Why our CO2 emissions do not increase Atmosphere CO2

by Edwin Berry, PhD, Atmospheric Physics – also published in NewsWithViews

The genius of Al Gore

Give Al Gore an A for marketing and an F for science. But, hey, we all know the sale is in the marketing. The genius of Al Gore was to make his invalid myth simple:

  1. Our CO2 emissions increase Atmosphere CO2, and
  2. Atmosphere CO2 heats the Earth.

What could be simpler? Al Gore assumed his two invalid claims were true. His marketing job was to make you believe bad things happen when Atmosphere CO2 rises.

Everybody believed Al Gore. Well, almost everybody. His simple, inaccurate description of how our climate works created a generation of “science deniers,” some with misinformed PhD’s. Al Gore turned climate science into a political-environmental movement.

The alarmists’ goal is to scare you into believing our CO2 causes climate change. Once scared into an invalid belief, you will tend to hold that invalid belief forever.

Those who believe Al Gore’s marketing believe they can make the Earth cooler by reducing our CO2 emissions. Al Gore has sold them a bridge to nowhere.

Climate alarmists are like the Aztecs who believed they could make rain by cutting out beating hearts and rolling decapitated heads down temple steps.

Both of Al Gore’s two assumptions are wrong. This article shows how his first assumption is wrong. Nature, not human CO2 emissions, causes the changes in Atmosphere CO2.

The Logical Fallacy of Climate Change

Climate alarmists tell us climate change causes bad stuff to happen, and if bad stuff happens, they claim it is our fault. The alarmist logic goes like this:

If human CO2 causes climate change, then bad stuff will happen.

Bad stuff happens. Therefore, human CO2 causes climate change.

This alarmist claim is the well-known logical fallacy called “Affirming the Consequent.” Here is an example that illustrates this logical fallacy:

If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox, then Bill Gates is rich.

Bill Gates is rich. Therefore, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox.

The logical error is to assume that every result has only one possible cause. Shrinking glaciers do not prove we caused them to shrink.

The relevant climate change questions are about cause and effect.

The relevant climate change questions are not whether the climate has changed. Climate always changes. The only relevant climate change questions concern cause and effect:

  1. Do Human CO2 emissions significantly increase Atmosphere CO2?
  2. Does Atmosphere CO2 significantly increase climate change?

Climate alarmists must prove BOTH answers are YES. Otherwise, they lose their case.

This article shows why the answer to the first question is NO. A future article will show why the answer to the second question is also NO.

Why Human CO2 emissions do not cause climate change.

Fig. 1 shows why nature’s CO2 emissions, not Human CO2, are the major cause of the observed change in Atmosphere CO2.

All numbers in this article represent amounts of CO2. CO2 units are in parts per million by volume (ppmv) of CO2. Gigatons of Carbon (GtC) convert to ppmv using: 1 ppmv of CO2 = 2.13 GtC.

In the middle of Fig. 1 is a box that represents the CO2 in our atmosphere. The amount of CO2 in our Atmosphere in 2015 was 400.

Land and Ocean CO2 emissions into the Atmosphere total about 100 each year (plus or minus ten percent). An almost equal amount flows from Atmosphere CO2 to Land and Ocean CO2 each year (References: CDIAC, 2016IPPC, 2007aIPPC, 2007b).

co2cyclea

Fig. 1. Our Atmosphere’s CO2 is like a big lake. It receives CO2 from two big rivers (Land and Ocean) and from one small river (Human). Temperature controls CO2 flow from Land and Ocean to Atmosphere. Lake level rises or falls until outflow equals inflow.

Let’s use an analogy to help understand Fig. 1. Let water in a lake represent Atmosphere CO2.

Two large rivers flow into the lake. One river represents Land CO2. The other river represents Ocean CO2. Together, they supply about 100 units per year to the lake.

Lake water spills over a dam. The inflow of 100 raises the lake level until the outflow over the dam equals the inflow.

