Friday, May 03, 2019

Why Ed Berry is Full of Shit

Update 5/5: as a few people pointed out, there are actually two sources of 14C, the other one being nuclear bombs.

But it's obvious this doesn't affect my argument in any way. The two sources just add to make a bigger source, when Ed Berry's mistake is that he doesn't include any of the feedbacks in the carbon cycle.

And, yes, besides atmospheric CO2 going into the ocean and soil, it also goes into the biosphere. Again, that obviously doesn't go affect my argument.
-- 

Ed Berry claims humans have only contributed 18 ppm to the rise in CO2 since the start of the industrial era, when the concentration of atmospheric CO2 was about 280 ppm (by mole -- that is, by particle number. Before the industrial era, about 280 of a million air molecules were CO2 molecule. Now it's about 410 out of a million. This is sometimes noted as "ppmv.")

Ed Berry is full of shit. Here's his shitty model:


It's the bathtub model.

You don't even have to look at Ed's equations -- because this POS model is obviously wrong for CO2.

It's shitty because the real world of carbon dioxide isn't a bathtub. This is obvious and I just do not understand how a semi-intelligent person does not understand this.

Climate denialism turns the brains of semi-smart people to dog food.

Why is this model wrong? Because CO2 doesn't follow a simple in-out model. CO2 inputs come from burning fossil fuels, and from the ocean, and from the land, and from the biosphere as a result of warming. Even a bit, about 0.5-1%, from volcanoes.

Where does the CO2 go? It goes into the atmosphere and the ocean and the soil. Do you see any of these sinks in Ed Berry's model -- and that they also serve as sources of CO2?

No. NO. Of course not. Ed doesn't do real physics. Or care about it in any way. He's a denier who left science a long time ago.

Ed makes a big deal that his model works for 14C. Well, of course it does -- there is only a single source of atmospheric 14C (cosmic rays), and a single sink (radioactive decay):


Unlike CO2, where sources are burning fossil fuels, the ocean and land (soil), 14C has only one source.

It's perplexing how an intelligent person does not understand this.

Back to reality: in fact, humans are responsible for all of the excess carbon in today's atmosphere. And, in fact, nature still absorbs not only as much CO2 as it admits, but also about 50% more, of what humans emit -- the so-called airborne fraction.

Don't believe me? Consider this -- Ed has been trying to get his paper published for almost two years now. It has been rejected -- he won't say how many times. And he wonders why.... The answer is, because his claims are full of shit!

Some people just refuse to learn. Literally. Climate denialists, like Ed, most of all.

People: if your claim does not agree with the consensus claims honed over a century, the chances are overwhelming that you are mistaken and not thousands of scientists. You'd think someone who once did science would know that.

Climate denialism, and its associated shit, is really excessive egotism. Thinking you know more than everyone -- EVERYONE -- else.

PS: Humans have emitted about 1,600 Gt CO2 since 1850 (Source: WRI CAIT). I wonder where Ed PhD thinks it has all gone.

16 comments:

Richard S Courtney said...

David Appell,

Ed Berry "claims" nothing. He has demonstrated that the continuity equation shows the trivial contribution of the small anthropogenic emission of CO2 (less than 2% of natural emissions of CO2) provides a trivial contribution to the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration.

And he has determined that the triviality of this contribution results from atmospheric CO2 residence time being 16.5 years as indicated by the decay rate of 14C in atmospheric CO2 concentration following A-bomb tests.

It is hard to refute the clear analysis of Ed Berry and, therefore, it is not surprising that someone with your very limited abilities is driven to using obscenities by your inability to dispute it.

Richard

David Appell said...

Richard, I already refuted Berry — his model is far too simplistic and does not account for all the carbon flows that exist. That why no credible journal will publish his “paper.”

Just where do you think all the human emissions have gone?

Richard S Courtney said...

David Appell,

I write to answer your question.

The trivial anthropogenic emission has gone into the carbon cycle.

You seem unaware that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is equivalent to only half the anthropogenic emission; n.b. not all of it.

And the annual rises in atmospheric CO2 concentration do not support a contention that they are caused by accumulation of the anthropogenic emission: If the extra emission of human origin were the only emission, then in some years, almost all of it seems to be absorbed into the sinks, and in other years almost none.

Importantly, the dynamics of the short-term CO2 sequestration processes indicate that those processes can easily sequester all the total CO2 emission (both natural and anthropogenic) each year, but they don't with resulting residual increase each year.

At issue is WHY the short-term CO2 sequestration processes don't sequester all the total CO2 emission (both natural and anthropogenic) each year when the dynamics of those processes demonstrate they can.

