at sea level is also meaningless to them. When I show them this incident below when it was for sure meaningful to over 1,700 people in Cameron, new lies emerge to try to explain their way around this prime example of how CO₂ is 1.6 times more dense than the rest of the atmosphere. This makes me believe that there is intelligent design after all because all of the living organisms that utilize CO₂ are on the surface of the planet.

    This is an interesting site to look into and it coincides with the above fact about carbon dioxide being one and one half times heavier than “air”. This point was sadly proven on Aug, 21, 1986 when Lake Nyor in Cameroon released about 1.6 million tons of CO2 that spilled over the lip of the lake and down into a valley and killed 1,700 people within 16 miles of the lake

  7. Here are some FACTS about this, manufactured by the IPCC, devil in the sky, CO₂. The 410.47 ppm of carbon dioxide now in our Earth’s atmosphere is 0.04 percent or the equivalents of 40 cents out of one thousand dollars; or 1.4 inches on a football field or if we deal in parts per million, it is like 410.47 inches spread out over the distance of one million inches or 16 miles of inches. It is 410.47 minutes in 2 years’ worth of minutes. That’s an incredibly small amount. The atmosphere’s oxygen concentration is equivalent to 21 yards of a football field. The 120 ppm increase between 1800 and 2014 is equivalent to 12 cents out of $1,000, or a half-inch on a football field.

    Let’s picture this in another way to really get an idea of the scale of CO₂ compared to the total atmosphere so that those who have very limited reasoning abilities could hopefully understand. 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)

  8. Dr. Berry:
    Thank you for making a responsible effort to oppose the concept that carbon dioxide causes climate change. There are several ways to do this and all are valuable because people think in different ways.
    I am making my own efforts by using the laws of physics, namely the gas laws, and connecting them to back radiation to show carbon dioxide has negligible effect on atmospheric temperature and on climate.

    Our paper providing the scientific evidence has just been published and can be found at: http://medcraveonline.com/FREIJ/FREIJ-02-00043.pdf

    Figure 2 in this paper shows carbon dioxide is a cooling or a warming gas depending on the time of year. Figure 1 shows the warming and cooling effect of carbon dioxide acts opposite to that of back radiation and is only 0.6% of that of back radiation—a negligible amount. The purpose of the paper is to describe how to construct Figure 1.

    Challenges to the science in this paper are expected to be unsuccessful because they up against the gas laws discovered by Boyle (1620) and Charles/Gay-Lussac (1780s) and actual physical measurements of back radiation.

    If we all work together, we can cause collapse of the concept that carbon dioxide causes climate change.

    Keep up the good work.


    H. Douglas Lightfoot

  9. I have a question for you all.

    I have been trying to find a way to get people without advanced science degrees to consider the issue of AGW. This is what I have come up with — all feedback welcome!

    Before we commit to spending billions upon billions of dollars to solve this problem, how about we define it scientifically? You know, in a way that can be measured.

    Real scientists check out the value of their theories and hypotheses by using data. So let’s try that here.

    What, exactly, is being *measured*? And how accurate are those measurements, both now and over time? And how do you know what the contribution of human activity is to whatever you are measuring?

    I’ll make it even easier for you. Since AGW believers frequently bring up surface temperature, let’s look at it. After all, it’s about the simplest thing involved, isn’t it?

    So show me a map of the earth’s surface temperature, and a companion map of the margin of error.

    Then do the same thing in (say) 1950.

    If you prefer another atmospheric parameter than surface temperature, suggest it and provide reasons for your choice, and then answer the same questions.

    Finally, tell me what part of the differences is due to human activity, how you know, and how accurately you know it.

