“Atmospheric 14C, Human Origin of Atmospheric CO2, and Berry’s Model”

Comments on the critique by Don Bogard entitled “Atmospheric 14C, Human Origin of Atmospheric CO2, and Berry’s Model” Ed Berry Below are the relevant paragraphs from Bogard in quotes followed by indented comments by Berry.

“The explanation for the rapid decrease in ATM 14C after 1965 is the relatively rapid exchange of ATM CO2 with other CO2 reservoirs whose 14C abundance is lower than the ATM (see my “pond” graph below).”

The explanation for the rapid decrease in ATM 14C after 1965 lies not in the other reservoirs, although their existence is necessary. The explanation is that the bombproduced 14C inflow was terminated after it had raised the 14 level 65% above its natural balance level set by the natural inflow of 14C. “However, an increase in ATM 14C from nuclear tests was not the only driver for the 14C decrease after 1965, as shown by Fig. 2, which reveals decreases in ATM 14C through most of the Holocene.”

Bogard’s Fig. 2 covers 12,000 years and shows little change in the past 100 years.

Therefore, this point is irrelevant.

“In his atmospheric CO2 model, Ed Berry develops a mathematical expression to match the decrease in relative atmospheric concentrations of 14C over the past several decades (Fig. 3).”

Berry did not develop a “mathematical expression”. That sounds like a mere curve fit.

Berry postulated a hypothesis that outflow equals level divided by e-time. This is a hypothesis that even Bogard agrees with in principle.

Berry then showed this hypothesis exactly replicates the 14C data from 1970 to 2014 when the e-time, Te, equals 16.5 years and the natural balance level equals about zero.

This replication supports the physics model hypothesis. It also proves the 14C e-time has been constant since 1970 and the natural balance level is near zero today.

Simple mathematics show this hypothesis has consequences. It says the ratio of human to natural CO2 in the atmosphere equals the ratio of their inflows, independent of etime. This means the present level of CO2 in the atmosphere is composed of about 18 ppm of human CO2 and 392 ppm of natural CO2 using IPCC numbers for the inflows.

Some people don’t like this consequence of the physics model because it disagrees with their programmed beliefs or upsets their platform. So, they object to the physics model.

Such objections are not founded in science but are the result of emotions that prevent their acceptance the consequence of a physical theory.

“Berry assumes this decrease in ATM 14C is a good proxy for removal of CO2 produced by fossilfuel burning, and it may be.”

True.

1

“From Figure 3, since 1965, ATM 14C has decreased from ~600 per mil to <50 per mil. However, over most of the past 3,000 years natural 14C content was mainly below zero per mil (Fig. 2).

Thus, exchange of recent ATM with other reservoirs is expected to lower the relative ATM 14C content.”

The physics model is unaffected by the history of 14C over the last 3000 years. The physics model is the simplest possible model that can explain and replicate the history of 14C since 1970. Neither the IPCC model nor Bogard’s model, if he has a model, can replicate these 14C data.

“Berry’s “physics model” about the origin of increasing ATM CO2 addresses details of the observed decrease in ATM 14C/12C, but it says nothing about the origin of the increased ATM CO2 over the past century.”

On the contrary, as noted above, the physics model’s replication of the 14C data has consequences. One consequence shows the present level of CO2 in the atmosphere is composed of 18 ppm of human CO2 and 392 ppm of natural CO2 using IPCC numbers for the inflows.

“The fraction of human CO2 in today’s ATM is a function of the relative rates of CO2 exchange among the various C reservoirs, the total CO2 in each reservoir, and the characteristic time constant for such exchange (i.e., the kinetics of each exchange). The origin of increasing CO2 must be determined from other considerations.”

Indeed, the physics model recognizes and properly computes the results of the exchanges of ATM with its connected reservoirs. It shows the effect of inflows and etime for these external reservoirs on level of ATM CO2.

