YOU claimed that high tax was the OBJECTIVE. And, that's nonsense. Likewise, "climate" is not something you can "blame" for tax policy. Taxes are determined by LEGISLATURES.
The actual objective is social justice issues. This is my opinion. You have your opinion. I do not call you a liar over your opinion. I do not however owe it to you to roll over and take your word. The Democrats constantly crave high taxes. When Brown hit us with those super high fuel taxes, he did not mind at all (my own opinion) that it hurt so many living in Ca. His excuse was climate.
Again, you're just plain wrong about this. You're still pitching high taxes as an objective. I promise you, the CA legislature did not raise taxes because of the governor thinking that higher taxes is an objective.
False. For one, yocu couldnot possibly know if you are only presenting scientific information, as you don't read or even try to understand a single word of it. Furthermore, and more significantly, you are stating falsehoods and fallacies. I don't lkke that, and neither should anyone else. And you can complain about me all you like...your false, misinformed denier nonsense is false and misinformed, no matter what I had for breakfast. And lastly, i have made counter arguments against the nonsense you try to peddle. And, every single time, you meet these counterarguments with "poor me" complaining and comments about other posters, instead of addressing their points. So you are in no position to complain, Robert. Stop peddling nonsense.
Why did Brown call it his objective? http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-gas-tax-signing-20170428-story.html
Well, I won't deal with the many lies in the above about me. I want to add to the Curry Corner today.
https://judithcurry.com/2018/10/18/...al-report-on-global-warming-of-1-5c/#comments Remarkable changes to carbon emission budgets in the IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5C Posted on October 18, 2018 by niclewis | Leave a comment by Nic Lewis A close reading of Chapters 1 and 2 of the IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C (SR15) reveals some interesting changes from the IPCC 5th Assessment Report (AR5), and other science-relevant statements. This article highlights statements in SR15 relating to carbon emission budgets for meeting the 1.5°C and 2°C targets. It seems fairly extraordinary to me that the AR5 post-2010 carbon budget for 1.5°C, which was only published four years ago, has in effect been now been increased by ~700 GtCO2 – equal to 21st century emissions to date – despite SR15’s projections of future warming being based very largely on the transient climate response to cumulative emissions (TCRE) range exhibited by the models used in AR5. Key points The SR15 estimates of the carbon budgets that will allow us to remain within the 1.5°C and 2°C targets are far larger than those given in AR5 – over five times as high from end 2017 for a 66% probability of not exceeding 1.5°C warming. SR15 switches the measure of past (up to 2010) warming for the 1.5°C and 2°C targets from near-surface air temperatures (SAT) everywhere (as in AR5) to a blend of near-surface air temperatures over land and sea-surface water temperatures (SST). SR15 bases its estimates of the relationship of future warming to future CO2 emissions very largely on the behaviour of the current generation of Earth system models (ESMs), as used for AR5. However, unlike AR5 it does not do so directly. Instead, it assumes a fixed probabilistic relationship between post-2010 cumulative CO2 emissions and the warming they cause, and derives (using simplified climate models) an allowance for warming from other causes. [*]SR15 ignores ESM simulation estimates of warming to date, instead estimating it using observational data. [*]The resulting SR15 estimate of the post-1875 cumulative CO2 emissions that would give a 50% probability of meeting the 1.5°C target is approximately 720 GtCO2 larger than per AR5, partially offset by a 210 GtCO2 increase in estimated 1876–2010 emissions, giving a net increase of 510 GtCO2 for the post-2010 carbon budget. [*]Approximately 180 GtCO2 of the ~720 GtCO2 increase in the post-1875 budget is due to lower projected post-2010 warming relative to post-2010 cumulative CO2 The lower projected warming appears to be because of two factors: The TCRE value used in SR15 matches the average of the full set of ESMs in AR5; however the budgets calculated for AR5 were based on a subset of ESMs that had a higher average TCRE value. Lower non-CO2 warming is projected in SR15 than in AR5 and possibly also to other, unidentified, factors. The remaining 540 GtCO2 of the increase relates to changing the measure of warming up to 2010 from a model-simulation basis to an observational basis and may be allocated approximately as follows: half (270 GtCO2) to the models used for the AR5 budgets warming more by 2010 than do the full set of AR5 CMIP5 models, and half (270 GtCO2) to changing the measure of past warming from the globally-complete near-surface air temperature to a blend of SAT over land and SST over ocean, as measured (on a globally-incomplete basis) by the average of four observational temperature records.
When I encounter a roadblock, I fly over, step over or crash through. You are not engaging in decent discussion. Stop telling me what i am doing.
I got this from the Curry Corner today. This is an interactive global map. Pick any point and it will be enlarged so you can hone into the area of your objective. You may want to hone to a city. If you only need a larger area, I expect that will work too. So far I have honed into my local area, the SF Bay area. It shows that Temps increased by .8 C so far and by 2020 we will see from 1.2 to 3.9 C change. As you will come to expect, the range is not narrow, but broad. Still the broadest change won't hurt the SF Bay Area one bit. We see ranges daily that far eclipse those changes. We have to keep in mind this too. This says it could continue to warm, not that it is guaranteed to warm. I suggest a greener earth. This will work to our advantage. Check any area out you want. https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-how-every-part-of-the-world-has-warmed-and-could-continue-to-warm
Wrong. A greener earth will not pace our rate of addition of carbon to our climatic carbon cycle. We know this for a fact. You literally just made that up.