    1. Then we have Dr. John Christy:
      “Ph.D., Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana, 1987 M.S., Atmospheric Sciences, , University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana, 1984; B.A., Mathematics, California State University, Fresno, 1969” and also
      “Richard Siegmund Lindzen who is a Harvard-trained atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lindzen is known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides and ozone photochemistry. He has published more than 200 books and scientific papers. He has been a critic of some anthropogenic global warming theories and the alleged political pressures on climate scientists” I tend to listen to Dr. Christy, Dr Spencer and Dr. Lindzen before paying much attention to Gore or Running. We shouldn’t forget James Hansen that was predicting global cooling back in the 1970’s

  10. HELEN WARN “I’ll make it even easier for you. Since AGW believers frequently bring up surface temperature, let’s look at it. After all, it’s about the simplest thing involved, isn’t it?” It would be simple, if we could trust that what we are being told was true.

    Perhaps the key point discovered by Smith was that by 1990, NOAA had deleted from its datasets all but 1,500 of the 6,000 thermometers in service around the globe.
    Now, 75% represents quite a drop in sampling population, particularly considering that these stations provide the readings used to compile both the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) and United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) datasets.
    Yet as disturbing as the number of dropped stations was, it is the nature of NOAA’s “selection bias” that Smith found infinitely more troubling.
    It seems that stations placed in historically cooler, rural areas of higher latitude and elevation were scrapped from the data series in favor of more urban locales at lower latitudes and elevations. Consequently, post-1990 readings have been biased to the warm side not only by selective geographic location, but also by the anthropogenic heating influence of a phenomenon known as the Urban Heat Island Effect (UHI).    
    For example, Canada’s reporting stations dropped from 496 in 1989 to 44 in 1991, with the percentage of stations at lower elevations tripling while the numbers of those at higher elevations dropped to one. That’s right: As Smith wrote in his blog, they left “one thermometer for everything north of LAT 65.” And that one resides in a place called Eureka, which has been described as “The Garden Spot of the Arctic” due to its unusually moderate summers.

    1. Wow. That’s absolutely shocking.

      I have a PhD in Meteorology from McGill University, but have not been active in the field for quite a while. I would never have dreamed that this level of disingenuous behavior would ever happen in the physical sciences.

  11. All Of Paraguay’s Temperature Record Has Been Tampered With 
    JANUARY 26, 2015

    This is the education that MSU’s Steve Running used to gain his share of the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore and then they criticize someone like Dr. John Christy because he shows how flawed their contentions are. This may be a shock to some that worship at this cathedral of their religion, global warming, but Al Gore has no scientific credentials and Steve Running, who holds a “B.S. in  Botany; Oregon State University, Corvallis, 1972, M.S. in Forest Management; Oregon State University, Corvallis, 1973 and a Ph.D. in Forest Ecophysiology; {whatever that is}, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, 1979.
    “Plant ecophysiology is an experimental science that seeks to describe the physiological mechanisms underlying ecological observations.” At least he has been exposed to science but is a long ways from being a climatologist, but then again, how much difference do credentials make when the head of the IPCC was an economist?

    1. Hi John, Good points. Ecology is not physics. You can get a PhD in ecology without taking any math or having any training in the philosophy of science. Ecologists think a seeming correlation is proof of cause and effect. Ecologists fall for global warming because they do not understand how real science works.
      Running has been “running” all over Montana preaching global warming. He shows slides of glaciers that have shrunk in the last 100 years. Then he claims our CO2 emissions caused the glaciers to shrink. His U of Montana class on climate change teaches nothing about the science of climate change. It trains innocent students to be environmental activists.
      If you press the “magnifying glass” icon above and search for “running” you will see that he also lies about having a piece of a Nobel Prize. The guy is not even honest.

      1. We can be assured that when Running is on the run preaching his absurdities to whomever will listen, and I think that there are many who will do so, that he never mentions these facts about where I have had my boat into on a couple of different occasions, Glacier Bay, Alaska.