The physics model proves e-time, which is Bogard’s “characteristic time constant,” for 14CO2 is 16.5 years. The e-time for 12CO2 must be less than 16.5 years. The physics model shows the ratio of human to natural CO2 in the atmosphere is about 4.4 percent independent of e-time.

No other considerations are necessary to determine the origin of increasing CO2. The physics model shows present human CO2 inflow can add no more than 18 ppm to the level of ATM CO2. This derives from the physics model hypothesis that replicates the 14C data.

“Previously I gave several lines of evidence for a human source (mainly fossil fuel burning) for most, if not all of the growth in ATM CO2. Below I bring together those reasons. Immediately below, I add two new and strong arguments for fossil fuel being the primary source of growing CO2.”

“Lines of evidence” may include good observations but observations alone do not advance a theory or prove a theory is untrue. The scientific method requires we use observations to formulate a theory. Then, we must make a testable prediction to test the theory. If the prediction disagrees with new observations, the theory is wrong.

In his critique of Berry (2019), Bogard uses no theory, no models, no math, no numbers, no predictions, no tests, and does not show the physics model makes an invalid 2

prediction.

In contrast, Berry shows the IPCC theory makes bad predictions and uses invalid physics.

Bogard supports much of the IPCC theory that is now proven to be invalid.

“Figure 4 shows the relatively ATM concentration of oxygen, O2, over 1990-2007. Not only did it decrease, but it also gave a seasonal variation similar to that observed in ATM CO2 and produced by plant growth and dormancy, mainly in the northern hemisphere. This O2 decrease represents loss from fossil fuel burning.”

The decrease in O2 represents the total fossil fuel burned. This total has no bearing on how much human CO2 increases ATM CO2 because CO2 does not accumulate in the atmosphere.

The physics model correctly shows that CO2 flows through the atmosphere as water flows through a lake and out over a dam. The inflow increases the level just enough so outflow equals inflow. Thereafter, if inflow remains constant, the level will remain constant as inflow continues.

“Figure 5 shows a decrease in the 13C/12C ratio for ATM CO2 over 1978 to 2008. Figure 6, giving ranges of 13C/12C in various C reservoirs, explains why such a 13C/12C decrease is to be expected from fossil fuel burning, as fossil fuels have a lower 13C/12C compared to the ATM.” Again, Bogard argues without theory, equations, or numbers.

Berry (2019) section 5.6 uses numbers to show that 13C/12C data support the physics model and reject the IPCC model. Furthermore, Salby showed with satellite data that 13C production declines with rising temperature. So, 13C data does not prove human CO2 caused the rise in ATM CO2.

“Good energy documentation shows that a century of fossil fuel burning (with some other activities) has released more total CO2 compared to the measured Atmospheric increase.”

Berry (2019) section 6.2 shows the comparison of total human CO2 inflow with the increase of ATM CO2 is illogical because it neglects the much larger natural CO2 inflow.

Human CO2 inflow is in the noise level of natural flow and IPCC says its estimates of natural CO2 inflow have error bounds of about 20%.

“Data show that more ATM CO2 has been dissolving in the oceans -- direct measurements of higher CO2 concentrations and lower pH values. Because the partial pressure of ATM CO2 has increased 40%, whereas temperature of the surface ocean has increased a much more modest amount and deeper ocean very little, the driving force to dissolve more CO2 into sea water is considerably greater than the driving force to degas sea water through slight warming.”

Do we really have good data for the whole ocean surface to claim, “CO2 has been dissolving in the oceans”? This claim does not prove the physics model is wrong. So, it is not relevant. Any argument against the physics model must include a hypothesis that can also replicate the 14C data. Bogard does not have an alternative hypothesis that can replicate the 14C data.

I defer to Harde (2019) and Salby on the effect of surface temperature on ATM CO2.