More to add to Curry Corner PREPRINT: A Fatal Flaw in Global Warming Science 62 Comments / AGW Hypothesis / By Dr. Ed I presented a summary of this preprint at the “Basic Science of a Changing Climate” conference in Porto, Portugal, on September 7, 2018. – Ed Edwin X Berry, Ph.D., Physics Climate Physics LLC, 439 Grand Dr #147, Bigfork, Montana 59911, USA Copyright © 2018 by Edwin X Berry. This PREPRINT will be submitted to a journal for publication. Therefore the present copyright does not permit republication because journals allow only one PREPRINT for submitted papers. Abstract The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) climate theory assumes nature is constant. This assumption forces IPCC’s invalid claim that human emissions have caused all the increase in atmospheric CO2 above 280 ppm. IPCC’s argument to support its failed theory also fails logic because the argument itself assumes nature is constant. IPCC’s theory cannot simulate the carbon-14 data from 1965 to 1995. The carbon-14 data prove human CO2 does not “reduce the buffer capacity of the carbonate system” as IPCC claims. A Simple Model, based only on the continuity equation with CO2 outflow proportional to level, exactly replicates the carbon-14 data. The Model shows CO2 emissions do not accumulate in the atmosphere as IPCC theory claims but set balance levels for CO2. Present human emissions increase the level by 18 ppm and present natural emissions increase the level by 392 ppm to produce today’s total level of 410 ppm. The Simple Model requires us to think in a new paradigm about how CO2 flows into and out of our atmosphere. It changes entirely the dominant worldview of how human emissions change the level of CO2 in our atmosphere. 1. Introduction The critical scientific questions about human-caused climate change are about cause-and-effect: How much do human emissions increase atmospheric CO2? How much does increased atmospheric CO2 change climate? This paper focuses on the first question. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) Executive Summary claims human emissions have caused ALL the increase in CO2 since 1750. They say the level was 280 ppm in 1750 and human emissions added 130 ppm to increase the level to today’s 410 ppm. The IPCC claims “abundant published literature” shows, with “considerable certainty,” that nature has been a “net carbon sink” since 1750, so nature could not have caused the observed rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide. IPCC (2007) claims human CO2 emissions have clogged the carbon cycle and thereby extended CO2 residence time in the atmosphere, “The fraction of anthropogenic CO2 that is taken up by the ocean declines with increasing CO2 concentration, due to reduced buffer capacity of the carbonate system.” The U.S. Global Change Research Program Climate Science Special Report (USGCRP, 201 agrees with the IPCC and claims, “This assessment concludes, based on extensive evidence, that it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.” The IPCC and the USGCRP claim there are “no convincing alternative explanations” other than their theory to explain “observational evidence.” This paper proves all these IPCC and USGCRP claims are invalid. “Abundant published literature” is irrelevant because votes don’t count in science. There is no “extensive evidence” except repetition of invalid claims, and evidence does not prove a theory is correct. According to the scientific method, it is impossible to prove an idea is true, but if an idea makes only one false prediction then the idea is wrong. (Kemeny, 1959; Farnam Street, 2018a, 2018b; Feynman et al, 2011; ScienceNET, 2016; Science Today, 2017). Many authors agree that human emissions have little effect on the level of atmospheric CO2, even though they used different methods to derive their conclusions. Revelle and Suess (1957), Starr (1992), Segalstad (1992, 1996, 199, Rorsch et al. (2005), Courtney (200, Siddons and D’Aleo (2007), Quirk (2009), Spencer (2009), MacRae (2010, 2015), Essenhigh (2009), Glassman (2010), Wilde (2012), Caryl (2013), Humlum et al. (2013), Salby (2012, 2014, 2016), and Harde (2017a) concluded that human emissions cause only a minor change in the level of atmospheric CO2. Segalstad (199, Ball (2008, 2013, 201, and Salby (2014) present evidence that the level in 1750 was higher than 280 ppm. Nevertheless, this paper uses IPCC data. The goal of this paper is to show how the IPCC climate theory fails even when using IPCC data. Authors who argue for the IPCC view include Cawley (2011), Kern and Leuenberger (2013), Masters and Benestad (2013), Richardson (2013). Most notable is the Kohler et al. (2017) desperate attack on Harde (2017a) which concludes, “Harde … uses a too simplistic approach, that is based on invalid assumptions, and which leads to flawed results for anthropogenic carbon in the atmosphere. We suggest that the paper be withdrawn by the author, editor or publisher due to fundamental errors in the understanding of the carbon cycle.” There is no tolerance in Kohler’s world for a contradictory opinion. Like other promoters of Lysenkoism, Kohler wants Harde (2017a) withdrawn. In possible response, the Elsevier journal – Global and Planetary Change – refused to publish Harde’s (2017b) rebuttal to Kohler. Harde (2017c) replies to reviewer reports regarding the rejection of his rebuttal. Kohler claims Harde (2017a) is wrong because Harde uses one reservoir (the atmosphere) and one equation. Kohler does not understand systems. Science is replete with examples that use a simple system with a single equation for great benefit. The Carnot engine uses one equation to describe the maximum amount of work obtainable from the inflow and outflow of heat. The adiabatic process uses one equation to explain the physics inside one reservoir. This paper supports Harde (2017a) and its key conclusions: “Under present conditions, the natural emissions contribute 373 ppm and anthropogenic emissions 17 ppm to the total concentration of 390 ppm (2012).” To keep the discussion simple, this paper converts all GtC (Gigatons of Carbon) units into the equivalent CO2 units of ppm (parts per million by volume in dry air), using: 1 ppm = 2.13 GtC