Similarly, the flow of Land and Ocean CO2 into our Atmosphere increases the amount of CO2 in our Atmosphere. Increased Atmosphere CO2 increases CO2 outflow to Land and Ocean. Like the lake, Atmosphere CO2 is at equilibrium when outflow equals inflow.

If inflow exceeds outflow, the lake level (Atmosphere CO2) will rise until outflow equals inflow. If outflow exceeds inflow, the lake level will fall until outflow equals inflow.

The dam separates the CO2 spill into two parts. One part goes back to Land. The other part goes back to the Ocean.

Fig. 1 includes the much longer CO2 cycle where Land CO2 becomes Fossil Fuels. Human CO2 emissions complete this CO2 cycle by returning Fossil Fuel CO2 to the Atmosphere.

A small river, with a flow of 4, also flows into the lake. This small river represents the Human CO2 flow into our Atmosphere. This small river adds only 4 percent to the Land and Ocean flow of 100 into the lake. This small river raises the total flow into the lake to 104. This will raise the lake level until the outflow equals 104.

The contribution of Human CO2 to the new lake level (Atmosphere CO2) is only 4 percent of the lake level above the dam, or only 4 percent of the total flow into and out of the lake. Ninety-six percent of the CO2 flow into and out of our Atmosphere is due to nature.

Fig. 1 shows a scenario where the total inflow into the Atmosphere equals the total outflow, and where the Human CO2 contribution goes to Land to support vegetation growth. Because inflow equals outflow, Atmosphere CO2 will remain constant, whether Atmosphere CO2 is 400 or 300 or any other value.

Salby (2016) comes to the same conclusion. Salby (2012) authored the comprehensive textbook, “The Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate.

Our Atmosphere does not treat Human CO2 any differently than CO2 from Land and Ocean. Human CO2 is simply another input to Atmosphere CO2 that will increase the outflow of Atmosphere CO2 to Land or Ocean by the same amount as the Human CO2 flow into the Atmosphere.

Temperature controls Atmosphere CO2.

Salby (2015) shows, directly from data and with no hypotheses, that Temperature sets the rate at which Atmosphere CO2 increases or decreases. This means temperature sets the equilibrium value of Atmosphere CO2. Fig. 1 indicates the Temperature effect by the symbol for the Sun.

If the Sun, cloud cover, or ocean currents change to increase temperature, the increased temperature will cause more Land and Ocean CO2 to flow into Atmosphere CO2. This will increase Atmosphere CO2 until outflow balances inflow.

Temperature is like the accelerator in your car. Atmosphere CO2 is like the speed of your car. Atmosphere CO2 follows Temperature – like the speed of your car follows your accelerator. Press down, your car speeds up. Let up, your car slows down.

Contrary to what Al Gore told you, CO2 does not control temperature. Temperature controls CO2.

Climate alarmists present their case.

Climate alarmists claim our CO2 emissions cause 100 percent of the observed rise in Atmosphere CO2. We will show why their claim is unphysical and invalid.

Here is the alarmists’ four step argument they claim proves their case:

  1. From 1750 to 2010, humans added 171 units of CO2 to our Atmosphere and Atmosphere CO2 increased by 113 units. This leaves 58 units.
  2. Land and Oceans absorbed the 58 units of Atmosphere CO2.
  3. Therefore, Land and Oceans are net absorbers of CO2.
  4. Therefore, Human CO2 caused 100 percent of the increase in Atmosphere CO2 since 1750 and 1960.

Here is my rebuttal to the Alarmists case:

During the same period that Human CO2 emissions added 171 units of CO2 to our Atmosphere, the Land and Ocean CO2 emissions added 26,000 units to our Atmosphere. Land and Ocean also absorbed about 26,000 units of CO2 from our Atmosphere, including the 171 units from Human CO2. There were no 58 units left over.

co2compare

Fig. 2. Land and Ocean CO2 emissions are 152 times greater than Human CO2 emissions during the period from 1750 to 2010.

Fig. 2 illustrates how Land & Ocean CO2 emissions compare to Human CO2 emissions during this period. The ratio is 152 to 1.

