Disproving AGW

This thread is for discussion of arguments and evidence against the existence of dangerous man-made global warming.

Views: 1532

158 Thoughts on “Disproving AGW

  1. THREAD on 17/10/2010 at 9:41 am said:


  2. Richard C (NZ) on 17/10/2010 at 2:55 pm said:

    Climate Change Catastrophes in Critical Thinking


    This article explores the phenomenon of global warming, climate change, and the extraordinary consequences popularly speculated. As a hypothesis can only be scientific if it is testable, this article tests key assertions of climate change Catastrophism against the facts of the geological record. Finding that, climate change Catastrophism lacks scientific support, the implications of neo-catastrophist behaviour with special regard to global warming is considered and in this light, the proposed remedies for global warming are examined against contemporary crises and opportunities. This article finds that the impact of excessive land clearance is of far greater concern.


  3. val majkus on 17/10/2010 at 4:30 pm said:

    I like his references too including Archibald, Carter and Plimer; very interesting; will go back and read when time permits

  4. Richard C (NZ) on 17/10/2010 at 7:09 pm said:

    The Shattered Greenhouse: How Simple Physics Demolishes the “Greenhouse Effect”.


    This article explores the “Greenhouse Effect” in contemporary literature and in the frame of physics, finding a conspicuous lack of clear thermodynamic definition. Arrhenius’ backradiation mechanism is identified as a key aspect of the “Greenhouse Effect” hypothesis. The general idea as expressed in contemporary literature, though seemingly chaotic in its diversity of emphasis, shows little change since its original proposition by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, and subsequent refutation by Robert Wood in 1909. The “Greenhouse Effect” is presented as a radiation trap whereby changes in atmospheric composition resulting in increased absorption lead to increased surface temperatures. However, since the composition of a body, isolated from thermal contact by a vacuum, cannot affect mean body temperature, the “Greenhouse Effect” has, in fact, no material foundation. Compositional variation can change the distribution of heat within a body in accordance with Fourier’s Law, but it cannot change the overall temperature of the body. Arrhenius’ backradiation mechanism did, in fact, duplicate the radiative heat transfer component by adding this component to the conductive heat flow between the earth’s surface and the atmosphere, when thermal conduction includes both kinetic and radiative modes of heat transfer between bodies in thermal contact. Moreover, the temperature of the earth’s surface and the temperature in a greenhouse are adequately explained by elementary physics. Consequently, the dubious explanation presented by the “Greenhouse Effect” hypothesis is an unnecessary complication. Furthermore, this hypothesis has neither direct experimental confirmation nor direct empirical evidence of a material nature. Thus the notion of “Anthropogenic Global Warming”, which rests on the “Greenhouse Effect”, also has no real foundation.


    • Richard C (NZ) on 18/10/2010 at 6:25 pm said:

      This paper in discussion at JoNova – comments #107 #108 down


    • val majkus on 01/11/2010 at 2:10 pm said:

      I vaguely recall a similar study done by I thought a German physicist the purport being that ‘back radiation’ was not possible from a physics standpoint but I can’t find it now; can anyone point me to it; I also thought John O’Sullivan had an article on it but can’t find that either

    • Richard C (NZ) on 01/11/2010 at 2:54 pm said:

      Claes Johnson on Mathematics and Science: No Backradiation = No Radiative Forcing


      You can find it under “AGW Busted – Debunking Articles”


    • val majkus on 01/11/2010 at 4:10 pm said:

      Thanks Richard; I’ll have another look at it tonight

    • val majkus on 01/11/2010 at 10:05 pm said:

      Actually Richard, this is the paper I had in mind:
      The references are:

      â– Falsification Of The Atmospheric Co2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics, by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner, in IJMP(B), Vol 23, Iss 3, Jan 30, 2009, pp 275-364, doi:10.1142/S021797920904984X.
      Also freely available at arxiv as arXiv:0707.1161v4


      The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics, such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature, it is taken for granted that such a mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper, the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33° is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.
      Then there’s a comment and a reply
      â– Comment On “Falsification Of The Atmospheric Co2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics”, by Joshua B. Halpern, Christopher M. Colose, Chris Ho-Stuart, Joel D. Shore, Arthur P. Smith And Jörg Zimmermann, in IJMP(B), Vol 24, Iss 10, Apr 20, 2010, pp 1309-1332, doi:10.1142/S021797921005555X
      At the Rabbet Run Labs of Eli Rabbet you can find a sequence of drafts of the rebuttal up to pretty much as published.

