Description
Authors
- Edwin X Berry
- Ed Berry, LLC, Bigfork, Montana 59911, USA ed@edberry.com
Abstract
A basic assumption of climate change made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is natural CO2 stayed constant after 1750 and human CO2 dominated the CO2 increase. IPCC’s basic assumption requires human CO2 to stay in the atmosphere longer than natural CO2. But human CO2 and natural CO2 molecules are identical. So, human CO2 and natural CO2 must flow out of the atmosphere at the same rate, or e-time. 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. A new physics carbon cycle model replicates IPCC’s natural carbon cycle. Then, using IPCC’s natural carbon cycle data, it calculates 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 calculates if human CO2 emissions had stopped at the end of 2020, the human CO2 level of 33 ppmv would fall to 10 ppmv in 2100. After the bomb tests, δ14C returned to its original balance level of zero even as 12CO2 increased, which suggests a natural source dominates the 12CO2 increase.
Introduction
A basic assumption of climate change made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is natural CO2 stayed constant after 1750 while human CO2 dominated the CO2 increase. IPCC’s basic assumption requires human CO2 to stay in the atmosphere longer than natural CO2. But human CO2 and natural CO2 molecules are identical. So, human CO2 and natural CO2 must flow out of the atmosphere at the same rate. Carbon-14 data confirm this rate is less than 10 years. The IPCC says this rate, which it calls turnover time, is about 4 years and IPCC’s natural carbon cycle uses 3.5 years. The IPCC acknowledges this fast turnover time means human CO2 cannot play a major part in causing the CO2 increase. So, IPCC’s own data contradict IPCC’s basic assumption of climate change.
POSTED IN
Sorry, but that work of Dr. Ed Berry was extensively discussed at WUWT:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/12/25/physicist-dr-ed-berry-rips-un-ipccs-climate-fiction-explains-why-the-ipcc-is-wrong/
with 383 comments.
Dr. Berry is completely wrong, as he uses a one-box model where all fluxes go unidirectional from input to output and the output is controlled by the total height/pressure in the box. That gives what one calls the residence time.
In reality nature is a three (or four) box model, where the largest CO2 fluxes are seasonal and bi-directional from oceans to vegetation and back and hardly influenced by the CO2 pressure in the atmosphere. The atmosphere is only a passive intermediate in that case.
A real increase of CO2 makes that there is a small difference between uptake and release of CO2 by oceans and vegetation which gives the observed decay rate of around 50 years. Not around 4 years (residence time) neither 10 years (14CO2 decay).
See more in my main comment at WUWT:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/12/25/physicist-dr-ed-berry-rips-un-ipccs-climate-fiction-explains-why-the-ipcc-is-wrong/#comment-3418316