        Steve Running, who holds a “B.S. in Botany; Oregon State University, Corvallis, 1972, M.S. in Forest Management; Oregon State University, Corvallis, 1973 and a Ph.D. in Forest Ecophysiology; {whatever that is}, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, 1979 needs to be asked if he thinks that glaciers would be retreating after the LIA ended? This applies to Running’s dire warnings regarding melting glaciers. Keep in mind that Geo. Vancouver’s ships were wind powered; therefore, he wasn’t spewing out any diesel smoke to start this massive retreat of these glaciers.
        “The explorer Captain George Vancouver found Icy Strait, at the south end of Glacier Bay, choked with ice in 1794. Glacier Bay itself was almost entirely iced over. In 1879 naturalist John Muir found that the ice had retreated almost all the way up the bay. By 1916 the Grand Pacific Glacier was at the head of Tarr Inlet about 65 miles from Glacier Bay’s mouth. This is the fastest documented glacier retreat ever. Scientists are hoping to learn how glacial activity relates to climate changes and global warming from these retreating giants.
        “Glacier Bay was first surveyed in detail in 1794 by a team from the H.M.S. Discovery, captained by George Vancouver. At the time the survey produced showed a mere indentation in the shoreline. That massive glacier was more than 4,000 feet thick in places, up to 20 miles wide, and extended more than 100 miles to the St. Elias mountain range.
        By 1879, however, naturalist John Muir discovered that the ice had retreated more than 30 miles forming an actual bay. By 1916, the Grand Pacific Glacier – the main glacier credited with carving the bay – had melted back 60 miles to the head of what is now Tarr Inlet.”

  12. “IPCC’s Big Idea (its fundamental hypothesis) is that nature treats human CO2 emissions differently than it treats nature’s CO2 emissions.”

    Dear Dr. Berry,
    can you provide a link to this or any other UNIPCC hypothesis?

    This far, there does not seem to be a single ‘atmospheric/oceanic anthropogenic carbon dioxide driven catastrophic global climate disruption’ hypothesis to be found anywhere in the scientific literature.

    Thanks in advance.

    -Still Looking

  13. From my experience over several years, it is impossible to have papers suggesting carbon dioxide does not cause climate change published by journals that promote carbon dioxide as the cause of climate change. This includes such journals as Nature, Science and the Journal of climate.

    Also, people promoting carbon dioxide as the cause of climate change “know” they are right and are unwilling to listen to anything that might show they are wrong.

    Thus, it appears the best way to make progress is to by-pass them. For example, many people learned from their high school science teachers about the gas laws. The gas laws show that carbon dioxide is a cooling or a warming gas depending on the season. Connecting the gas laws with back radiation shows carbon dioxide has negligible effect on atmospheric temperature. Thus, we need to get to high school science teachers.

    Another way is to provide scientific evidence to people like Scott Pruett who understand that carbon dioxide does not cause climate change and is a position to do something about EPA policies.

    Hope this helps.

    H. Douglas Lightfoot

  14. This is my theory about our deterioration, of which the misleading papers mentioned here are just one example.

    It seems to me that our ability to separate logic from feeling is deteriorating at a dangerous rate.

    Back when I was young, I remember discussing Earle Birney’s famous poem David in junior high school. It was a very moving subject, and yet we kids discussed it openly and passionately, without anyone feeling hurt or angry.

    I wonder if the same thing could happen today.

    More and more I see people who feel, rather than think. But worse, they are completely unaware that they have replaced reason with emotion.

    Recently a good friend was dumped by her dog training group because she is skeptical of AGW, and they *care* about the environment. Later she went for a dinner with 5 people in her exercise class & unfortunately she mentioned that she was thrilled about Brexit … now she is a zenophobe racist and also most likely a far right nationalist extremist.

    I begin to believe that cultures/societies are organic in nature. They start out with youthful thoughtless exuberance and violence; when they reach young adulthood they begin to value mercy and fairness; they reach a productive middle age; and, (inevitably) they eventually become senile, decadent, and ineffective, at which time they are easily taken over by youthful cultures.

  15. Hi Dr Ed.

    I have been reading some of the the IPCC assessment reports recently. There are some interesting things there.

