By: Admin – Climate Depot December 24, 2021 9:33 AM
Special to Climate Depot
Climate science prevails over politics
This is my reply to an opinion letter by Monica Tranel, Montana Democrat candidate for Congress, in Montana’s Daily Inter Lake. This is my attempt to make the argument as simple as possible in 570 words for public reading.
This letter does not criticize Monica Tranel, but focuses on her letter of Dec 19, 2021, about climate change. The journal Science of Climate Change published my landmark paper on this subject on December 14, 2021.
Mrs. Tranel’s letter makes the following invalid assumptions.
First, her letter assumes the definition of “climate change” is that human emissions cause it. However, “climate change” means that climate simply changes whatever the cause.
Second, her letter incorrectly assumes events prove their cause, writing “the impact of climate change is hitting hard… We already see its effects in Montana.” My book Climate Miracle shows why this assumption is invalid even in legal trials.
Third, her letter assumes we should believe the COP26 attendees who say, “the climate crisis will never be averted without international agreements and concerted action.”
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) defines climate change science. But the IPCC bases its conclusions on one big invalid assumption, namely, that natural CO2 stayed constant since 1750 and human CO2 caused all the CO2 increase. All climate laws, regulations, treaties, and taxes are based on this invalid assumption.
My paper uses IPCC’s own data to prove this assumption is false and shows natural CO2, not human CO2, dominates the CO2 increase. Other scientists have checked my calculations and proved them correct.
Here are some simple reasons to help you understand why the IPCC is wrong.
IPCC admits natural CO2 emissions are 20 times human CO2 emissions. So, to the first approximation, because CO2 that flows into the atmosphere flows out, like water flows through a lake, human CO2 is only 5 percent of today’s atmospheric CO2, not 30 percent as IPCC incorrectly assumes.
More accurately, my paper calculates the flow of human CO2 back into the atmosphere, which shows human CO2 is 8 percent while natural CO2 is 92 percent.
The IPCC counters that human CO2 stays in the atmosphere longer than natural CO2 causing the human portion to be 30 percent. Thus, the IPCC digs its own grave. This IPCC claim is absurd because human and natural CO2 molecules are identical, so they flow out of the atmosphere at the same rate.
IPCC’s story would require a magic demon in the atmosphere to separate human from natural CO2 molecules, and then detain the human molecules. IPCC’s climate fiction is so absurd that it proves the IPCC did not just error but committed a fraud of global proportions.
Even the 2021 emissions reduction due to COVID did not stop the inevitable CO2 increase caused by natural CO2, further proving climate treaties and green energy are useless because they ignore that unstoppable nature is the dominant cause of the CO2 increase. Carbon-14 data independently prove nature dominates the CO2 increase.
My paper shows if human CO2 emissions were to stop, the small human-caused increase would quickly fall, meaning there is no scientific basis to claim there is a climate emergency or worry about our grandkids.
My paper overturns IPCC’s climate fraud with a clarity that can win in a court of law. Good high school students can understand my paper. Now, we need lawyers willing to overturn climate laws, regulations, and taxes.
Honest people from all political parties should accept science truth. Renewable energy should compete on a level playing field with other energy sources without climate change concerns.
To read my scientific paper, go to https://edberry.com and press the “My Paper” button.
Edwin X Berry, PhD, Physics
Caltech 1957
Dartmouth 1960
Nevada 1965
IPCC’s basic climate change assumption is natural CO2 stayed constant after 1750 as human CO2 causes all (or dominates) the increase in atmospheric CO2.
To support its basic assumption, the IPCC claims “The removal of human-emitted CO2from the atmosphere by natural processes will take a few hundred thousand years (high confidence).” But the human-carbon e-time must equal the natural-carbon e-time because human and natural CO2 molecules are identical.
The 14CO2 e-time, derived from δ14C data, is 10.0 years, making the 12CO2 e-time less than 10 years. The IPCC says the 12CO2 e-time is about 4 years and IPCC’s carbon cycle uses 3.5 years.
After the bomb tests, δ14C returned to its original balance level of zero even as 12CO2 increased. This suggests the added 12CO2 came from a natural source.
The physics model calculates, deductively, the consequences of IPCC’s natural carbon cycle data. The physics model first replicates IPCC’s natural carbon cycle. Then, using the same IPCC data, it calculates that human carbon has added only 33 [24-48] ppmv to the atmosphere as of 2020, which means natural carbon has added 100 ppmv. The physics model further calculates if human CO2 emissions had stopped at the end of 2020, the human CO2 level of 33 ppmv would fall to 10 ppmv by 2100.
The IPCC argues the absence of ice-core data – that might show the natural CO2 level was greater than 280 ppmv before 1750 – supports its basic assumption. But the physics model shows IPCC’s basic assumption, and therefore IPCC’s ice-core assumption, contradict IPCC’s natural carbon cycle data.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Another thread co-opted by Ferdinand Engelbeen.
As is evident here, he has a lot of opinion, most of which rests on flimsy argument.
Actually, judging from his website, he has invested a lot of time in investigating the issue. I think the problem is that after investing all that time he is reluctant to consider alternative interpretations to his data.
