Eric Jelinski comments on carbon dioxide debate between Ed Berry and Simon Aegerter - Canada

Debate between Ed Berry and Simon Aegerter on man-made carbon dioxide and man-made global warming Eric Jelinski

January 6, 2020

Thank you, John Shanahan, for making me aware of the debate between physicist Ed Berry (USA) and physicist Simon Aegerter (Switzerland) on the topic: “Is man-made carbon dioxide a pollutant?” Is Ed Berry’s physics flow model of man-made carbon dioxide generally correct? The debate is posted on Ed Berry’s website: https://edberry.com/blog/climate/climate-physics/human-co2-has-little-effect-on-thecarbon-cycle/?__s=fndraeko5dqnx9scih5e.

Ed Berry’s analysis concludes that carbon dioxide from fossil fuels does not remain in the atmosphere for a long time and therefore among several reasons, man-made CO2 is not causing catastrophic man-made global warming climate change or climate disruption to use terms recommended over forty years by President Obama’s Science Advisor, John Holdren. Simon Aegerter concludes that all the additional CO2 over the last century plus is from use of fossil fuels. He further concludes that this CO2 stays in the atmosphere for a very long time. Therefore, it is causing serious global warming etc.

The outcome of any debate depends on well-rounded knowledge of science, mathematics, history, data, ie. the difference is between someone who uses a comprehensive argument vs somebody who’s arguing inside a silo.

I have studied the CO2 track for at least 3 years, without reading Ed Berry’s paper, and I agree with Ed Berry. Ed creates the most comprehensive argument that I have seen.

Recent data and analysis by Lean et al (ignored by the IPCC) shows that the sun has gotten brighter in past 50 years, explaining a general warming, and followed by some desorption of CO2 from the oceans. The manmade flux of CO2 is a small fraction of the CO2 stored in the oceans. Recent data (past ~15 years) of temperature shows T constant even though CO2 is rising. How can the claim that CO2 causes T increase be true? Recent solar data collected by pyrometer by NASA shows the sun’s output has been in a down trend, with some experts warning that we may be entering an ice age. Proof that the sun’s output is not steady given that the sun is a nuclear fusion reactor where H and H are fused to produce Helium and energy is released. As H is consumed to produced energy and heavier elements are formed. The sun is basically sustained by ‘climbing up’ the binding energy curve.

1

This will take billions of years to consume all of the available elements lighter than Iron which is at the top of the BE curve. The process of fusion on the sun will be governed by gravitational forces and Ficks law within the confines of the plasma of the sun. We humans have no control. We know little about the workings and the output of the sun, other than observing sun spots and solar storms. There is no reason to believe that the sun’s output was ever a constant.

Here is a graphic I compiled showing some recent history of T changes before the industrial revolution, the data by Lean et al, and data from NASA.

Last but not least, to add to the variables that affect airborne CO2 concentration, is the de-carbonization of earth’s topsoil.

2

https://www.pnas.org/content/114/36/9575. and https://rodaleinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/rodale-white-paper.pdf. ie. The invention of the mouldboard plow in early 1900’s has been identified as a leading contributor to the dust bowl as soil is massively and continuously stirred up, the soil loses carbon to the atmosphere, and loses the humus that is the binding agent for the clay and sand making the soil prone to wind erosion and water erosion. The effect is not just in the USA where the modern plough was invented, but the effect is global as virtually all countries adopted the plowing technology. The above paper by the Rodale Institute argues that it is possible to sequester all of the global carbon emissions. The hypothesis in reverse suggests that a good portion of the recent global CO2 emissions were caused by the now deemed inappropriate farming techniques. There is in fact a huge swing towards minimum tillage and zero till in agriculture.

Cheers, Eric PS One branch of the UN, the IPCC calls CO2 a pollutant that must be stopped.

Another branch of the Un calls CO2 an essential nutrient: http://www.fao.org/3/a-aq355e.pdf (see image of page below)

3

I am on the side of ‘nutrient’ because CO2 feeds plants and plants feed people, Oh, btw, during the Jurassic period, CO2 was 5 to 10x higher than today, and the earth did not boil. The CO2 fertilized the lush vegetation that fed the dinosaurs, and it was that vegetation that was sequestered as coal, oil and gas. If we burned every lump of coal and oil, the CO2 would not get any higher than that due to conservation of mass. And experts say CO2 is not a health concern until it gets to over about 5000 ppm.

4