      In this journal, Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner claim to have falsified the existence of an atmospheric greenhouse effect.1 Here, we show that their methods, logic, and conclusions are in error. Their most significant errors include trying to apply the Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to only one side of a heat transfer process rather than the entire process, and systematically ignoring most non-radiative heat flows applicable to the Earth’s surface and atmosphere. They claim that radiative heat transfer from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface is forbidden, ignoring the larger transfer in the other direction which makes the complete process allowed. Further, by ignoring heat capacity and non-radiative heat flows, they claim that radiative balance requires that the surface cool by 100 K or more at night, an obvious absurdity induced by an unphysical assumption. This comment concentrates on these two major points, while also taking note of some of Gerlich and Tscheuschner’s other errors and misunderstandings.

      â– Reply To “Comment On ‘Falsification Of The Atmospheric Co2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics’ By Joshua B. Halpern, Christopher M. Colose, Chris Ho-Stuart, Joel D. Shore, Arthur P. Smith, Jörg Zimmermann”, by Gerhard Gerlich And Ralf D. Tscheuschner, in IJMP(B), Vol 24, Iss 10, Apr 20, 2010, pp 1333-1359, doi:10.1142/S0217979210055573


      It is shown that the notorious claim by Halpern et al. recently repeated in their comment that the method, logic, and conclusions of our “Falsification Of The CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics” would be in error has no foundation. Since Halpern et al. communicate our arguments incorrectly, their comment is scientifically vacuous. In particular, it is not true that we are “trying to apply the Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to only one side of a heat transfer process rather than the entire process” and that we are “systematically ignoring most non-radiative heat flows applicable to Earth’s surface and atmosphere”. Rather, our falsification paper discusses the violation of fundamental physical and mathematical principles in 14 examples of common pseudo-derivations of fictitious greenhouse effects that are all based on simplistic pictures of radiative transfer and their obscure relation to thermodynamics, including but not limited to those descriptions (a) that define a “Perpetuum Mobile Of The 2nd Kind”, (b) that rely on incorrectly calculated averages of global temperatures, (c) that refer to incorrectly normalized spectra of electromagnetic radiation. Halpern et al. completely missed an exceptional chance to formulate a scientifically well-founded antithesis. They do not even define a greenhouse effect that they wish to defend. We take the opportunity to clarify some misunderstandings, which are communicated in the current discussion on the non-measurable, i.e., physically non-existing influence of the trace gas CO2 on the climates of the Earth.

      So what’s the current status of ‘back radiation’ does anyone know?

    • THREAD on 02/11/2010 at 8:31 am said:

      “So what’s the current status of ‘back radiation’ does anyone know?”

      Yes it exists, just continue reading down-thread where I replied to Richard T’s questions, it is dealt with there.

      GHG back radiation is measurable as you will see but because it is reflected radiation its heating ability is spent i.e. the solar short wave (SWIR) has been converted to long wave (LWIR) so no global warming.

      Good that you put up G&T. It basically stated the obvious to anyone with rudimentary physics and thermodynamics but created a firestorm among warmist climatologists and AGW proponents.

      It is amazing the convoluted arguments put forward to justify the false notion that cold things warm hot things even among luke-wamists – lots of “thought experiments”.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 01/11/2010 at 4:03 pm said:

      My humble opinion is that there is apples-oranges confusion in the back radiation debate, even among experts.

      i.e. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics deals with heat – not radiation, and radiation is not heat (radiation “radiates”).

      If radiation was heat then space would be warmer than the ~2-4 K above absolute between Sun and Earth for example. due to the SWIR propagating through it from the Sun. Heat is only produced when there is matter (molecules) to be excited by radiation, these are not present in space, so no heat in space, just radiation.

      FWIW, I don’t disagree with those who say there is SWIR back radiation from GHG’s, just that it’s not enough to heat the land (see A NULL HYPOTHESIS FOR CO2 https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/open-threads/climate/climate-science/#comment-26629) and it’s physically impossible for SWIR to heat the oceans and lakes (although the RealClimate team are working on that).