The matter is explained by the climate system adjusting to the global temperature rise that began about 300 years ago when the Little Ice Age began to end. The short term sequestration processes can easily adapt to sequester the anthropogenic emission in a year but some processes of the carbon cycle are very slow with rate constants of years and decades and, therefore, the carbon cycle system takes decades to fully adjust to the new equilibrium.

The main cause of the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is probably desorbtion from the oceans and the delay of about 50 years of the CO2 rise behind the temperature rise is not surprising.

For more information on these matters please see
Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, 'The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle' E&E v16no2 (2005)

Please note that the findings of Ed Berry are completely consistent with the data and understandings I have stated here.

Richard

Marco said...

"The main cause of the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is probably desorbtion from the oceans"

Which contradicts the observed INCREASE in dissolved inorganic carbon in the oceans (see https://science.sciencemag.org/content/363/6432/1193 for a very recent paper). It also contradicts the observed change in 13C/12C ratio. This isn't exactly new, as shown e.g. in https://www.nature.com/articles/321058a0 for changes in ocean 13C/12C ratios. All of that, completely ignored by Berry, Courtney, Rörsch, Thoenes, and all those others who seem to believe in magic.

But since Richard Courtney believes he is so smart, I'll ask him the same question that I asked all those others who believe the increase is a result of ocean outgassing: where's the sink, Richard? If the ocean is the prime net source, you would need to find a sink that has taken up around 1500 Gigatons of CO2 EXTRA, the cumulative anthropogenic emissions.

And another very relevant question you should then answer: why is the atmospheric oxygen concentration dropping faster than the CO2 increase? You will need to find a mechanism that not only explains the increased outgassing of CO2 *and thus also O2* from the oceans (after all, you claim this is due to warming - Henry's Law applies as much to O2 as it does to CO2), and how this extra O2 is then taken up even more than the CO2 by some sink, somewhere, unidentified.

In terms of "consilience of evidence", I see a "divergence of evidence" underlying your hypothesis. Maybe not surprising you don't see it, considering your own question on the annual variability in the carbon cycle. It's not like there aren't any papers who discuss this. And those papers aren't exactly new either. Maybe you should read up on some papers by Charles Keeling and Roger Revelle, Richard. And then contemplate on the fact that a complete and total non-expert in climate science is lecturing you on your lack of knowledge on the relevant literature and the obvious problems you cannot solve with your hypothesis (but are solved with anthropogenic CO2 as the main driver of atmospheric CO2 increase).

Layzej said...

Ed has been trying to get his paper published for almost two years now. It has been rejected -- he won't say how many times. And he wonders why.... The answer is, because his claims are full of shit!

...Or is it because of the global conspiracy to suppress the truth?

Richard S Courtney said...

Marco,

I don't know what makes you assert that I think I am "so smart". I am not very smart, but it is obvious that I am smarter than you and Appell.

The increase in dissolved inorganic carbon in the oceans does NOT refute the observation that the seasonal exchanges of atmospheric and oceanic CO2 result in net degassing with the observed resulting increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration because of the increased global temperature that precedes it. Please explain why you think the inorganic dissolved carbon change refutes the evidence: is it because you think there is no biosphere in the oceans?

And I don't know what "sink" for CO2 you are imagining. There are several: please see the reference I provided.

The isotope ratio change refutes YOUR assertions, not mine. The change is in the direction which would occur if natural emissions did not exist, but its magnitude is wrong by a factor of 3 (n.b. a discrepancy of 300 %) for it to be a result of the anthropogenic emission.

And you need to say why you think the oxygen concentration is "dropping" if you want to claim it supports your assertions. And check if the fall is consistent with your claim because I suspect your ideas about oxygen are as wrong as your mistake concerning the carbon isotope ratios.

I suggest that your arrogance probably results from your ignorance being so profound that you are not capable of recognising your comments reveal how little you understand about this subject. However, I acknowledge the possibility that you do know how mistaken your comments are and that is why you choose to provide them anonymously.

Richard

Marco said...

Richard, you claim to be "so smart" by referring to your own article as some kind of authorative source, even though it is written with two other people who have ZERO expertise in the carbon cycle. Hence the argument from incredulity it contains - i.e., your article essentially states because carbon fluxes overall are large, a small contribution cannot have much of an impact. This is easily refuted using an example: If I have an income of 5000 dollars a month, and *on average* monthly expenses of 5000 dollar, too, but varying by 200 dollars up or down, the 100 dollar a month I get from my grandmother will give a trend of 100 dollar a month on my bank account, despite being only a little bit more than 2% of the total flux, and despite the monthly variability being much higher than this additional money from my grandmother.