3

“Although not precisely measured, there is good evidence that the earlier equilibrium for CO2 exchange between reservoirs has shifted in favor of more CO2 leaving the ATM than entering it from these other reservoirs, at rates of several pg/yr of CO2 exchange moving out of atmosphere into other reservoirs (my "pond" graph).”

What evidence? This is very difficult data to observe with the accuracy needed to conclude human CO2 causes all the increase in atmospheric CO2. “#5. A quick look at my earlier "pond" graph shows that CO2 entering the ATM from other reservoirs (mostly natural) greatly outnumbers the CO2 addition from fossil fuel -- by about 21 to 1. That is probably where the IPCC gets its 5% value. There is NO difference in behavior between human CO2 and natural CO2, and the IPCC does not imply such. I think Berry simply misunderstands this number.”

Bogard’s irrelevant ad hominem attack will be disregarded. It is unlikely the IPCC got its data from Bogard’s pond graph. Berry (2019) uses the IPCC data which show the 21 to 1 ratio.

The IPCC documents make it very clear the IPCC treats human CO2 differently than it treats natural CO2. First, the IPCC begins by assuming that natural CO2 inflow remained constant since 1750 as its basis for concluding human CO2 caused all the increase. Second, IPCC says its Bern model applies only to human CO2 and not to natural CO2. IPCC’s Bern model traps 15% of human CO2 in the atmosphere but allows natural CO2 to flow freely out of the atmosphere. This unequal treatment violates physics.

Indeed, the IPCC supports the physics model. It just does not admit it. IPCC assumes the natural level of CO2 remained constant after 1750 while its inflow continued. Only the physics model can explain how a constant inflow can maintain a constant level. If the IPCC would apply the same physics to human CO2, the IPCC would agree with Berry (2019). “#6. Because 14C is all produced in the atmosphere and fossil fuel contains no 14C, Berry assumes that the present ATM concentration of 14C relative to normal 12C can represent the mixing ratio of human CO2 and natural CO2.”

Wow! In no way does Berry assume the ratio of 14C to 12C implies anything about the ratio of human to natural CO2. Bogard has misread Berry’s paper.

“But a quick look at my earlier "pond" graph shows that as 14C moves from ATM to other reservoirs, it is replaced by CO2 moving back into the ATM. That CO2 contains variable amounts of 14C.” The physics model applies individually to 14CO2, 12CO2, human CO2, and natural CO2, and any other subset of CO2. The physics model shows how inflows set balance levels, how levels approach their balance levels, and how outflows depend upon levels and etime.

The physics model treats only the ATM “pond” and shows how all other “ponds” should be treated according to math and physics. Bogard’s pond model should use Berry’s 4

physics model for each of its “ponds”.

Bogard’s pond model proves nothing. It has no equations, no numbers, no predictions, no e-times, and no testable theory.

“Imagine the case with ocean degassing of CO2. That degassed CO2 recently acquired from the ATM (years) still has most of its 14C. However, past of that degassed CO2 has spent centuries to millennia in the deep oceans and part of its 14C has decayed. Marine carbonate shelled organisms, containing low 14C can dissolve and add CO2 to the ATM. To accurately account for these effects, one has to accurately know the 14C content and exchange rates with other reservoirs.”

The above paragraph uses history to critique a model. It is fundamental that a model of nature cannot include history as a component. Nature does not “remember” its history. Nature acts according to the present levels, not to historical levels. To accurately model natural effects, one must develop a valid systems model that does not include history. “#7. To see the problem in using the 13C/12C ratio of ATM CO2 to determine origin, look at the graph immediately below. (now given above as 13C/12C in various reservoirs) Several sources of ATM CO2 via reservoir exchange exist, and all those sources have variable 13C/12C, with fossil fuel CO2 intermediate.”

Again, Bogard argues with no equations, no numbers, and no testable hypothesis.

As Berry (2019) shows, some people claim the changes in the 13C/12C ratio support the IPCC model. Berry merely shows that their claim is incorrect. “#8. This Berry statement - “Continued constant CO2 emissions do not add more CO2 to the atmosphere. No CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere” - indicates that Berry does not understand basic exchange concepts for geochemical processes.”

