A fatal flaw in global warming science

BUSTED: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) simply assumes nature treats human-produced and nature-produced carbon dioxide differently. This assumption is wrong because it violates the Equivalence Principle.

IPCC’s basic assumption infects climate models. IPCC’s Bern model, a 7-parameter curvefit to climate model output, predicts human carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for a long time, some of it forever. That conclusion is a result of IPCC’s basic assumption and it is wrong.

Applying the Equivalence Principle, the Bern model predicts natural emissions will cause a runaway carbon dioxide level that contradicts data. Therefore, IPCC climate models are wrong.

IPCC’s model cannot simulate the carbon-14 data.

A Model, derived from the continuity equation with outflow proportional to level, accurately simulates the carbon-14 data with no arbitrary curve-fitting parameters.

The Model shows constant carbon dioxide emissions, human or natural, do not add more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Rather their inflows set equilibrium levels for atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Using IPCC data, the Model shows 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.

Any climate change caused by increased CO2 is 96 percent from natural CO2 and only 4 percent from human CO2. The effect of human emissions is the same as if natural emissions had increased by the same amount and human emissions had remained zero.

The critical scientific questions about climate change are about cause-and-effect:
1. How much do human emissions increase atmospheric carbon dioxide?
2. How much does increased atmospheric carbon dioxide change climate?

This paper focuses on the first question.

Full paper available at: https://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/agw-hypothesis/preprint-a-fatal-flaw-in-global-warming-science/

Conclusions

• PCC’s basic assumption, that nature treats human carbon dioxide emissions differently than it treats nature’s carbon dioxide emissions, is wrong because it violates the Equivalence Principle.

• IPCC’s claim, that human carbon dioxide emissions will linger in the atmosphere for hundreds of years and 15 percent will remain forever, is invalid.

• IPCC’s claim that human emissions have caused all the rise in the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere since 1750, is invalid.

• The Model has no arbitrary curve-fit parameters. Yet, it accurately simulates the carbon-14 data.

• The Model shows human emissions add only 18 ppm and nature adds 392 ppm to produce today’s 410 ppm level of carbon dioxide.

• If all human CO2 emissions were stopped, the level of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere would fall by only 18 ppm.

• The effect of human emissions is the same as if natural emissions had increased by the same amount and human emissions had remained zero.


PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. Telephone: Calls from within the UK: 020 7419 5027. International dialling: (44) 20 7419 5027. 

Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.

Trackback from your site.

Comments (6)

  • Avatar

    Robert Beatty

    |

    “If all human CO2 emissions were stopped, the level of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere would fall by only 18 ppm.”
    I am not sure how this conclusion was drawn. (The full paper goes to 404 error). The Keeling curve shows that CO2 on earth follows the changing of the climate. I.E. absorbed when southern ocean is cold and transpired when it is hot. Happens pretty much straight away following Henry’s Gas Law. Human emission have zero influence on the sea temperature so there would be no 18 ppm drop.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    John O'Sullivan

    |

    Thanks DG, link now fixed

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Robert Beatty

      |

      Thanks for fixing the link. I think the 18ppm factor comes from a too simplistic model of how the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere works. A weir analogy has been used implying that the gas concentration must rise to “get over the weir”. This is erroneous because the atmospheric concentration is predicated on the sea temperature alone. The CO2 concentration is a solubility consideration as discussed at http://bosmin.com/SeaChange.pdf

      Reply

  • Avatar

    James McGinn

    |

    Edwin,
    The roof leaks at the top.

    Climatology has certain traditions that it adopted from its parent discipline, meteorology. One of those traditions is that their theoretical aspects are based on conversation and not empiricism. Or, I guess we could say, the connection to empiricism is suggestive and not literal.

    In empirical sciences the experimental evidence comes first and the narrative follows. In conversational sciences the narrative comes first and its significance is interpreted by “experts.” No empiricism necessarily follows. And any empiricism that is externally applied is summarily dismissed if it disagrees with the “expert” opinion.

    In short, with conversational sciences like meteorology and climatology, truth is determined by consensus and authority.

    The public is naïve, gullible, and generally unaware that climatological conclusions, like global warming, are based on conversation and not empiricism.

    Exposing climatology as empirically inept won’t solve the problem since the conversational tradition is rooted in meteorology and not climatology

    The roof leaks at the top:
    The ‘Missing Link’ of Meteorology’s Theory of Storms
    https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329

    James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

    Reply

  • Avatar

    czechlist

    |

    “The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.”
    Hmmm “…human-induced climate change,…”?
    When a Charter’s funding relies on identifying something definite then dishonest grifters will do so -“…objective, open and transparent…” veracity be damned!

    Reply

Leave a comment

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
Share via