    For example, when talking to AGW believers, they will tell you that CO2 is a long lived gas that remains in the atmosphere for hundreds of years.

    But the IPCC reports say


    “Long-lived greenhouse gases (LLGHGs), for example, CO2, methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O),

    are chemically stable and persist in the atmosphere over time scales of a decade to centuries

    or longer, so that their emission has a long-term influence on climate. “,

    but in the same paragraph they say,

    ” Carbon dioxide does not have a specific lifetime because it is continuously cycled between

    the atmosphere, oceans and land biosphere and its net removal from the atmosphere involves a

    range of processes with different time scales. ”

    So they are saying that CO2 both is and is not a LLGHG.

    Also note that in the 4AR, Methane is defined as a LLGHG.

    But in the 5ARWG1, have a look at Table 2.1 on page 166 .

    CO2 does not have any lifetime and methane is now a short lived GHG as it has a lifetime of 9.1 years.

    And what is it with the lifetime of 9.1 years? Accurate to one tenth of a year?

    So what does this mean?

    I think it means the IPCC is a political organisation for whom rules of logic do not apply.

  16. One other example:

    A Facebook friend of mine recently stated that he had looked into climate change, and really realized that it was happening and dangerous. This guy is a very bright IT specialist. When he posted his thoughts on the subject, I responded (politely) that I held a PhD in atmospheric physics from McGill. Within seconds (literally) he unfriended me!

    To me this illustrated just how this whole thing is being played out. They encourage people to believe in AGW by making them feel morally superior to those who don’t take it seriously. I guess they realize that feeling good about oneself trumps just about any other motivation.

  17. Hi Dr Ed.

    my first question concerns your article “Why human CO2 does not change climate” :
    – How do you compare your work with Dr Salby’s on this subject ? (see ref. below)

    In his lecture, Dr Salby proposed a model of CO2 dissipation (from bubbles to ice) which seams to explain why the observed variations of CO2 ppm in ice cores for the last million years are small (less than 100 ppm).

    What do you think about Dr Salby CO2 dissipation model ?

    Dr Salby’s lecture : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeCqcKYj9Oc

    I think that if this model is correct, the atmospheric CO2 concentration observed since some decades has nothing extraordinary.

    (sorry for my bad english).

    Marc Bardinet

  18. As a retired school teacher who used to teach the topic of Global Warming I have been delighted to find this site. For many weeks I have read ( studied!) everything that friends – and various scientists- have given me to prove their belief that man-made global warming is really happening. After reading and watching these, plus papers on Quantum Physics I was becoming even more sceptical! ( or better – realistic)
    Finally I read Howard Thomas Brady’s book which finally helped me grasp so many of the concepts in which I was not trained. I am not particularly comfortable with Brady’s chosen title ” Mirrors and Mazes: a guide through the climate change debate” because , “mirrors and mazes” could smack of conspiracy theory …. however, it is objective, quite unemotional, with full notes and graphs and references – and comes at the topic from all angles. Following a triple reading of this book I know the notion of” man-made climate change” is a total absurdity! Everyone who is considering their attitude on Climate MUST read this book.
    So with pessimism I must now turn my attention to a submission on the ” Zero Carbon Policy” that ALL New Zealanders are invited to make comment on!! What an oddity and a tragedy all these decades of myth making is…. with such wide spread implications so damaging to people’s livelihoods ( not to mention their overload of guilt and anxiety.) As others have asked, I also ask, how could it have possibly got this far!

  19. Dr. Berry, a physicist named Christopher Keating wrote this about you:

    ” Ed Berry is a wacked-out physicist who spends time making anti-science claims and uses his Ph.D. as a proof that he’s right. He isn’t and he has been called out on a regular basis, including by me. Based on his comments, I have to conclude he is not rational. But, people will still listen to him.

    So, let’s take a quick look at how invalid this latest piece of his is.

