Explanations about simplified physics model of flow of carbon dioxide (Ed Berry) USofA

Source: Group e-mail discussion

Explanations about simplified physics model of flow of carbon dioxide from natural and man-made sources into the atmosphere and back out.

Ed Berry Atmospheric Physicist Bigfork, Montana, USA July 17, 2019 Ed Berry’s original discussion of his simplified physics model of carbon dioxide flow into, through and out of the atmosphere is here. His published paper is here. This paper is important for the public and government leaders because it says that use of fossil fuels is not a cause of catastrophic global warming. Stopping use of fossil fuels will have little effect on climate change. Mother Nature is in nearly full control of Earth’s climate.

National and regional political leaders are not.

Ed Berry is a distinguished physicist. He uses simple, well known principles of physics to analyze and form conclusions about the role of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels in influencing Earth’s climate. These principles can be understood by most school children who have spent a summer day swimming at a pond.

Don Bogard is a distinguished chemist. He views the challenge of understanding atmospheric carbon dioxide through much more complex and difficult to measure scientific principles of chemistry. His thoughts are here.

This article is only to present Ed Berry’s supplemental explanations of his paper. Are these principles of physics correct? The chemistry approach is much more complex and can not be easily resolved here.

Most important is that neither Berry nor Bogard are sounding alarms about catastrophic man-made global warming and demanding stopping use of fossil fuels. Bogard is the more cautious, saying we need to know more. Stopping use of fossil fuels will bring modern living as we know it to a halt and the collapse of many of today’s civilizations.

Supplementary explanations of physics model by Ed Berry

1

1. The physics model accurately replicates the most accurate D14C data available from 1970 to 2014. These data include all the D14C introductions you list between these years.

2. The physics model cannot predict new introductions of D14C and the lack of the ability to predict the future does not discredit the model. Neither can the model be expected to say anything about the original source of the increase of 14C which occurred in the past. It has no knowledge of the atomic bomb tests.

3. The model's replication of the D14C data from 1970 to 2014 takes advantage of an "experiment" where the high level of D14C decayed to very close to its balance level.

These data provide a unique opportunity to test the hypothesis that outflow equals level divided by e-time for ATM CO2. The replication confirms that hypothesis.

4. All valid CO2 models must be able to replicate these data, or the model is wrong.

5. The physics model says simply that the outflow of CO2 from the atmosphere equals the level divided by the residence time. That is a very important piece of information. It says, for example, that outflow is not a function of inflow, as many IPCC papers claim.

6. The model says the ratio of human to natural CO2 in the atmosphere equals the ratio of their inflows, independent of e-time. This proves natural CO2 increased its inflow since 1750, contrary to the IPCC fundamental claim, and natural CO2 caused most of the increase in atmospheric CO2 since 1750. It limits the amount of human-caused increase in atmospheric CO2 to about 18 ppm.

7. The physics model shows the e-time for CO2 is the same for all ratios of level-tobalance-level, contrary to IPCC claims. It shows the level remains constant when at its balance level when inflow is constant, even as CO2 molecules are exchanged between reservoirs. This shows that the natural replacement of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere is irrelevant to the level of CO2 in the atmosphere or to what caused the level of CO2 to increase.

8. The physics model shows the CO2 e-time has been constant since 1970, and therefore, likely before 1970, contrary to IPCC Bern model claims. This has a major consequence.

It means the release of human CO2 has not overburdened nature with excess CO2. It means nature has absorbed human CO2 without any effort. It means human CO2 has not decreased the buffer capacity of the oceans, as the IPCC claims. It means the argument the release of carbon stored in fossil fuels has not changed the e-time for atmospheric CO2. And this means the argument that human CO2 has produced feedback that causes the increase in atmospheric CO2 is invalid.

9. The physics model shows the common perception that human CO2 somehow sticks in the atmosphere forever, is wrong. The model shows that CO2 flows through the atmosphere as water flows through a lake and out over a dam. It shows the rise in the level is not a function of accumulation but a function of the flow through the lake or the atmosphere.

2