” As is evident here, he has a lot of opinion, most of which rests on flimsy argument. ”
Are you able to prove this aggressive claim? Or are you just a polemicist?
I’m surely late to the party here. I won’t join the discussion on the scientific merits of Dr Berry’s claims. Having not looked into the detail, I incline slightly towards the view that he’s wrong. But as debated on this thread, there are lots of different viewpoints even among skeptics of the climate change narrative.
What I want to point out is the very interesting statement Dr Berry made here:
<BLOCKQUOTE>First, her [Mrs. Tranel’s] letter assumes the definition of “climate change” is that human emissions cause it. However, “climate change” means that climate simply changes whatever the cause.</BLOCKQUOTE>
I would, of course, agree with Dr Berry’s common-sense view on this definition. But I was piqued enough to look up the UN’s “official” definition of “climate change.” It’s here:
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992), https://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/background_publications_htmlpdf/application/pdf/conveng.pdf, Article 1, paragraph 2:
<BLOCKQUOTE>”Climate change” means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which
is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.</BLOCKQUOTE>
It seems to me that there is more to the morphing of the “global warming” meme into “climate change” than meets the eye. For it enables the alarmists to avoid answering the question “Climate changes, but how much of it is caused by humans?” And to count those who (like me) say “Climate changes! Get over it” as agreeing with their point of view.
Was it Sun Tzu or von Clausewitz who said, “Never underestimate the dishonesty of your enemies?”
This is the same legerdemain performed by people who have an absolute belief in vaccines, or their semblance, safety, and efficacy, in lieu of immunity, whether preexisting, acquired, or vaccine-induced.
Especially when said “vaccine” is not a vaccine at all but a bodge to try to get a badly financed health service not to collapse from a different disaster other than the common FLU, or blame people for not wearing masks or meeting people they like..
Regarding “IPCC admits natural CO2 emissions are 20 times human CO2 emissions”: The whole truth is that nearly all of this is from mostly seasonal decay of vegetable matter, and this is roughly balanced by a similarly large set of natural sinks. The seasonal nature of much of this is shown by the Mauna Loa obervatory’s “Keeling curve” having slopes of its annual upturn and its annual downturn being multiple times steeper than the slope of the longer term increase.
As for the change from one year to the next: The atmosphere gains an amount equal to about half of what humans produce, and nature sinks an amount equal to the other roughly half. Nature has had a net effect of removing CO2 from the atmosphere every year of the past few decades.
Regarding “Even the 2021 emissions reduction due to COVID did not stop the inevitable CO2 increase caused by natural CO2, further proving climate treaties and green energy are useless because they ignore that unstoppable nature is the dominant cause of the CO2 increase.” The reason the atmosphere continued to gain CO2 despite COVID is that manmade emissions decreased by less than 10 percent.
Could you explain that? Is there something magic about the number 10?
Have you seen this:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/06/11/contribution-of-anthropogenic-co2-emissions-to-changes-in-atmospheric-concentrations/
Regarding “After the bomb tests, δ14C returned to its original balance level of zero even as 12CO2 increased. This suggests the added 12CO2 came from a natural source.” I add: Such as fossil fuels, which don’t have carbon 14.
The CO2 obsession on display in this thread mirrors its equivalent on the alarmist side.
So far the only observed proven effect of the increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is in the greening of the planet as would be expected.
Like stranded Japanese soldiers in the Pacific some people are battling against a phantom enemy.
The fight has moved on to energy policy and more fundamental concerns like freedom and human thriving versus ‘decline and fall’, it has happened before many times.
The argument is interesting perhaps from a scientific standpoint, but from a climate standpoint, it is moot. It makes absolutely no difference because CO2s effect on climate at this point is minimal.
The relevance to climate follows from an assumption of cause and effect relationship between CO2 and temperature, which is assumed to be a first-order forcing of [catastrophic] climate change. And the argument that natural sources are net sinks, and any mass changes must have persistent or cumulative anthropogenic sources, thus circling the argument to curb anthropogenic emissions.
IPPC , China influenced UN have a different agenda to normal civilised world .
End of story .
Arctic ice, The annual maximum extent in millions of square kilometres. Year, area, date. Source NSIDC.
2016………………… 14.52……..March 2
2017…down to……..14.43……..March 7 (altered down later)
2018……up to…….. 14.48……..March 17
2019……up to……… 14.78……..March 3
2020……up to……… 15.05……..March 5 – this was extraordinary, should have been the lead item on every newscast!
2021…down to…….. 14.77……..March 21
IPCC……………..”Arctic ice is disappearing”.
liars.
Unfortunately every post and the author fail to recognize the true lie about CAGW, eg Climate Change and that is that troposphere moisture levels are not correlating with increased CO2 levels. Increased water vapor is the real cause of CAGW, CO2 is just a forcing factor. Therefore the entire premise of CAGW is junk science. The only undeniable thing that increased CO2 levels correlate to is increased biomass across the planet which is a good thing. I wish everyone a happy new year as we prepare for another trip around our favorite star. Once the world embraces blockchain, the truth cannot be canceled and we will be free of tyrannical governments, elitists and NGO’s.