Munshi (2017) shows the “detrended correlation analysis of annual emissions and annual changes in atmospheric CO2” is zero. Therefore, IPCC’s claim of “considerable certainty” fails. Where there is no correlation, there is no cause and effect. 2. Two models take the carbon-14 test 2.1 The IPCC model The IPCC theory assumes natural CO2 balances, but human CO2 does not. The IPCC inserted its theory into its climate models. The IPCC “Bern model” (Bern, 2002) is a seven-parameter curve fit to the output of IPCC’s climate models (Joos et al., 2013). The Bern model shows the effect of IPCC’s theory on climate models. It is described in Section 3. The IPCC claims nature treats human-produced CO2 differently than it treats nature-produced CO2. However, that is impossible because the CO2 molecules from the two sources are identical. Then the IPCC claims the Bern model applies only to human CO2 emissions. However, the Equivalence Principle requires the Bern model and all CO2 models to apply equally to human and natural emissions. Einstein used the Equivalence Principle to derive his Theory of General Relativity. The Equivalence Principle says if data cannot tell the difference between two things then the two things are identical. 2.2 The Simple Model The “Model” is the simplest possible model to describe how CO2 flows through the atmosphere. The Model is based on the continuity equation and the assumption that outflow is proportional to the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. The Model applies equally to human, natural, and carbon-14 CO2. It is described in Section 4. Models, simple or complex, embody theories. Just as theories must be tested, models must be tested. The proper test is to make a prediction and compare the prediction with data. If the prediction fails, the model fails and maybe the theory fails as well. Berry (1967) used a numerical model to predict how fast cloud-droplets collect to form raindrops. To test the model, Berry used predictions for three special cases of the core formula that had analytic solutions, and the three analytic solutions bounded the domain of known cloud-droplet collection. The successful simulation of the three analytic solutions gave credibility to the model’s calculation for cloud-droplet growth. 2.3 The carbon-14 data The above-ground atomic bomb tests raised the level of carbon-14 in the atmosphere from the “normal” 100 percent to 180 percent until the tests were terminated in 1963. The carbon-14 atoms are in the form of CO2, so carbon-14 CO2 traces how carbon-12 CO2 flows out of the atmosphere. Carbon-14 is a natural tracer of atmospheric CO2. The carbon-14 CO2 produced by the bomb tests follows the same carbon path as carbon-12 CO2. A carbon-14 atom has 2 more neutrons that a carbon-12 atom. Carbon-14 CO2 is heavier than carbon-12 CO2. Therefore, it has a longer residence time. Fig. 1 shows a plot of the carbon-14 data (Wikipedia, 2017). The natural concentration of carbon-14 CO2 is defined as 100 percent. The “pMC/ percent” is “percent of modern carbon” where “modern carbon” means the level in 1950 (Berger, 2014). The half-life is the time taken for the level of carbon-14 CO2 to fall to one-half its initial level above its balance level. (Not to be confused with the radioactive half-life of carbon-14 of 5730 years.) Fig. 5. Carbon-14 data before and after the above-ground atomic bomb tests. The natural concentration of carbon-14 carbon dioxide is defined as 100 percent. The pMC percent scale is “percent of modern carbon” where “modern carbon” means the level in 1950. The white circles mark the half-life times. The carbon-14 level minus 100, loses half of its value every ten years. So, the half-life of carbon-14 CO2 is 10.0 years. 2.4 The carbon-14 test results All valid CO2 models must replicate the decay of atmospheric carbon-14 data after 1963. According to the scientific method, if a prediction is wrong, the theory is wrong. Fig. 2 shows how the IPCC Bern model and the Model simulate the outflow of CO2 from the atmosphere. The simulation subtracts 100 from the carbon-14 data to simulate the case where inflow is zero. This subtraction does not affect the shape of the carbon-14 decay curve. All models begin the simulation at 80 and assume inflow is zero. To download the Excel file with the calculations, see Berry (201. The blue curve is the carbon-14 data. This is “ground truth.” The blue curve also shows the Model prediction using Eq. (. The blue curve falls half-way to zero every 10 years. The simple Model exactly simulates the carbon-14 data. The green curve shows the Model prediction with the residence time adjusted to simulate carbon-12 CO2. The green curve falls half-way to zero every 2.8 years. The red curve shows the Bern model prediction calculated using Eq. (A.1). For the first year, it approximates the green curve of the simple model. Thereafter, the Bern model predicts progressively slower outflow. The level never goes below 12 on this plot because IPCC claims 15 percent of human emissions remain in the atmosphere forever. Fig. 2. The blue curve shows the carbon-14 data. The Model replicates these data. The complex IPCC theory cannot simulate the carbon-14 data. Therefore, the IPCC theory is wrong. The Bern model is unphysical. It changes its future with time. For example, the Simple Model predicts the level will fall one-half its value in a specific time interval no matter where you start on the curve. But the Bern model gives a different future if you begin at a different time on its curve. The Model’s exact simulation of the carbon-14 data proves two things. First, the Model predicts the data. Second, the outflow of carbon-14 CO2 from the atmosphere is proportional to level. This implies the outflow of carbon-12 CO2 is similarly proportional to level. 3. Why the IPCC theory fails 3.1 IPCC assumes nature is constant IPCC assumes nature is constant. This incorrect assumption forces the conclusion that human emissions caused all the increase in atmospheric CO2 above 280 ppm. If the IPCC would simply relax its constraints on nature, it would help the IPCC find the truth. IPCC (2007) shows its basic assumption in two flow diagrams to represent the carbon cycle. The following discussion converts IPCC’s GtC units to ppm. Fig. 3 summarizes IPCC’s Figs. 3.1a and 3.1b. IPCC claims the “natural carbon cycle” is balanced and the “human perturbation” is unbalanced, leaving 1.5 ppm of human CO2 in the atmosphere each year. Fig. 3. A summary of the IPCC’s Fig. 3.1a (left) and Fig. 3.1b (right), converted to ppm. The IPCC inserted its assumption that human CO2 causes all the increase in atmospheric CO2 into its climate models. IPCC is wrong because its assumption violates the Equivalence Principle and it cannot replicate the carbon-14 data. 3.2 IPCC argument fails logic IPCC (2007) argues that during the time frame from 1750 to 2013: Atmospheric CO2 increased 117 ppm. Total human CO2 emissions were 185 ppm. This total is 68 ppm more than the 117-ppm increase. Therefore, human emissions caused ALL the 117-ppm increase in atmospheric CO2, while nature absorbed the remaining human 68 ppm. IPCC’s argument fails because it ignores natural CO2 inflow which totaled 26,000 ppm during the same period, and it ignores outflow. Simply put, IPCC’s core argument does not play with a full deck. In Section 4, the Simple Model shows that present human CO2 emissions raise the level of atmospheric CO2 by only 18 ppm. If natural CO2 had not increased, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere would be IPCC’s 280 ppm plus 18 ppm for a total of 298 ppm. This result is consistent with IPCC’s first three points above.
