The death of climate change

Written by Ed Berry, Ph.D., Physics

These 8 words are the death of climate change: It violates the Equivalence Principle, therefore it’s wrong.

At its very core, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) violated a key principle of physics. Therefore, all IPCC climate claims and models are wrong.

IPCC’s Big Idea (its fundamental hypothesis) is that nature treats human CO2 emissions differently than it treats nature’s CO2 emissions.

IPCC Big Idea: Nature treats human CO2 differently than it treats natural CO2.

That Big Idea is impossible because it violates the Equivalence Principle of physics. The Equivalence Principle says if data cannot distinguish between two things, then the two things are identical.

Einstein used the Equivalence Principle to develop his General Theory of Relativity. He realized that data cannot tell the difference between gravity and inertial forces. Therefore, they are the same thing. This equivalence is the foundation of Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity that we use today.

Nature cannot treat human and natural CO2 differently because nature cannot tell the difference between CO2 molecules from the two sources.

The IPCC claims human CO2 emissions will linger in the atmosphere for hundreds of years and 15 percent of it will remain forever. That claim is a result of IPCC’s Big Idea and it violates the Equivalence Principle. Nature’s CO2 has a half-life in the atmosphere of only 2.8 years. Human CO2 also has a half-life of 2.8 years.

With this simple elimination of IPCC’s Big Idea, the truth becomes clear. Human CO2 emissions are not a threat to the planet. Human emissions hardly make a dent in the level of CO2 in our atmosphere. The whole climate charade is based upon an error in physics.

The IPCC claims human emissions have caused all the rise in the level of CO2 in the atmosphere since 1750. The IPCC uses a six-step core argument to support this claim, but its core argument violates the Equivalence Principle and simple logic. The truth is nature has caused most of the increase in CO2 since 1750.

Nature’s CO2 emissions are 21 times greater than human CO2 emissions. Simple physics, and even common sense, shows nature’s CO2 emissions add 21 times more CO2 to the atmosphere than do human CO2 emissions. Thus, human emissions add only 18 ppm to today’s 410 ppm level of CO2 and nature adds the remaining 392 ppm.

Even if we were to stop all human CO2 emissions and nature remained constant, the level of CO2 in our atmosphere would fall by only 18 ppm. Nature’s level of 392 ppm would remain.

Continuation of present human and natural emissions does not further increase the CO2 in the atmosphere. Continued emissions maintain rather than add to the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.

The same physics applies to a lake with inflow from a river and outflow over a dam. If inflow remains constant, the lake level will remain constant. The height of the water level above the dam will be just enough to make outflow equal to inflow.

Al Gore and the IPCC received a Nobel Peace Prize by violating the Equivalence Principle. It is time to teach people, university students, national park visitors, and voters the truth.

Human emissions do not change climate, and the futile attempt to reduce human emissions will not change climate.

Want to continue this adventure in physics?

Contact me to speak to your group. Sign up on my email list so you can follow and support the climate revolution.

Reference

IPCC: Report 3. The Carbon Cycle and Atmosphere Carbon Dioxide. https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/pdf/TAR-03.PDF, 2007.

Read more at edberry.com

Comments (16)

  • Avatar

    ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N

    |

    Crikey Douglas, the subject was about CO2 and Equivalence Principle, not heat creep. I hope you don’t push your papers on anyone that sneezes just because you want to get your favourite subject across.

    “Your article will HAVE TO DISCUSS the heat creep diagrams and the process of maximum entropy production..”

    I comprehend everything about your subject Douglas, but pushing and bullying people into contracting to agree with you about your off-topic subject is not the way science is done, as we’ve learned over the years from East Anglia, Al Gore, Obama et. al.

    Now back to our regular entertainment..

  • Avatar

    Zoe Phin

    |

    Douglas,
    You do a poor job of explaining yourself. Even if you’re right, it sounds like mere assertions: “It’s like this”.

    So what are you saying? Dumb it down.

    Gas molecules get thermalized in mid air by solar radiation, and THEN gravity adds additional temperature via Work?

    • Avatar

      John O'Sullivan

      |

      Zoe, please don’t feed the troll.