The alarmists case fails because it omits Land and Ocean CO2 emissions. Their omission leaves Human CO2 emissions as 100 percent and makes their claim that Human CO2 caused ALL the Atmosphere CO2 increase artificial.

During the 260-year period (during which we have reasonable measurements), Human CO2 caused “at most” 1/152 or 0.7 percent of the 113 ppmv rise in Atmosphere CO2.

“At most” is because Salby (2015) “Atmospheric Carbon: Why its not pollution and Why humans cannot regulate it,” shows that Temperature controls the rate of change of Atmosphere CO2, and the equilibrium value of Atmosphere CO2. Under that scenario, Land and Ocean emissions and absorptions will adjust to neutralize the effect of Human CO2 emissions, and the effect of Human CO2 on Atmosphere CO2 will be ZERO!

The Atmosphere does not know whether its CO2 came from Land, Ocean, or Human CO2 emissions. No matter what the source, the greater the total Atmosphere CO2, the greater the flow of Atmosphere CO2 to Land and Ocean CO2. Therefore, Atmosphere CO2 will seek the same balance level with or without Human CO2 emissions.

Global Warming alarmists claim Land and Oceans will continue to absorb the same amounts of atmospheric CO2 with our without human emissions. They reject physics 101 which tells us the rate of absorption by Land and Oceans will increase as atmospheric CO2 increases. If that were not true, there could be no “balance of nature” that the alarmists admit exists. Balance only occurs when flow rates are proportional to concentrations.

Land can absorb CO2 from the Atmosphere while Ocean provides CO2 to the Atmosphere. Fig. 1 shows this scenario where Land absorbs ALL Human CO2 emissions while Atmosphere CO2 remains constant.

In 2015, Human CO2 emissions were 4 percent of Land and Ocean CO2 emissions. Therefore, Human CO2 emissions caused “at most” only 4 percent of the rise in Atmosphere CO2.

A small river with an inflow of 4 cannot cause an outflow of 104. Yet this is what climate alarmists claim happens. The following tale illustrates the absurdity of the alarmist case:

An elephant crosses a bridge. A mouse, riding on the elephant’s back, says to the elephant, “We sure made that bridge shake, didn’t we?

The alarmists’ case is a shell game. They would flunk physics.

Earlier publications that argue the same position I have argued, include Rorsch, Courtney, & Thomas (2005), Siddons & D’Aleo (2007), Courtney (2008), Spencer (2009), Wilde (2012), Cox & Cormack (2013), Caryl (2013), Rust (2013), and Evans (2017).

Three more reasons Human CO2 emissions do not control Atmosphere CO2.

Fig. 3 shows Atmosphere CO2 scaled to fit Human CO2 emissions and the annual change in Atmosphere CO2 (References: NOAA, 2016CDIAC, 2016IPCC, 2007b).

Fig. 3. Human CO2 emissions, annual change in Atmosphere CO2, and Atmosphere CO2 scaled (by subtracting 266 and dividing by 50).

Salby (2016) makes the following three arguments using Fig. 3.

  1. Human CO2 emissions increased significantly after 2002 due to China’s contribution (Oliver, 2015). Yet Atmosphere CO2 continued its same steady rise.
  2. Annual changes in Atmosphere CO2 (jagged line) do not follow the smooth increase in Human CO2 emissions. (Also, Courtney, 2008.)
  3. In some years, particularly the period from 1988 to 1993, the rate of increase of Atmosphere CO2 falls while Human CO2 emissions continue to rise.

Munshi (2015) and Munshi (2016) compared the annual change in atmospheric CO2 with annual human CO2 emissions. His detrended statistical analysis shows their correlation is zero.

Therefore, Human CO2 emissions do not control Atmosphere CO2.

Conclusions

Climate alarmists claim Human CO2 causes ALL the increase in Atmosphere CO2. Their argument fails because they omit Land and Ocean CO2 emissions that are many times greater than Human CO2 emissions.