    Berry’s claim is that climate change is not possible because it violates Einstein’s equivalence principle. Right away, he demonstrates how invalid his claim is because he uses the principle in an incorrect manner. For those of you who may not be familiar with it, the equivalence principle states that gravity cannot be distinguished from acceleration, a key concept in his general theory of relativity. For instance, if you mysteriously woke up in a sealed room and the gravity was the same as before, you could not tell, by any experiment within the confines of the room, that you are on Earth and not in a spaceship accelerating at one earth-gravity of acceleration. But, that isn’t what Berry says.

    The Equivalence Principle says if data cannot distinguish between two things, then the two things are identical.

    No, that is not what the equivalence principle states and his statement is false. You can have incomplete data on two different things and not be able to distinguish between them. So, his basis is wrong right from the first sentence when he claims climate change violates the equivalence principle. ”

    I wonder why he doesn’t have the guts to address you directly?

    1. Hi George,

      Thank you for relaying Christopher Keating’s message. He does not have the guts to address me directly because he does not understand physics. Look at the errors he made in his claim:

      1. He attacks the messenger rather than addressing the science. He does not understand the scientific method.

      2. He does not get my statements correct. I did not claim “climate change is not possible”. I have always said climate changes and the science question is what causes climate change.

      3. I did not say “climate change” violates the Equivalence Principle. I said the IPCC claim that nature treats human CO2 differently than it treats natural CO2 violates the Equivalence Principle.

      4. Yes, I generalized the dictionary definition of the Equivalence Principle to apply to more than only gravity and inertial forces and I am within the bounds of physics to do so. The fact that Christopher does not get it, does not invalidate my statement.

      5. He inserted the strawman “incomplete data” into his argument when the implication of my statement “if data cannot distinguish between two things” is that we are using all the data available to us. So his argument is not valid.

      6. He does not address the IPCC claim that nature treats human-produced CO2 and nature-produced CO2 differently, so he appears to be happy with IPCC’s claim.

      Who is Christopher Keating?

      He is a physicist turned climate activist.

      His climate book on Amazon has 57% one-stars.

      His $30,000 offer is not even formulated according to the scientific method.

      He is not the only Ph.D. physicist out there who is dumber than buffalo dung.

      1. Dr. Berry, you are correct. I asked him directly why he wouldn’t come here directly and challenge you. Needless to say his response was lame. I proceeded to call him a blowhard and fraud. He fits into the same category as David Appell, another dummy who was given a PHD.

  20. I’m not a strong advocate of AGW but I believe Ed Berry’s arguments are flawed.

    First, no-one is saying that nature treats human CO2 emissions differently to naturally produced CO2. It obviously doesn’t but that’s completely irrelevant. The issue is one of equilibrium. For thousands of years, the carbon cycle remained broadly in balance. Throughout, the annual cycle, the atmosphere exchanged CO2 with the land and oceans and vice versa. This kept CO2 levels at a roughly constant 280 ppm.

    However, since we began burning fossil fuels we have been providing an extra source of CO2 into the atmosphere but the capacity of the land and oceans to absorb CO2 hasn’t changed and is limited. CO2, has, therefore, been accumulating in the atmosphere. Ed uses the analogy of a lake in which he says

    “If inflow remains constant, the lake level will remain constant”

    Err ….exactly. To expand Ed’s analogy, we humans have added a second river – albeit a smaller one than the original river – but this has increased the inflow. In Ed’s analogy the dam would probably allow an increased outflow so it’s not really appropriate. In the real world of the carbon cycle the outflow has limited capacity. Here’s a better example.

    Consider a tank of water which has a tap and a drain. The tap (inflow) allows 100 litres an hour into the tank while the drain allows 100 litres an hour to flow out of the tank. Clearly the water level of the tank will remain constant. Now think what would happen if we added a second tap which allows another 2 litres an hour. Since the drain cannot increase outflow the level of water in the tank will rise. NOTE ALSO that the drain won’t care if the water is from Tap 1 or Tap 2, it will treat all water in the same way just as nature treats all CO2 the same.