  • Avatar

    tom0mason

    |

    All of this blather about atmospheric CO2 levels only makes sense if it could be shown that CO2 (in the atmosphere) actually warms anything. To date there is no observations providing evidence of this (in the atmosphere).

    Also of note is that as we come out of the LIA (since 1850 or so) the planet should naturally warm (it’s the sun!). Any slowdown in the loss of ice mass worldwide is a probable portend that the planet is slipping back to a colder climate.
    So wake-up, the UN-IPCC does not show that any of the current climate variation is either unusual or unnatural! It’s all just politics (ego, money, and power — go ask Al Gore!).

  • Avatar

    Der Ganzumsonst

    |

    Nature is good and Humans are bad.
    That’s the premise of the whole scam.
    Human emissions controlling the atmospheric CO2 forms the base of it.
    That’s why Dr. Berry’s work is important.
    It’s easy to understand and irrefutable.
    Let this break through to the general public and turn public opinion around.

  • Avatar

    Ken Hughes

    |

    I like that, the equivalence principle applied to MMGW I mean. Unusual application but quite valid I think.

    (Off topic, this baloney is similar to the standard interpretation of inertial and gravitational time dilation in relativity. Inertial time dilation is said to be reciprocal in that you see red shift in both frames (moving and stationary). This because we have fed into the logic that all motion is purely relative and it does not matter which frame you are in, but only that the speed of either looks the same from the other frame’. We have decided the outcome before we have got the result because we are afraid of the consequences, i.e. a preferred reference frame. But we have to accept that gravitational time dilation is NOT reciprocal since we see red shift looking down into gravity field, but blue shift when looking up. The point is, the equivalence principle holds just as well for time dilation. Time dilation is the same effect whether it is produced by motion or by the presence of mass. You cannot have different types of time dilation and it is either reciprocal or it is not. The fact is time dilation is not symmetrical and so it is NEVER reciprocal). There IS a preferred reference frame!

  • Avatar

    Alan Stewart

    |

    Methinks D. Cotton doth protest too much. Yawwwwwn.

    • Avatar

      Squidly

      |

      Problem for Doug is that at this point, he has become so annoying and nothing but noise. I won’t read 10 words of what he writes anymore. I simply don’t care what he has to say anymore and he has made himself completely irrelevant with all of his spamming.

  • Avatar

    Pablo

    |

    “Since exchange of heat by radiation between two like objects results in a net loss by the warmer and gain by the cooler, it follows that this process tends always to decrease the numerical value of the average temperature lapse rate in the free air. That is, it tends to bring the air of different levels to the the same temperature.”
    ..from the “Monthly Weather Review” in March 1933, Vol.61,No.3
    ftp://ftp.library.noaa.gov/docs.lib/htdocs/rescue/mwr/061/mwr-061-03-0061.pdf

  • Avatar

    Squidly

    |

    I’m sorry Doug … but STFU already!!! … I have read your blather for YEARS now .. quit spamming the articles. Nothing in your post has anything to do with the article at hand. … so again, I say .. Please Doug, STFU already!!!

  • Avatar

    Alder

    |

    A few niggles:

    The argument is based on the proposition that CO2 does influence temperature.
    As this proposition is not accepted by the slayers (this site) or by Doug Cotton’s gravity idea, talking about the origin of CO2 is superfluous.
    I have seen a range of figures for the (mean) residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere. The range is 2.5 to 15 years. This article goes to the low end, 2.8years, this makes no difference to the case. Of course the IPCC figure of 100 years is a fantasy without any evidence.
    I have seen an argument that the distribution of isotopes of CO2 produced by burning coal is different from that from nature and that man-made CO2 lingers longer in the atmosphere. Could PSI investigate this please? I would have thought that chemical and physical processes cannot distinguish isotopes. Again, since CO2 in the atmosphere does not affect temperature the argument is interesting but has no application to carbon alarmism.

    • Avatar

      geran

      |

      Alder, the CO2-isotope link you are referring to involves the belief that fossil fuels do not contain any C-14. That belief is based on another belief that fossil fuels were formed millions of years ago, and all of the C-14 would have decayed. (C-14 has a half-life of only about 5730 years.)