Climate alarmists also omit how Land and Ocean CO2 emissions and absorptions balance Atmosphere CO2 with or without the presence of Human CO2. Temperature sets the equilibrium Atmosphere CO2 independent of Human CO2 emissions.

More: http://edberry.com/blog/ed-berry/why-our-co2-emissions-do-not-increase-atmosphere-co2/

A Model for Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide: Abstract

 

by Edwin Berry, PhD, CCM (Certified Consulting Meteorologist)

Below is the Abstract for my forthcoming professional paper.

Yesterday, I submitted this Abstract to the American Meteorological Society for presentation at its “31st Conference on Climate Variability and Change.”

I hope to have my complete paper ready for publication in a few more weeks. My thanks to all who have helped me in this endeavor by reviewing my drafts.

After debating climate alarmists for many years, I have concluded the only way to win a climate debate (note I did not say “convert the believer”) is to clearly negate the alarmist hypothesis. Otherwise, a climate debate can go on for years and accomplish nothing.

I think the focus of this Abstract on its point #1, may be the simplest and best way to negate the alarmist hypothesis. While this Abstract is necessarily in scientific language, this argument can easily be put into layman’s language.

ABSTRACT

The critical questions about climate change are not about whether climate has changed or the impacts of climate change. The critical questions about climate change are about cause-and-effect:

  1. How much does human-emitted carbon dioxide increase atmospheric carbon dioxide?
  2. How much does increased atmospheric carbon dioxide change climate?

This paper focuses on the first question.

This paper derives, possibly for the first time from fundamental principles, a simple model, with a rate equation and its analytic solution, which accurately describes the flow of carbon dioxide into, and out of, the atmosphere. The two universally-accepted, fundamental principles are the continuity equation and the gas version of Torricelli’s Law.

This paper will call the model described in this paper, “the Model.”

The Model follows the proper design for such models as described by Forrester of MIT. Models should include defined levels (of carbon dioxide in this instance) and rate equations that describe the flow of carbon dioxide or carbon between the levels.

The Model’s conclusions support the conclusions of other papers regarding carbon dioxide residence time and the effect of human emissions on atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.

The Model shows how the flow of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere sets the equilibrium level of atmospheric carbon dioxide. This equilibrium level equals the total inflow multiplied by the residence time. The Model shows the level will always move toward its equilibrium level.

Because of Raoult’s Law and Dalton’s Law, the Model applies to the total atmospheric carbon dioxide as well as to its individual parts, such as 14CO2, natural 12CO2, and human-produced CO2.

The Model shows that human-produced carbon dioxide and nature-produced carbon dioxide independently set their equilibrium levels based upon their respective inflows, and the sum of these independent equilibrium levels equals the total equilibrium level of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

The Model is meant to replace the Bern model used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) because the Bern model is not based on fundamental physics.

The Model shows that nature treats human-produced carbon dioxide exactly like nature-produced carbon dioxide because, once in the atmosphere, nature cannot tell the difference between human-produced and nature-produced carbon dioxide.

IPCC’s Bern model treats human-produced and nature-produced carbon dioxide differently, which defies physical laws and is therefore impossible. The emissions term in the Bern equation is for human emissions and not for natural emissions. If natural emissions were inserted into the Bern-model emissions term, the Model would compute an ever-increasing, irreversible, unstoppable level of atmospheric carbon dioxide – even with no human emissions and even if nature’s emissions continued constant as they were in 1750.

The Bern model is a seven-parameter curve-fit to the output of IPCC’s climate models, which include the same assumptions as the Bern model. By contrast, the Model is derived from fundamental physics and it requires data to fit only one parameter, the residence time.

In sharp contrast to the Bern model, the Model accurately reproduces how the level of atmospheric 14CO2 decreased after the end of the above-ground atomic-bomb tests in 1963. The creators of the original Bern model, Siegenthaler and Joos (1992), understood that their model should reproduce the 14CO2 data and were disappointed that it did not do so.