3.3 IPCC Bern model Appendix A shows how to remove the integral in the Bern (2002) model to reveal its level equation. The Bern model Eq. (A.1) predicts human emissions of 4 ppm per year for 100 years will leave 60 ppm in the atmosphere forever. The Equivalence Principle requires the Bern model to apply to natural as well as human CO2. The Bern model predicts natural emissions of 100 ppm per year for 100 years will leave 1500 ppm in the atmosphere forever. This clearly invalid prediction for natural emissions proves the Bern model is wrong. Therefore, IPCC’s basic assumption is wrong. The creators of the original Bern model, Siegenthaler and Joos (1992), understood their model should reproduce the carbon-14 data and were disappointed that it did not do so. The IPCC modified the original Bern model, described by Siegenthaler and Joos, that connected the atmosphere level to the upper ocean level, and the upper ocean level to the deep and interior ocean levels, as can be seen in their Fig. 1. The IPCC removed the Bern model levels for the deep and interior ocean and connected their rates directly to the atmosphere level. That is why the Bern model has three residence times rather than one. Connecting flows that belong to the deep and interior ocean directly to the atmosphere violates the principles of systems (Forrester, 196 and will give the wrong answer. The Bern model assumes the flows with these three residence times act in series rather than in parallel. This is like having three holes of different sizes, in the bottom of a bucket of water, and claiming the smallest hole restricts the flow through the largest hole. 3.4 IPCC buffer capacity claim is wrong IPCC’s Bern model is based on IPCC’s claim that human CO2 has overloaded natural carbon-dioxide sinks and therefore has slowed the outflow of CO2 from the atmosphere. IPCC claims, “The fraction of anthropogenic CO2 that is taken up by the ocean declines with increasing CO2 concentration, due to reduced buffer capacity of the carbonate system.” The IPCC put its unproven claim into its theory. Then the IPCC put its theory into its climate models. The Bern model simulates the climate models. The IPCC theory predicts the half-life for carbon-14 would have increased from 1965 to 1995. This would have deviated the blue curve in Fig. 2 to look more like the Bern model red curve. However, Fig. 1 shows the 10-year carbon-14 half-life did not change from 1965 to 1995. Therefore, human CO2 has not “reduced the buffer capacity of the carbonate system” as the IPCC claims. 3.5 IPCC adjustment time is invalid The IPCC (1990) defines an “adjustment time” to support its claim that human emissions have a long residence time: “The turnover time of CO2 in the atmosphere, measured as the ratio of the content to the fluxes through it, is about 4 years. This means that on average it takes only a few years before a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is taken up by plants or dissolved in the ocean. “This short time scale must not be confused with the time it takes for the atmospheric CO2 level to adjust to a new equilibrium if sources or sinks change.” “This adjustment time… is of the order of 50 – 200 years, determined mainly by the slow exchange of carbon between surface waters and the deep ocean. “The concentration will never return to its original value, but reach a new equilibrium level, about 15 percent of the total amount of CO2 emitted will remain in the atmosphere.” IPCC’s short residence time of about 4 years is correct. The Bern model’s failure to simulate the carbon-14 data and the Equivalence Principle prove the IPCC’s “adjustment time” is invalid. 4. Physics Model for atmospheric CO2 4.1 A Simple Model The simple model shows how inflow affects level, how level affects outflow, and how balance occurs when outflow equals inflow. Nothing in the world outside the atmosphere changes these conclusions. But these conclusions change entirely the dominant worldview of how human emissions change the level of CO2 in our atmosphere. You have a bucket of water with a hole in the bottom. Water from your hose flows into your bucket while water leaks out of the hole. You adjust the inflow until the water level stays almost constant. The water in your bucket represents the CO2 in the atmosphere. Water from your hose represents the flow of CO2 into the atmosphere. Water that flows out of the hole represents the flow of CO2 out of the atmosphere. If inflow is greater than outflow, the level goes up, and vice-versa. Also, as the water level increases, outflow increases. The Model puts these two assumptions into a mathematical equation with more precision as applied to the atmosphere. The Model not only explains the simple flow of water in the bucket, the Model also explains the flow of CO2 in the atmosphere. 4.2 Model derivation A model is a system used to describe a subset of nature. A model is composed of levels and flows between levels. Flows are rates. Levels set the flows and the flows set the new levels (Forrester, 196. The Model extends the model introduced by Salby (2016) and Harde (2017a). Fig. 4 illustrates the atmosphere system. The Model includes the level (concentration) of CO2 in the atmosphere and the inflow and outflow of CO2. The Model does not include processes outside the system but incorporates their effects if they modify inflow or outflow. The mathematics used to describe the Model are analogous to the mathematics used to describe many engineering systems. The continuity equation assures carbon atoms are conserved: dL/dt = Inflow – Outflow (1) Where L = carbon dioxide level dL/dt = the rate of change of L t = time Inflow = the rate carbon dioxide moves into the system Outflow = the rate carbon dioxide moves out of the system Outflow must be an increasing function of level, or there would be no natural balance. Assume outflow is proportional to level, Outflow = L / Te (2) where Te is the 1/e residence time. (More generally, Outflow can equal f(L) / Te, where f(L) is a strictly increasing function of L. This allows the Simple Model to support analogies where f(L) does not equal L.) Substitute Eq. (2) into the continuity equation (1), dL/dt = Inflow – L / Te (3) To find an equation for Inflow, let the level equal its balance level, Lb. Then the level is constant and Eq. (3) becomes Inflow = Lb / Te (4) where Lb = balance level of L Substitute Eq. (4) into Eq. (3) to get, dL/dt = – (L – Lb) / Te (5) Rearrange Eq. (5) to get dL / (L – Lb) = – dt / Te (6) Then integrate Eq. (6) from Lo to L on the left side, and from 0 to t on the right side, to get (Dwight, 1955), Ln [(L – Lb) / (Lo – Lb)] = – t / Te (7) where Ln = natural logarithm, or logarithm to base e Lo = Level at time zero (t = 0) Lb = the balance level for a given inflow and Te Te = Residence time for level to move (1 – 1/e) of the distance from Lo to Le e = 2.7183 (The original integration of Eq. (7) contains two absolute functions, but they cancel each other because both Land Lo are always either above or below Le.) Raise e to the power of each side of Eq. (7), to get the level as a function of time: L = Lb + (Lo – Lb) exp(- t / Te) ( Equation ( shows that Te is the 1/e residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere. The Model applies independently to all forms and sources of CO2.