      But, when samples of crude oil have been tested, they contained C-14. But, the “believers” then claimed the samples had been contaminated!

      You’re correct that the isotopes generally wouldn’t affect the chemical and physical processes.

  • Avatar

    François Bergeron

    |

    Questions :
    On what page of the 2007 UN IPCC report can I find the natural vs human, inflow vs outflow of CO2 info illustrated in your article?
    What’s the source for: ‘Nature’s CO2 emissions are 21 times greater than human CO2 emissions’?

  • Avatar

    Hayen

    |

    This article is one of the worst counter arguments I’ve ever heard.

    The climate does not exist as a perfect homeostatic machine that perfectly converts all inputs

    It’s like saying an elephant weighs thousands of kilograms, so how could a few hundred kilos break it’s back, if it evolved to be strong enough to carry thousands. Or it’s like saying the human body can easily survive 300 kelvins so how could 330 kelvins kill it. Even your dam analogy is terrible, it’s like saying if a dam can hold millions of tons of water, how could a few hundred thousand extra tons of water break the dam.

    There is some weird assumption that somehow the majority of effect has to come from the majority of a factor; It’s like you have a huge Boulder at the top of a hill that’s been there for thousands of years without moving, then some human pushes it and it rolls down the hill and crashes through someones house.

    But according to you it couldn’t have been a human who pushed it down the hill because the boulder weighs several tons and humans can’t move that much, 99% of the force acting on the boulder was gravity so it was nature not humans the pushed it down the hill.

    To stop talking in analogies the direct answer is you falsely assume somehow an unlimited capacity of nature to absorb/process co2. Oceans and trees can only process so much, they could quite easily be processing 21x what humans produce but have no capacity to process anymore thus leading to a rapid increase.

    Let’s say natural sources add 300 ppm and also take away 300pm, then the amount in the atmosphere will stay static. One only needs to add 1ppm extra a year for then most of the change in co2 levels have come from humans. And that’s not mentioning we’ve been diminishing the capacity of nature to absorb co2 dramatically with deforestation which you make no mention off, plus runaway elements like ocean acidification, icecap melt, tundra thaw.

    There are lots of boulders we can push when it comes to the environment…

  • Avatar

    John O'Sullivan

    |

    Hayen, There is no long term correlation between atmospheric levels of CO2 and temperature. Period.

  • Avatar

    Robert Hakker

    |

    Is this argument over CO2 balance a bastardization of old fashion “pollution?”
    The industrial revolution saw the need to clean up European and North American industries and that was done and is still ongoing. Look at the chemical revolution in agriculture where we now see a decrease in harmful products, but these chemical and industrial processes simply moved to emerging markets where safety is less of a concern. Efficiency (energy conversion) has also kept costs down making better use of resources, but population growth as outpaced efficiency. The imbalance has formed in the belly fat of lazy stupid people of developed nations while the poor make our shit. Now instead of Londoners inhaling coal emissions, it’s the Chinese wearing masks to work.
    The oceans are a disaster also, fish prices are retarded with an average price 4x that of pork or chicken. Now they want to farm the oceans instead of repopulating the stocks or leaving the dam system alone.
    Every living being has carbon absorption content. I include over-cultivating in my definition of pollution. It is the economy/greed of the human race and nothing will stop that till a crisis or reset.
    I am pointing to balances as the the equivalence principle points out.
    Our big blue ball is fine, and usually finds a way of re-balancing sooner or later, be it famine, war, or disease, by simply changing the weather, erupting volcanoes, forest fires, or the odd meteorite, which earth has done for a hell of a long time, time and time again.
    Is anyone considering sunspot activity on the weather? Yes, a few. But everything has to be considered in an energy balance or cycle. Everything.
    Looking at cycles is the key, but who has the ability to put all these factors into a model? So far nobody. Looking at just CO2, or even including 1000 other factors with the current models is not conclusive and does not come close.
    Pollution is the imbalance of resources and their toxic effects. Earth has her own imbalances short term, but balance over the long term. One cycle of many, which I don’t believe there are enough humans to agree to actually figure this out. So far, a waste of time.

Comments are closed