A physics view of man-made Climate Change (Ed Berry)

Link: http://edberry.com/blog/ed-berry/a-physics-view-of-climatechange/?awt_l=M8.MI&awt_m=3mcfAHHeUD7WuNE Please see the original article at the link above for hotlinks to the scientists in bold below.

A Physics view of Climate Change A short, total rebuttal to climate alarmism

by Dr. Ed Berry, PhD, Physics, website: edberry.com Aztec priests told people they must cut out their beating hearts to bring better climate for their crops. The people believed them.

Today’s climate priests tell people they must cut out their CO2 emissions and pay penances to other nations, like China, to save our climate. The people believe them.

It’s time for you to think for yourself.

I will show you physics “secrets” that will change everything you “believe” about climate.

The real climate debate is about the scientific method. This is the critical “philosophy” part of science that most people and many scientists do not understand.

To help us understand the scientific method, let’s drop in on a fictitious federal murder trial in San Francisco.

Federal criminal court procedures are similar to the scientific method. The prosecution needs a unanimous vote by the jury. Only one “Not Guilty” vote defeats the prosecution’s case.

The prosecution accuses Smith of shooting and killing Jones.

The prosecution enters evidence to support its case. Smith owns a gun similar to the gun that killed Jones. Smith once publicly threatened Jones. Etc. The evidence looks bad for Smith. The prosecution rests.

page 1

Does the defense try to refute all the prosecution’s evidence? It does not need to. The defense only needs one contradiction to the prosecution’s case to win. The defense proves Smith was in New York at the time of the shooting. Game over.

The scientific method works the same way. You may propose an idea, like our CO2 causes dangerous climate change. You may show evidence to support your idea. But the defense only needs to show your idea has one mistake or one incorrect prediction to prove your idea is wrong.

Some climate alarmists’ claim their idea is true because of a “preponderance of evidence.” This is not the scientific method and it leads to the wrong conclusion.

The scientific method says we can never prove an idea is true. We only can prove an idea is false. To approach truth, we discard fiction. Since we can never discard all fiction, science is never settled.

Let’s drop in on another fictitious trial.

The prosecution claims human CO2 emissions cause climate change. The prosecution introduces the following evidence: 

Humans have burned carbon-based fuels in meaningful quantities since 1950.



Global temperatures have been mostly rising since 1950.

Climate models embody the alarmist idea.

Climate models predict human CO2 will cause future temperature rise.

Consequences are dangerous sea levels, hurricanes, etc.

  

Looks bad for CO2 but let’s hear from the defense.

The defense requests dismissal of consequential evidence, like sea levels, because consequences do not prove causation. The judge agrees. Consequential evidence dismissed.

The defense calls its witnesses.

Dr. Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics, explains the scientific method.

You get an idea or hypothesis. You use your idea to make a prediction. If your prediction is wrong, your idea is wrong.

page 2

Dr. Albert Einstein testifies we must compare predictions of climate models to new data. Einstein’s relativity idea predicted our sun’s gravity would bend light from a star by a precise amount. Einstein said of the scientific method, “Many experiments may prove me right but it takes only one to prove me wrong.”

Dr. John Christy compares climate model predictions since 1979 with real data.

Climate models do not agree among themselves, and the model average predicts global temperature will increase 3 times faster than recorded climate data. This inaccuracy is like missing your deer shot by 3 deer lengths. Both points prove the models are wrong.

So, like Smith, human CO2 is innocent. Climate changes but CO2 does not cause the climate change. Case closed.

In only 603 words, we proved the alarmists’ climate hypothesis is wrong.

Therefore, it is a cult religion. The US government and its agencies like the EPA have forced the alarmists’ climate cult religion on the American public in opposition to the First Amendment to our Constitution.

However, for your entertainment, the defense continues with some atmospheric “rocket science.”

The defense calls Dr. Judith Curry. She says the real issue is “What causes climate change? Humans or nature?”

Dr. Ferenc Miskolezi explains his peer-reviewed papers that show water vapor and clouds adjust to changes in CO2 to keep Earth’s greenhouse effect constant. His predictions match observations. Therefore, CO2 can’t change the greenhouse effect and can’t cause global warming.

Question: Would Earth be an ice-covered planet if it had no CO2?

Miskolczi: The water phase diagram shows ice sublimation would add enough water vapor to produce today’s greenhouse effect, with or without CO2.

Dr. Murry Salby is the author of the 666-page, 2012 textbook “Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate.” He uses advanced physics and math to analyze CO2 data.

Salby proves temperature, not human CO2, causes the change in atmospheric CO2.

Salby’s conclusion does not depend on theory. It results from proper data analysis. page 3

Dr. Willie Soon is lead author of a 2015 peer-reviewed paper that shows our sun, not CO2, drives climate. He shows plots of temperature, total solar irradiance, and CO2 from 1880 to present. The plots show Earth’s global temperature correlates with total solar irradiance but not with CO2. The lack of correlation of Earth temperature with CO2 proves CO2 does not drive temperature.

Dr. David Evans, an expert mathematician, found climate models contain a serious error. Climate models use the old Arrhenius assumption that Earth responds to CO2 change like it responds to change in solar radiation. The Arrhenius assumption is incorrect. Climate responds much differently to changes in CO2 than it does to changes in solar radiation. When Evans corrects for this model error alone, climate model temperature predictions decrease by 80 to 90 percent.

Dr. Ivar Giaever won the 1973 Nobel Prize in Physics. He is a Democrat who puts scientific truth above partisanship. He testifies the alarmist climate change idea is pure pseudoscience. He says climate alarmists have made their idea a new religion and therefore can’t question it. He shows many conflicts of the alarmist climate idea with the real world of physics.

The defense rests.

The prosecution can’t produce any witnesses to counter the testimonies of Feynman, Einstein, Christy, Curry, Miskolczi, Salby, Soon, Evans, or Giaever.

The judge pounds the gavel.

Our CO2 does not control climate. CO2 is not a pollutant. Carbon is not a pollutant.

The best way to “address” climate change is to do nothing.

Copyright (c) by Edwin X Berry, published with permission of the author.

page 4