      The better analogy is a “Blanket” – not “Greenhouse”, so that the GHG’s slow the loss of heat from the surface (ocean and land) and that process starts working immediately at surface level (see Nicol 2008 https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/open-threads/climate/climate-science/#comment-27772). The GHG’s are not “trapping heat” either because the tropical tropospheric “hot-spot” is missing (the “missing heat”)

      Also see this thread in the same vein in respect to scienceofdoom https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/open-threads/climate/disproving-agw/#comment-26164

      I will put up some links in “Atmosphere” for BSRN and GEWEX soon but I recommend reading this page at scienceofdoom meantime http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/04/09/sensible-heat-latent-heat-and-radiation/ where you can see the observed incoming long wave radiation.

      BTW, I have left 2 questions at this forum in respect to IPCC AR4, AR5 http://rtweb.aer.com/forums/index.php?sid=74586ad4edc1ccbe428d04c90aff0f78 Have also emailed a contact person with the same questions and have left the following CCG link in both cases. AER RTWG is linked here https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/open-threads/climate/climate-science/#comment-27807

      I am very interested in their work because of this: “The foundation of our research and model development is the validation of line-by-line radiative transfer calculations with accurate high-resolution measurements.”. The IPCC stable does not do this. That is why this model is under “Climate Science” and the IPCC stable is under “Climate” (should possibly be under “Controversy and scandal”).

      I am also getting my head around stochastic modeling of hydroclimatic processes called for by G. G. Anagnostopoulos et al. (2010) https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/open-threads/climate/#comment-27978 and employed by SVEINSSON, SALAS, BOES and ROGER A. PIELKE SR. https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/open-threads/climate/#comment-27980

      Food for thought if you are interested.

    • You say (emphasis added):

      The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics deals with heat – not radiation, and radiation is not heat

      I agree with what you say (the parts I understand) but not this. It seems to me we simply have two clearly-defined meanings of “radiation”, one dealing with the electromagnetic spectrum and the other with heat.

      Though the intervening space is little affected, is not heat radiated from the Sun to Earth? Or how does it get here and what term do we use for the solar heat transfer method? Or have I just declared a deep ignorance of thermo-stuff?

    • Richard C (NZ) on 01/11/2010 at 5:21 pm said:

      “is not heat radiated from the Sun to Earth? ”

      Yes and no. There’s a subtle separation of the components of ENERGY. Heat is described well in Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat so that yes, there is a transfer of energy by radiation (electromagnetic) from the sun but heat is only manifest when the radiation encounters atmosphere (excitation of molecules) and then the land and ocean (more excitation of molecules).

      After that the processes of convection and conduction come in to play (thermodynamics) and of course radiation is reflected, but then the heating capacity is lost to a degree, solar radiation being short wave; reflected radiation (especially from GHG’s) being long wave. What gets lost in discussion is that the GHG’s encounter incoming solar SWIR BEFORE the LWIR is reflected back up through the atmosphere on the way to space.

      The atmosphere is not significant in terms of heat because “The heat capacity of the global atmosphere corresponds to that of only a 3.2 m layer of the ocean” http://www.oco.noaa.gov/index.jsp?show_page=page_roc.jsp&nav=universal. Therefore, the oceans and lakes are the planet’s greatest heat sinks – greater also than land although there is atmosphere-land heat coupling, see Heat into the Ground http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/04/09/sensible-heat-latent-heat-and-radiation/

      Or how does it get here and what term do we use for the solar heat transfer method?

      That was the “electromagnetic radiation” above.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 01/11/2010 at 5:34 pm said:

      And if LWIR GHG back radiation is unable to heat the planets greatest heat-sinks (oceans and lakes), then, who cares about AGW? Not me, that’s for sure. I’m more interested in the fact that the oceans and lakes are giving up heat (OHC) at present and will the trend continue and for how long?

    • Richard C (NZ) on 01/11/2010 at 7:08 pm said:

      I highly recommend reading:

      Roy Clark, Ph.D.


      to get a handle on this topic.