Bogard’s second ad hominem attack is inaccurate, invalid, and irrelevant.

On the one hand, Bogard agrees with the physics model hypothesis. On the other hand, Bogard is unwilling to accept the results of that hypothesis. The physics model shows Berry’s statement is correct.

“If CO2 concentration in one reservoir increases, it increases in all exchanging reservoirs. How fast that increase in other reservoirs occurs depends on the time period (rate) of CO2 exchange, which for some reservoirs (e.g., deep ocean) is quite long.”

The physics model not only acknowledges how inflows change levels and levels change outflows, it proposes a hypothesis to explain how inflows change levels and levels change flows. It uses the hypothesis to make testable predictions that are confirmed by data.

“You can visualize these boxes as Ponds (as in Berry’s analogy) but viewed from above. The blue arrows represent shallow ditches connecting each pond and through which C exchange between reservoirs occurs. Prior to the significant increase in human CO2 added to the atmosphere, the ponds had existed at approximately the same level for many thousands of 5

years and the C exchange rates into and out of each pond were the same, i.e., at equilibrium.”

The above paragraph has no bearing on whether human or natural CO2 caused the increase in ATM CO2.

“However, human addition of new CO2 to the atmosphere increased the “water” level in the AIR pond. That caused the rate of C flow out of the AIR pond and into the oceans and plants/soil ponds to exceed the rates from these ponds back into the atmosphere.

Atmospheric CO2 concentrations increased.”

The above paragraph is a very elementary description of how the physics model works.

It lacks the mathematical formulation of the needed hypothesis. The physics model equations contain all information needed to compute how inflows set balance levels and how outflow depends upon level and e-time. For multiple reservoirs, a new physics model would be used for each reservoir and it would use an e-time for each reservoir.

“When additional AIR CO2 flows into these other reservoirs, there exists a time constant (delay time) for them to react (shown above as a “time constant” for each C reservoir). That is, nature requires a characteristic time period ranging from years to decades to centuries before the other reservoirs can match their CO2 flow back into the atmosphere to the new flow arriving from the atmosphere.”

The above paragraph attempts to describe the function of e-time without understanding e-time. Read Berry (2019) for a better explanation.

“One example of this time delay is that increased atmospheric CO2 increases CO2 uptake within green plants within a year, but decades may be required for those plants to die, decay, and return their CO2 back to the atmosphere. (A greater rate of CO2 flowing into oceans occurs because of the significant increase in atmosphere CO2 partial pressure, which overpowers the slight decrease in CO2 solubility due to slight ocean warming.) This time delay is the explanation for why in the above graphic the CO2 flow rates into the ocean and plants/soil currently are greater than the flow rates back to the atmosphere. CO2 exchange equilibrium has not yet been restored, and for some C reservoirs (e.g. deeper ocean) it will take centuries to restore. But it is even more complex than this. The rate of human addition of CO2 to the atmosphere is not constant, but steadily increasing. So long as this remains true, reservoir C equilibrium will never be restored.”

There is nothing new in the above paragraph and nothing relevant to the subject of whether human or natural CO2 caused the increase in ATM CO2.

“Imagine that we could uniquely label human-produced CO2 and distinguish it from natural CO2 in the above graphic. (We cannot uniquely do so, in spite of what Berry implies about IPCC comments and the use of 14C in some estimates.)”

Bogard’s third ad hominem is irrelevant to the subject under discussion. As noted above, the physics model applies to any defined subset of CO2.

“Of course, we would find that far fewer than 40% of current atmospheric CO2 molecules derived from human sources. The reason is obvious; atmospheric CO2 continually moves into other reservoirs.”