4.3 Balance level Contrary to popular opinion, CO2 does not “accumulate” in the atmosphere. Constant inflows don’t add to the level of CO2. The Model shows how inflows, human or natural, set independent balance levels. Constant inflows have constant balance levels. The sum of human and natural balance levels equals the total balance level. Fig. 4 shows how nature balances inflow by adjusting outflow until the level equals the balance level. Solving Eq. (4) for Le gives Lb = Inflow * Te (9) Equation (9) shows how inflow and residence time set the balance level. Equation (2) shows how level and residence time set outflow. Equation (5) shows how level always moves toward its balance level. If inflow is zero, Le is zero, and outflow will continue until the level goes to zero. The level of CO2 in the atmosphere behaves like the level of water in a lake. If a river flows into a lake and lake water flows out over a dam, the inflow does not continue to increase the lake level. The inflow simply raises the level of the lake until the outflow over the dam equals the inflow from the river. Then the lake level remains constant so long as inflow remains constant. 4.4 Residence time There are two definitions of residence times, half-life, Th, and 1/e residence time, Te. Both residence times are different measures of the same thing: Residence time controls how level L approaches its balance level Le when inflow is constant. When time t equals half-life Th, or t = Th then Eq. (7) becomes Ln [(L – Lb) / (Lo – Lb)] = – Th / Te Ln (1/2) = – Th / Te Ln (2) = Th / Te Te = Th / Ln (2) Te = 1.4427 Th (10) Equation (10) shows the relationship between residence half-life Th and 1/e residence time Te. IPCC (2007) estimates today’s total natural carbon dioxide inflow is about 100 ppm per year. NOAA (2017) Mauna Loa data shows the 2015 level of atmospheric carbon dioxide is about 400 ppm. Solve Eq. (4) for Te to get, Te = Lb/ Inflow (11) Insert the NOAA value for Le and the IPCC value for Inflow to get the residence time, Te = 400 ppm / 100 ppm per year = 4 years (12) IPCC (1990) agrees with Eq. (12) for residence time. This calculation of residence time applies to carbon dioxide levels from about 280 ppm to 1000 ppm. 4.5 Model replicates carbon-14 data To reproduce the carbon-14 decay curve, use either rate Eq. (5) or analytic Eq. (. Both equations give the same result. Use Eq. (10) to convert the carbon-14 half-life of 10.0 years, Te = 1.4428 Th = 14.4 years (13) Set, Lo = 80 percent Lb = 0 percent 4.6 Effect of human CO2 Data from Boden et al. (2017) show human carbon dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel burning, cement manufacturing, and gas flaring in 2014 was 4.6 ppm (9.855 GtC) per year. Using Eq. (9) for the 2014 human emissions to get, Lbh = (4.6 ppm/year) (4 years) = 18 ppm (14) Using Eq. (9) for natural emissions to get, Lbn = (98 ppm/year) (4 years) = 392 ppm (14) Equation (14) shows human emissions create a balance level of 18 ppm. Equation (15) shows present natural emissions create a balance level of 392 ppm. The total balance level for human and natural emissions, using the above data for 2014, is the total of Eq. (14) and Eq. (15), or 410 ppm. If human and natural emissions stay constant after 2014, the carbon dioxide level would reach its balance level of 410 in about 2018. Mauna Loa data show 404 ppm for 2016. These calculations demonstrate the accuracy of the Model. The ratio of Eq. (14) to Eq. (15) is independent of residence time, Leh / Len = 18 / 392 = 4.6 percent (16) Equation (16) shows the balance level ratio of human-produced to nature-produced carbon dioxide is the ratio of their inflows. 4.7 Effect of surface temperature Rorsch et al. (2005), Courtney (200, MacRae (2008, 2015), Humlum et al. (2013), Salby (2012, 2014, 2016), and Harde (2017a) show how changes in surface temperature precede changes in CO2. Salby (2012) derives from data how the rate of change of CO2 level is a function of surface temperature Ts, or, dL/dt = 3.5 (ppmv/year K) Ts(K) (17) Salby shows how the increase in Ts since 1750 and since the Little Ice Age in 1650 explains the increase in the level of atmospheric CO2 from 1750 to the present. Equation (2) shows outflow equals level divided by residence time. The carbon-14 data show outflow is proportional to level. Therefore, residence time is independent of level. Equation (9) shows balance level equals inflow multiplied by residence time. Carbon-14 data show carbon sinks have not saturated and therefore have not changed residence time. Therefore, in the absence of any other explanation, the increase of balance level after 1750 must be caused by increased inflow. 5. Conclusions The IPCC theory is wrong because it cannot simulate the carbon-14 data, it claims nature treats human CO2 differently than natural CO2 which violates the Equivalence Principle, and its predictions with natural CO2 are extremely wrong. Therefore, all climate models are wrong. All IPCC reports are wrong. Carbon sinks are not saturated. Human CO2 does not accumulate in the atmosphere. Human CO2 flows out of the atmosphere just like natural CO2. The Simple Model is accurate. It exactly simulates the carbon-14 data. All carbon dioxide emissions – human and natural, independently or in total – create an inflow that sets a balance level. Each level moves toward its balance level until its outflow equals its inflow. Then the level remains constant so long as its inflow remains constant. Present human emissions create an inflow that adds 18 ppm to atmospheric CO2. Present natural emissions create an inflow that adds 392 ppm. Their total is 410 ppm. If ALL human emissions stopped and natural emissions stayed constant, the level of CO2 would fall by only 18 ppm. Nature’s CO2 emissions are 21 times human CO2 emissions. Therefore, nature