Siegenthaler and Joos designed their original Bern model with separate levels for the atmosphere and different parts of the ocean. However, the IPCC’s version of the Bern model omits the separate levels and incorrectly attaches the slow time-constant between the upper ocean and the deep ocean, directly to the atmosphere. This unrealistic connection causes IPCC’s Bern model to vastly over-estimate the residence time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

The proper way to include the deep ocean is to expand the Model to include explicit levels for the upper ocean and the deep ocean, as originally planned by the creators of the Bern model. Then one would add to the expanded Model, rate equations that describe the slow flows between the upper ocean and the deep ocean. It is incorrect to connect the rate equations for the deep ocean directly to the atmosphere level, as the present Bern model does.

The IPCC is the only group that claims carbon dioxide residence time is hundreds of years to infinity. Siegenthaler (1989), and more than thirty other scientific papers, conclude carbon dioxide residence time is between 3 and 15 years.

This present paper uses 14CO2 data to conclude that the residence time of 14CO2 is 14.4 years. The Model shows that residence time equals the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide at equilibrium divided by the total inflow; this computes the 12CO2residence time to be ~4 years.

Some authors have tried to defend the IPCC’s extremely long, unrealistic, and irreversible residence time by claiming the Bern model uses a “different kind” of residence time than that which the 14CO2 data describes. The present paper concludes the Bern model, the 14CO2 data, and all other definitions of 1/e residence time are the same – because they all use the same parameter to measure residence time, i.e., the level (or concentration) of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

The Model shows that the ratio of human to natural carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at equilibrium, equals the ratio of their inflows; this ratio equality is independent of residence time.

The Model computes the human-caused equilibrium level to be ~18 ppm and the nature-caused equilibrium level to be ~382 ppm. The total of each part adds up to the ~400 ppm of today.

The Model shows if ALL human carbon dioxide emissions were terminated today and nature stayed constant, the total carbon dioxide level would fall to ~390 ppm in 4 years, to ~387 ppm in 8 years, and would never fall below 382 ppm because the constant inflow of natural carbon dioxide would always maintain that level.

To answer the first question above: human emissions are insignificant to climate change.

Ref.: http://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/agw-hypothesis/model-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-abstract/

A PHYSICS VIEW OF CLIMATE CHANGE

By Dr. Ed Berry, PhD, Physics
December 26, 2015
NewsWithViews.com

Aztec priests told people they must cut out their beating hearts to bring better climate for their crops. The people believed them.

Today’s climate priests tell people they must cut out their CO2 emissions and pay penances to other nations, like China, to save our climate. The people believe them.

It’s time for you to think for yourself.

I will show you physics “secrets” that will change everything you “believe” about climate.

The real climate debate is about the scientific method. This is the critical “philosophy” part of science that most people and many scientists do not understand.

To help us understand the scientific method, let’s drop in on a fictitious federal murder trial in San Francisco.

Federal criminal court procedures are similar to the scientific method. The prosecution needs a unanimous vote by the jury. Only one “Not Guilty” vote defeats the prosecution’s case.

The prosecution accuses Smith of shooting and killing Jones

The prosecution enters evidence to support its case. Smith owns a gun similar to the gun that killed Jones. Smith once publicly threatened Jones. Etc. The evidence looks bad for Smith. The prosecution rests.

Does the defense try to refute all the prosecution’s evidence? It does not need to. The defense only needs one contradiction to the prosecution’s case to win. The defense proves Smith was in New York at the time of the shooting. Game over.

The scientific method works the same way. You may propose an idea, like our CO2 causes dangerous climate change. You may show evidence to support your idea. But the defense only needs to show your idea has one mistake or one incorrect prediction to prove your idea is wrong.

Some alarmists claim their idea is true because of a “preponderance of evidence.” This is not the scientific method and it leads to the wrong conclusion.

The scientific method says we can never prove an idea is true. We only can prove an idea is false. To approach truth, we discard fiction. Since we can never discard all fiction, science is never settled.