    Finally, Ed makes this statement

    “The IPCC claims human CO2 emissions will linger in the atmosphere for hundreds of years and 15 percent of it will remain forever. That claim is a result of IPCC’s Big Idea and it violates the Equivalence Principle. Nature’s CO2 has a half-life in the atmosphere of only 2.8 years. Human CO2 also has a half-life of 2.8 years.”

    I’m afraid Ed is confused here. He is (or would be) more or less correct to say that an individual CO2 MOLECULE remains resident in the atmosphere for about 3 to 5 years on average but this is not what the IPCC are referring to. While atmospheric CO2 is absorbed by the land and oceans, it is also being emitted by land and oceans via the annual cycle process, so absorbed CO2 is continually being replaced by emitted CO2.

    The IPCC claim actually refers to the “pulse” of CO2 which has accumulated since about 1850. They are effectively saying that if all fossil fuel emissions ceased tomorrow, it would take a century or more until atmospheric CO2 levels returned to 1850 levels. I did a rough calculation once (based on observations) which suggested the half-life of the 120 ppm pulse would be about 55 years.

    1. Hi John, Thank you for your comment. All views are welcome here.
      When I return from Porto, I will put together a video that shows my slides. For now, I believe my presentation addresses and counters all the contentions that you have well explained. It is certainly possible that some scientists at the Porto conference will make the same points you have made. I will report on the results of any such discussion.

  21. Hi Dr. Ed
    Have you published your ideas presented here in any peer-reviewed forum? Your thoughts are politically popular, but I think they may be inaccurate and misleading. I don’t think they will fare well in a peer review process. Am I incorrect? Have your ideas stood up to peer review?

    1. Hi Mike,
      The organizers of the recent conference, “Basic Science of a Changing Climate,” at Porto University, on September 7-8, 2018, peer-reviewed my paper before accepting it for their conference. The scientists attending the conference would have torn my paper apart if I had made any mistakes in physics. Instead, they made my paper and its conclusions a highlight of the conference.

      In addition, many qualified scientists have peer-reviewed my preprint in detail. The ideas I present are not original in the science community. My preprint references other publications that have promoted the same ideas I present. My main contribution has been to make the subject very simple to understand.

      Contrary to your statement, the ideas in my paper are not politically popular. The public has not even heard of these ideas. It is now time to inform the public that their popular concept of climate change is wrong.

      Please read my post that shows the slides of my talk. If you have even a high-school knowledge of physics, you will be able to follow the presentation and judge for yourself whether it is right or wrong. You should not have to rely on the opinion of others.

  22. Ed, I have been trying to solve an issue and I hope you can help. All of the press and internet info on electric cars shows a 3x advantage of CO2 emissions; however every article and quote I find on this is from the Union of Concerned Scientists. Their calculation correctly shows that about 65% of power generated on the grid is from fossil fuels, however, they don’t seem to take into account the following:

    1)When power is then transmitted over the grid– 8-15% is lost in transformers and transmission (assume avg. of 10%).

    The losses in the PEU were measured between 0.88% and 16.53% for charging elec. batteries and 8.28% and 21.80% for discharging. An average of around 25% in total loss of power generated from charging and discharging is a reasonable assumption.
    Based on these published figures, compare the efficiency of the power generated by an internal combustion auto engine which transfers power directly to a transmission and the power generated by a fossil fuel power source (gas,diesel, aircraft fuel, coal) after loss of 30% of the power generated to get the power from the plant to transmission to the battery including transforming, charging and discharging. (10% + 15%=30% see above)

    I sent this to a Phd of Elec engineering who is a distant relative and he said to refer to the Union of Concerned Scientists website, But when I try to break down their numbers it seems to completely ignore the loss or wasted power.

    Am I wrong? — Gary Millhollon in Texas

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.