changes climate. Human emissions do not. Appendix A: Bern model math The Bern (2002) model is an integral equation rather than a level or rate equation. The Bern model integrates the inflow of carbon dioxide from minus infinity to any time in the future. To deconstruct the integral version of the Bern model, let inflow occur only in the year when “t-prime” equals zero (t’ = 0). Then the integral disappears, and the Bern model becomes a level equation. The Bern level equation is, L(t) = Lo [ A0 + A1 exp(- t/T1) + A2 exp(- t/T2) + A3 exp(- t/T3)] (A.1) Where t = time in years Lo = the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide due to inflow in year t = 0 L(t) = the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide after year t = 0 where the Bern IPCC TAR standard values are, A0 = 0.152 A1 = 0.253 A2 = 0.279 A3 = 0.319 T1 = 173 years T2 = 18.5 years T3 = 1.19 years The A-values merely weight the four terms on the right-hand side of Eq. (A.1): A0 + A1 + A2 + A3 = 1.000 Here are two easy ways to show the Bern model contradicts real-world data. Set t equal to 100 years. Then Eq. (A.1) becomes, L = (A0 + A1) Lo = (0.152 + 0.253 * 0.56) Lo = 0.29 Lo (A.2) Set t equal to infinity. Then Eq. (A.1) becomes, L = Ao Lo = 0.152 Lo (A.3) Equations (A.2) and (A.3) predicts a one-year inflow that sets Lo to 100 ppm, followed by zero inflow forever, will cause the level in 100 years to be 29 ppm and the future level will never fall below 15 ppm. Competing Interests The author declares he has no conflict of interest.
Acknowledgements This research was funded by the personal funds of the author. The author thanks Chuck Wiese, Laurence Gould, Tom Sheahen, and Charles Camenzuli, who provided scientific critique, and Daniel Nebert, Gordon Danielson, and Valerie Berry, who provided language and grammar improvements. References (All internet links tested on 9/12/2017) (“Year” is in two places. Prefer to delete “year” at end if journal approves.) Ball, T., 2008: Pre-industrial CO2 levels were about the same as today. How and why we are told otherwise. http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=2258, 2008. Ball, T., 2013: Why and how the IPCC demonized CO2 with manufactured information. WattsUpWithThat. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11...-demonized-co2-with-manufactured-information/, 2013. Ball, T., 2018: What do ice-core bubbles really tell us? WattsUpWithThat. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/01/20/what-do-the-ice-core-bubbles-really-tell-us/, 2018. Berger, A., 2014: The meaning of pMC. Research Gate. https://www.researchgate.net/post/In_radiocarbon_dating_what_does_pMC_indicates2, 2014. Bern, 2002: Parameters for tuning a simple carbon cycle model. http://unfccc.int/resource/brazil/carbon.html, 2002. Berry, E.X, 1967: Cloud Droplet growth by collection. J. Atmos. Sci. 24, 688-701. http://edberry.com/wp-content/uploads/Ed/CDG/CloudDropletGrowthbyCollection.pdf, 1967. Berry, E.X, 2018: Excel file with Carbon-14 calculations. https://edberry.com/wp-content/uploads/Carbon-14-tests.xlsx, 2018. [dataset] Boden, T., B. Andres, 2017: Global CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel burning, cement manufacture, and gas flaring: 1751-2014. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2014.ems, 2017. Caryl, E., 2013: The Carbon Cycle – Nature or Nurture? No Tricks Zone. http://notrickszone.com/2013/03/02/...es-from-natural-sources/#sthash.vvkCqrPI.dpbs, 2013. Cawley, G.C., 2011: On the Atmospheric residence time of anthropogenically sourced CO2. Energy Fuel 25, 5503–5513. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ef200914u. 2011. Courtney, R.S., 2008: Limits to existing quantitative understanding of past, present and future changes to atmospheric CO2 concentration. International Conference on Climate Change, New York. https://www.heartland.org/multimedia/videos/richard-courtney-iccc1, 2008. Dwight, Herbert Bristol, 1955: Tables of Integrals and Other Mathematical Data, Item 90.1. MacMillian Company. https://www.amazon.com/Tables-Integrals-Other-Mathematical-Data/dp/0023311703, 1955. Essenhigh, R.E., 2009: Potential dependence of global warming on the residence time (RT) in the atmosphere of anthropogenically sourced CO2. Energy & Fuels. 23, 2773-2784. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef800581r, 2009. Farnam Street, 2018a: Richard Feynman teaches you the scientific method. https://fs.blog/2009/12/mental-model-scientific-method/, 2018a. Farman Street, 2019b: Who is Richard Feynman? The curious character who mastered thinking and physics. https://fs.blog/richard-feynman/, 2018b. Feynman, R. P., R.B. Leighton, M. Sands, 2011: The Feynman Lectures on Physics. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0...1&tag=farnamstreet-20&linkId=WVPOUDQSQTDGBSRG, 2011. Forrester, J., 1968: Principles of Systems. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1...IN=1883823412&linkCode=xm2&tag=bookfallcom-20, 1968. Glassman, J.A., 2010: On why CO2 is known not to have accumulated in the atmosphere and what is happening with CO2 in the modern era. Rocket Scientist Journal. http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2007/06/on_why_co2_is_known_not_to_hav.html#more, 2010. Harde, H., 2017a: Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO2 residence time in the atmosphere. Global and Planetary Change. 152, 19-26. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818116304787, 2017a. https://edberry.com/SiteDocs/PDF/Climate/HardeHermann17-March6-CarbonCycle-ResidenceTime.pdf. 2017a. Harde, H., 2017b: Reply to Comment on “Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO2 residence time in the atmosphere” by P. Köhler, J. Hauck, C. Völker, D. Wolf-Gladrow, M. Butzin, J. B. Halpern, K. Rice, R. Zeebe. https://edberry.com/SiteDocs/PDF/Climate/Reply_2017-06-27_F.pdf. 2017b. Harde, H., 2017c: Reply to Reviewer Reports. https://edberry.com/SiteDocs/PDF/Climate/Reply-ReviewReport-Harde.pdf. 2017c. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jgt2Fj1zSSs8yBVdEgukSItG0LGOD0lC/view Humlum, O., Stordahl, K., Solheim, J.-E., 2013: The phase relation between atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures. Global and Planetary Change, Vol 100, January, pp 51-69. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658, 2013. IPCC. Climate Change, 1990: The IPCC scientific assessment. Final Report of Working Group 1. Cambridge University Press. (pages 8 to 56/114). https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf, 1990. IPCC: Report 3, 2007. The Carbon Cycle and Atmosphere CO2. https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/pdf/TAR-03.PDF, 2007. Joos, F., R. Roth, J. S. Fuglestvedt, G. P. Peters, I. G. Enting, W. von Bloh, V. Brovkin, E. J. Burke, M. Eby, N. R. Edwards, T. Friedrich, T. L. Frolicher, P. R. Halloran, P. B. Holden, C. Jones, T. Kleinen, F. T. Mackenzie, K. Matsumoto, M. Meinshausen, G.-K. Plattner, A. Reisinger, J. Segschneider, G. Shaffer, M. Steinacher, K. Strassmann, K. Tanaka, A. Timmermann, and A. J. Weaver, 2013: CO2 and climate impulse response functions for the computation of greenhouse gas metrics: a multi-model analysis. Atmos. Chem. Phys.. 13, 2793-2825. https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/2793/2013/acp-13-2793-2013.pdf, 2013. Kemeny, J., 1959: A Philosopher looks at Science. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B...IN=B0020PK0BM&linkCode=xm2&tag=bookfallcom-20, 1959. Kern, Z., M. Leuenberger, 2013: Comment on “The phase relation between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature” Humlum et al. [Glob. Planet. Change 100: 51–69.]: Isotopes ignored. Glob. Planet. Chang. 109, 1–2. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2013.07.002. 2013. Kohler, P., J. Hauck, C. V ̈olker, D.A. Wolf-Gladrow, M. Butzin, J.B. Halpern, K. Rice, R.E. Zeebe, 2017: Comment on “Scrutinizing the carbon cycle andCO2residence time in the atmosphere” by H. Harde, Global and Planetary Change, doi:10.1016/j.gloplacha.2017.09.015. 2017. MacRae, A., 2008: CO2 is not the primary cause of global warming: the future cannot cause the past. Icecap. http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2vsTMacRae.pdf, 2008. MacRae, A., 2015: Presentation of evidence suggesting temperature drives atmospheric CO2 more than CO2 drives temperature. WattsUpWithThat. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06...spheric-co2-more-than-co2-drives-temperature/, 2015. Masters, T., R. Benestad. 2013: Comment on “The phase relation between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature”. Glob. Planet. Chang. 106, 141–142. http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2013.03.010. 2013. Munshi, Jamal, 2017: Responsiveness of atmospheric CO2 to fossil fuel emissions: Updated. SSRN. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2997420, 2017. [dataset] NOAA, 2017: ESRL CO2 data beginning in 1959. ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_annmean_mlo.txt, 2017. Quirk, Tom, 2009: Sources and sinks of CO2. Energy & Environment. Volume: 20 Issue: 1, page(s): 105-121. January 1. https://doi.org/10.1260/095830509787689123, 2009. Revelle, R. & Suess, H., 1957: CO2 exchange between atmosphere and ocean and the question of an increase of atmospheric CO2 during past decades. Tellus. 9: 18-27, 1957. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1957.tb01849.x/abstract, 1957. Richardson, M., 2013: Comment on “The phase relation between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature” by Humlum, Stordahl and Solheim. Glob. Planet. Chang. 107, 226–228. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2013.03.011. 2013. Rorsch, A., R.S. Courtney, D. Thoenes, 2005: The Interaction of Climate Change and the CO2 Cycle. Energy & Environment, Volume 16, No 2. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1260/0958305053749589, 2005. Salby, Murry, 2012: Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate. Cambridge University Press. 666 pp. https://www.amazon.com/Physics-Atmo...0521767180/ref=mt_hardcover?_encoding=UTF8&me=, 2012. Salby, Murry, 2014: CO2 follows the Integral of Temperature, video. http://edberry.com/blog/climate-phy...ry-salby-co2-follows-integral-of-temperature/, 2014. Also: Salby, Murry, 2016: Atmosphere CO2, video presentation, July 18. University College London. http://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/agw-hypothesis/murry-salby-atmospheric-carbon-18-july-2016/ Also: , 2016. ScienceNET, 2017: 10 times Richard Feynman blew our minds. , 2016. Science Today. 2017: Richard Feynman’s best arguments of all time. , 2017. Segalstad, T.V., 1992: The amount of non-fossil-fuel CO2 in the atmosphere. AGU Chapman Conference on Climate, Volcanism, and Global Change. March 23-27. Hilo, Hawaii. Abstracts: 25; and poster: 10 pp. Available at: http://www.co2web.info/hawaii.pdf, 1992. Segalstad, T.V., 1996: The distribution of CO2 between atmosphere, hydrosphere, and lithosphere; minimal influence from anthropogenic CO2 on the global “Greenhouse Effect”. In Emsley, J. (Ed.): The Global Warming Debate. The Report of the European Science and Environment Forum. Bourne Press Ltd., Bournemouth, Dorset, U.K. [ISBN 0952773406]: 41-50. Available at: http://www.co2web.info/ESEFVO1.pdf, 1996. Segalstad, T. V. 1998: Carbon cycle modelling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO2: on the construction of the “Greenhouse Effect Global Warming” dogma. In: Bate, R. (Ed.): Global warming: the continuing debate. ESEF, Cambridge, U.K. [ISBN 0952773422]: 184-219. Available at: http://www.co2web.info/ESEF3VO2.pdf, 1998 Siddons, A., J. D’Aleo, 2007: CO2: The Houdini of Gases. http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/Carbon_Dioxide The_Houdini_of_Gases.pdf, 2007. Siegenthaler, U. and F. Joos, 1992: Use of a simple model for studying oceanic tracer distributions and the global carbon cycle. Tellus, 44B, 186-207. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1034/j.1600-0889.1992.t01-2-00003.x/epdf, 1992. Spencer, R., 2009: Increasing Atmospheric CO2: Manmade…or Natural? http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/increasing-atmospheric-co2-manmade…or-natural/, 2009. Starr, C., 1992: Atmospheric CO2 residence time and the carbon cycle. Science Direct, 18, 12, 1297-1310. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0360544293900178, 1992. [dataset] Wikipedia, 2017: Radio Carbon Bomb Spike. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Radiocarbon_bomb_spike.svg, 2017. USGCRP, 2018: Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume I [Wuebbles, D.J., D.W. Fahey, K.A. Hibbard, D.J. Dokken, B.C. Stewart, and T.K. Maycock (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, 470 pp, doi: 10.7930/J0J964J6. https://science2017.globalchange.gov/, 2018. Wilde, S., 2012: Evidence that Oceans not Man control CO2 emissions. Climate Realists. http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=9508, 2012.
As any savvy person knows, that is a fake scientific article formatted to look like a published, peer reviewed piece of scientific research. It is none of these things. Dr. Ed Berry is a discredited quack who is a laughingstock in the scientific community. He publishes no contemporary, peer reviewed science and is exposed for his lies whenever anyone lowers themselves to bother with this charlatan. Rational, curious people can read about this fraud and his tactics here: https://www.dailyinterlake.com/archive/article-9f46cb44-cc7e-11e5-9150-6f7714cc2782.html And here: https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2018/02/idiocy-from-ed-berry-phd.html?m=1
This is your guru? The man you use as an authority? Funny Matthews Bradley, of Kalispell, has a Ph.D. in molecular and cellular biology and is an entrepreneur who owns a biotechnology company It cracks me up when a story teller gets treated as if he researches climate. Here is your David Appell. https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/author/dappell/
Robert, you're being a dishonest little guy again. If the authority of educated and trained people meant anything at all to you, you would adopt the overwhelming scientific consensus. Sorry dude, I am quite immune to your charlatan's tactics, which are much older than either of us. To everyone else: note how Robert merely lists the man's credentials, instead of attempting any actual argument. Robert has not actually read a single word of any of the articles presented on this page, and probably in the entire thread.
I presented many pages that prove my claims. You lashed out with a smear piece. I read it. I wasted my time in fact reading it.
No, that's actually just another claim. And, since you are completely incapable of summarizing a single argument you think you presented, I have to, rationally and rightfully, declare you to be very dishonest and completely unable to understand, much less explain, how anything you have posted is proof of anything at all. So yes, just another unsupported claim by you in a thread bursting at the seams with unsupported claims by you. Your copy/pasted piece was a smear piece, Robert, so stop your whining. I called one man a liar.... the fraudster your regurgitated (but did not read a single word of) called 100s of 1000s of people liars. So I will stand up next to you and your pet fraudster for moral, intellectual, and ethical judgment all day, every day, and twice on Sunday, thanks.
except it is not a good solution, as we could never outpace our accelerating rate of adding Carbon to the climatic cycle by "greening" the earth. this is a fact that any child or adult can look up, which means you are lying, Robert. Sorry, it's not personal... but, when a person has the tools and information easily at his disposal to learn and understand that what he is saying is false, and yet repeats this false claim with NO effort to check the truth of it.. ...it is now safe ad fair to say that person is lying.
The IPCC and pretty much every climate scientist is already fully aware that the retention times of individual CO2 molecules is really short being on the order of 10 years or so. The 14C bomb spike data proves that point. But the fundamental mechanism by which the CO2 molecule converts quantized photon energy into thermal energy doesn't care which isotope of carbon is bonded to the oxygen atoms. What matters is the concentration of CO2. It's the retention time of the concentration that matters; not the retention time of individual molecules. These are different measures. They are different because the climate system usually exchanges one molecule for another via the normal emissions and absorptions of CO2. In fact, it is precisely because natural emissions and absorptions are so high (about +100 ppm/yr for emissions and -100 ppm/yr for absorptions) that forces individual molecules to drop out of the atmosphere and get replaced with new molecules. So while the longevity of individual molecules is on the order 10 years the longevity of the concentration is on the order of 100 to 1000 years or longer. In fact, it wouldn't be unreasonable to think the longevity of a pulse of CO2 could be as long as 100,000 years because that's how long it took nature to scrub it from the atmosphere during the last several glacial/interglacial cycles. Fortunately there are reasons to believe our current pulse of CO2 won't take anywhere near as long as 100,000 years, but 100 to 1000 years is still pretty long.