Let’s drop in on another fictitious trial

The prosecution claims human CO2 emissions cause climate change. The prosecution introduces the following evidence:

 Humans have burned carbon-based fuels in meaningful quantities since 1950.
 Global temperatures have been mostly rising since 1950.
 Climate models embody the alarmist idea.
 Climate models predict human CO2 will cause future temperature rise.
 Consequences are dangerous sea levels, hurricanes, etc.
Looks bad for CO2 but let’s hear from the defense.

The defense requests dismissal of consequential evidence, like sea levels, because consequences do not prove causation. The judge agrees. Consequential evidence dismissed.

The defense calls its witnesses.

Dr. Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics, explains the scientific method. You get an idea or hypothesis. You use your idea to make a prediction. If your prediction is wrong, your idea is wrong.

Dr. Albert Einstein testifies we must compare predictions of climate models to new data. Einstein’s relativity idea predicted our sun’s gravity would bend light from a star by a precise amount. Einstein said of the scientific method, “Many experiments may prove me right but it takes only one to prove me wrong.”

Dr. John Christy compares climate model predictions since 1979 with real data. Climate models do not agree among themselves, and the model average predicts global temperature will increase 3 times faster than recorded climate data. This inaccuracy is like missing your deer shot by 3 deer lengths. Both points prove the models are wrong.

So, like Smith, human CO2 is innocent. Case closed.

You can stop here if you wish because this is enough to totally defeat the alarmist climate change idea.

For your entertainment, the defense continues with some atmospheric “rocket science.”

The defense calls Dr. Judith Curry. She says the real issue is “What causes climate change? Humans or nature?”

Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi explains his peer-reviewed papers that show water vapor and clouds adjust to changes in CO2 to keep Earth’s greenhouse effect constant. His predictions match observations. Therefore, CO2 can’t change the greenhouse effect and can’t cause global warming.

Question: Would Earth be an ice-covered planet if it had no CO2?

Miskolczi: The water phase diagram shows ice sublimation would add enough water vapor to produce today’s greenhouse effect, with or without CO2.

Dr. Murry Salby is the author of the 666-page, 2012 textbook “Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate.” He uses advanced physics and math to analyze CO2 data. Salby proves temperature, not human CO2, causes the change in atmospheric CO2. Salby’s conclusion does not depend on theory. It results from proper data analysis.

Dr. Willie Soon is lead author of a 2015 peer-reviewed paper that shows our sun, not CO2, drives climate. He shows plots of temperature, total solar irradiance, and CO2 from 1880 to present. The plots show Earth’s global temperature correlates with total solar irradiance but not with CO2. The lack of correlation of Earth temperature with CO2 proves CO2 does not drive temperature.

Dr. David Evans, an expert mathematician, found climate models contain a serious error. Climate models use the old Arrhenius assumption that Earth responds to CO2 change like it responds to change in solar radiation. The Arrhenius assumption is incorrect. Climate responds much differently to changes in CO2 than it does to changes in solar radiation. When Evans corrects for this model error alone, climate model temperature predictions decrease by 80 to 90 percent.

Dr. Ivar Giaever won the 1973 Nobel Prize in Physics. He is a Democrat who puts scientific truth above partisanship. He testifies the alarmist climate change idea is pure pseudoscience. He says climate alarmists have made their idea a new religion and therefore can’t question it. He shows many conflicts of the alarmist climate idea with the real world of physics.

The defense rests.

The prosecution can’t produce any witnesses to counter the testimonies of Feynman, Einstein, Christy, Curry, Miskolczi, Salby, Soon, Evans, or Giaever.

The judge pounds the gavel

Our CO2 does not control climate. CO2 is not a pollutant. Carbon is not a pollutant.

The best way to “address” climate change is to do nothing.

Ref.: http://www.newswithviews.com/Berry/ed103.htm

Second X-Flare in Two Months Signals the Grand Solar Minimum is Intensifying

Unusual Hot & Cold Temperatures Mixing Across the Northern Hemisphere

Government Climate Scientists Attempting To Extort Money From President Trump