The reference you provided does NOT describe the putative source, or sources, that would be so important. Rather, it says "there could be one!"
Your explanation makes no sense: seasonal variations cannot cause a net outgassing of CO2 when DIC on an annual basis increases (or, at least, has an increasing trend). Basic accounting, see again my financial example above.
"Ah," you say, "you ignore the biosphere". Well, let's go there. If the loss of CO2 from the oceans is due to loss of marine biosphere...you'd have to show that this has decreased with several thousands of gigaton of C since around 1900. After all, cumulative anthropogenic emissions over that period have been around 500 Gt, and you claim this has only contributed a very small amount (less than 15%) of the observed increase in CO2. But it's not enough to show that it has decreased by so much: since the observed atmospheric increase is much, much smaller, and since the observed DIC in the oceans isn't enough to compensate even the total anthropogenic contribution, you will need to find a non-oceanic sink that has taken up more than 3000 Gt of C since 1900. The terrestrial biosphere (and that includes soil-sequestered carbon)? Good luck with that, it would then have had to have more than doubled in size since 1900. No evidence for that either.

I mentioned the O2 as evidence that it cannot have been outgassing of dissolved CO2 in the oceans, because then also O2 would be outgassing, and thus its decrease in the atmosphere would be much smaller (or even absent) than currently measured. Note that the measured decrease fits reasonably well with our estimates of FF combustion.

You provided no evidence that the 13C/12C ratio is wrong by a factor 3 to be a result of anthropogenic emissions and better fits your hypothesis in any way. It would be stupid to assume all of the change is due to FF combustion anyway, since we *know* (through measurements) that changes in the biosphere also have an impact (and also oceanic uptake), so don't go to such a simplified argument.

David in Cal said...

As David points out, Berry's model in obviously invalid, because it doesn't reflect the inputs and outflows of CO2 in the atmosphere. Why do Berry and others -- people who don't really understand the physics -- so passionately believe in that model? What is their psychology? Are they misled by the apparent complexity?

IMHO a parallel is those people who passionately believe in the Hockey Stick. These are people who don't understand the statistics, who ignore the fact that the model was designed by someone not expert in statistics, that the model has vital, unvalidated assumptions, and that it has been severely criticized or debunked by people who do understand the statistics.

Cheers

Marco said...

DiC, the hockeystick remains when proper statistical models are used and when various other assumptions are taken into account.

See Wahl and Ammann 2007 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-006-9105-7

And if you don't like that one, Tingley and Huybers also exists, and has a markedly different statistical approach:
http://www.martintingley.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/BARCAST1.pdf

Layzej said...

IMHO a parallel is those people who passionately believe in the Hockey Stick.

Which one? this one? Or this one? Or this one? Or this one? or this one? or this one? or this one? or this one? or one of these?

Or one of dozens of others, each showing a hockey stick regardless of the data or methods used?

You'll need to be specific... But we probably shouldn't "believe" in any one study. We should be looking at the results in aggregate. One study or another may be dead wrong. No study will be perfect.

But if dozens of studies attacking the problem using a different data sets and different methods all still find a hockey stick then we should have some confidence.

David Appell said...

Richard S Courtney wrote:
"The main cause of the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is probably desorbtion from the oceans and the delay of about 50 years of the CO2 rise behind the temperature rise is not surprising."

The ocean is net-absorbing CO2. That's why it's acidifying.

50 years? What's your evidence.

You deniers make this so easy.

David Appell said...

Now, here's a decent model of the carbon cycle:

https://is.gd/IDX9Z6

Anonymous said...

I skimmed the paper a little. Without digging too much into it, I suspect, he is confusing the exchange of atmospheric C14 with near surface carbon versus the sequestration of excess carbon by sedimentation. You can't think of it as just a one box LR/AR diffy Q, especially if you are going to look at two different isotopes. For C14, exchange with nearby areas (that are in quasiequilbrium for overall carbon) leads to dilution of that isotope. For carbon in general, this does not work (movements back and forth, will reduce a tracer isotope, but won't change overall carbon concentration.) There is someone in comments making remarks to similar effect.

Rebutting it more solidly would take more work than I want to do (takes work to show someone is wrong, especially in an area one is not an expert in).

But overall, guy gives the impression of being a crank.

Charles in Engineering said...

well said.

Unknown said...

You'll like this paper - https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13428

Max said...

Marco, you said :
I mentioned the O2 as evidence that it cannot have been outgassing of dissolved CO2 in the oceans, because then also O2 would be outgassing, and thus its decrease in the atmosphere would be much smaller (or even absent) than currently measured.

It seems to me that this argument doesnt stand, since the O2 outgassing sensitivity to temperature is between one and two orders of magnitude lower than it is for CO2.