6

That CO2 moves between reservoirs is not the reason human CO2 is less than 40% of ATM CO2. The reason the ratio of human to natural ATM CO2 is about 4.4% is because the ratio of human to natural CO2 inflow is about 4.4%. Bogard’s reason is incorrect and irrelevant.

“Further, that human CO2 moving into other reservoirs is continually replaced with mostly natural CO2, thereby diluting the proportion of human CO2 residing in the atmosphere.”

It should be obvious that CO2 flows in both directions. That fact is not relevant to the discussion. The physics model uses levels to predict levels. It computes the difference between inflow and outflow to derive a new level.

Bogard’s argument concerns the flow of molecules, not levels. Therefore, it is an inconsistent argument. The IPCC also attempts to argue system response times in terms of molecular flows and gets its physics mixed up. See Berry (2019) section 6.1.

“Even if new addition of CO2 to the atmosphere were to stop, it would require significant time, decades to centuries, for the rate of CO2 back into the atmosphere to equal the rate of CO2 leaving the atmosphere and for the atmosphere CO2 level to stabilize.”

The above paragraph is devoid of physics and has no physical basis for its conclusions.

Take the case of 14CO2. The physics model shows the 14CO2 e-time is 16.5 years. The e-time for 12CO2 will be less. The IPCC says the e-time for 12CO2 is 4 years. As such, the level will be very close to its new balance level in about 12 years, not in decades to centuries.

“Because of the much greater CO2 capacity of the ocean and possibly the plants/soil reservoirs, the new atmospheric CO2 level would be lower than today.”

My head hurts. The above paragraph has no physics and is incorrect.

“To model mathematically this process of changing CO2 equilibrium and what a future atmospheric CO2 level might be would require detailed knowledge of reservoir C capacities and C exchange rates. It would be most difficult.”

The calculation described would indeed need the relevant data for each reservoir. But given the data, the calculation is elementary.

I developed a model much more complicated than Bogard’s pond model. I used it in a courtroom when I was an expert witness for the defense in a murder trial. My model calculated the transfer of heat between several reservoirs. The jury agreed my model proved the key prosecution witness lied. Two attorneys from the office of the California Attorney General tried unsuccessfully for 5 days to refute my model. My testimony marked the first time a model was used in a courtroom to produce new evidence.

Microsoft chose my model out of over a thousand applications for its Windows World Open software application contest. The 30 selected groups presented their models in Atlanta. My model won the People’s Choice Award. I am an expert on how to design, develop, program, test, and use complex models.

7

“Human-added CO2 to the atmosphere was clearly the major cause for the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration. That addition disturbed C equilibrium among reservoirs, and the atmospheric CO2 level from that human addition continues to remain high, and will continue to do so until such future time that CO2 equilibrium exchange among reservoirs is restored.”

Bogard has presented no physics, no hypothesis, no equations, no numbers, and no testable predictions to justify his conclusion.

On the one hand, Bogard accepts the physics model hypothesis as does the IPCC. On the other hand, Bogard and the IPCC reject the physics model because the consequences of the physics model conflict with their desired outcome.

Any argument against the physics model must include a hypothesis that can also replicate the 14C data. Bogard does not have an alternative hypothesis that can replicate the 14C data.

I thank Don Bogard for his work to show my model is wrong. However, nothing he has presented shows my physics model or its conclusions are incorrect.

The null hypothesis is that human CO2 has not caused the rise in atmospheric CO2. The burden of proof lies upon those who claim human CO2 is the cause of the rise in atmospheric CO2. No one has shown the null hypothesis is incorrect. The physics model shows the null hypothesis is correct.

References: Berry (2019): “Human CO2 Emissions Have Little Effect on Atmospheric CO2” http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/journal/paperinfo?journalid=298&doi=10.11648/j.ija os.20190301.13 Harde (2019): “What Humans Contribute to Atmospheric CO2: Comparison of Carbon Cycle Models with Observations” http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/journal/paperinfo?journalid=161&doi=10.11648/j.ea rth.20190803.13

8