      Application of Beer’s law to the propagation of solar and LWIR flux through the ocean clearly shows that only the solar radiation can penetrate below the ocean surface and heat subsurface ocean layers. It is impossible for a 1.7 W.m−2 increase in downward ‘clear sky’ atmospheric LWIR flux to heat the oceans. Similarly, the changes in land surface temperatures produced by this flux increase are too small to detect in measured diurnal and seasonal surface temperature variations. Furthermore, a 100 ppm increase in CO2 concentration is not detectable in the meteorological surface temperature record. The assumptions underlying the use of radiative forcing and the ‘prediction’ of meteorological surface temperature in climate simulation are invalid. Based on these arguments, a null hypothesis for CO2 is proposed:

    • Richard C (NZ) on 01/11/2010 at 5:43 pm said:

      Have just noticed this is wrong:-

      “FWIW, I don’t disagree with those who say there is SWIR back radiation from GHG’s”

      Should read:-

      FWIW, I don’t disagree with those who say there is LWIR back radiation from GHG’s

      Sorry for confusion this would surely have created.

  5. Andy on 17/10/2010 at 7:32 pm said:

    I’d like to suggest a link to a website called “Science of Doom”


    This is listed under Anthony Watts blogroll as “pro-AGW”

    I find this to be a very informative and non-partisan site with great technical depth. It explains a lot of the basic physics of CO2 in depth, and there is a very polite etiquette on the blog.

    • Thank you, Andy. It looks good to me, too.


    • Richard C (NZ) on 17/10/2010 at 9:57 pm said:

      Richard T.

      There are some subtle traps for the unwitting at this site (not suggesting, after your cursory look). It is one of the perils of straying into seductive presentations.

      Please see my reply to Andy in this regard.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 17/10/2010 at 9:42 pm said:

      Yes, good thinking Andy,a fantastically integrated site and the clarity of the content makes easy learning. If the AGW spin is ignored it is a brilliant resource (I don’t agree that it is “non-partisan” Andy – on the contrary, and I agree with Watts, definitely “pro-AGW”).

      He studiously avoids the effect of CO2 “back radiation” on ocean heat (none) i.e. it’s not what he says, it’s what he doesn’t that betrays him.

      The introduction to the BSRN (baseline surface radiation network). is instructive as is atmospheric heat coupling into the ground.

      However, two observations:

      First, study at this site reveals that it is absurd for the IPCC to be creating a crisis when the offending 1.7 W.m-2 down-welling LWIR is lost in day-time 400 W.m-2 flux.

      Dr Roy Clark at Tallblokes Talkshop:

      “However, when the magnitude and variation of these fluxes is compared to the 1.7 W.m-2 ‘clear sky’ increase in flux from a 100 ppm of CO2, over 200 years, the change in CO2 flux is too small to make any measurable difference.”


      Also see; “Nasif Nahle nails the radiative physics of CO2:”

      I (me, not Nasif) despair at the futility of searching for the significance of 1.7 W.m-2 in a globally averaged down-welling LWIR flux that can be understood just by viewing the plots in the Tallbloke post along with the following plots on these pages from scienceofdoom:



      Second, there is far too much AGW spin on the treatment of the water vapour window.

      A higher level analysis is provided in this essay by Richard J. Petschauer, Senior Member IEEE:

      “Carbon Heat Trapping: Merely a Bit Player in Global Warming”

      Previously posted at CCG:


      [Please study this carefully everyone. I have spent hours cobbling this comment together from forgotten links – I’d hate to think my effort has been wasted]

    • Andy on 19/10/2010 at 7:32 am said:

      Richard C –
      Can I suggest you put you thoughts into a full blog post sometime? You’ve obviously done a lot of research in this area and it would help to collate thoughts. I’d be happy to help as a sounding board. I am not nearly as up on the play as you though,

    • Andy on 19/10/2010 at 8:37 am said:

      On a more lighthearted note, there is a thread on Bishop Hill, suggesting a climate model competition


      This comment made me smile:

      “climate model competition”

      I’d back Piers Corbyn, although he might have difficulty contributing – I gather that William Hill blacklisted him after he kept winning long-range forecasts against the Met Office, who oscillate between hopeless attempts to do it and pronouncements that it isn’t possible anyway.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 19/10/2010 at 10:31 am said:

      I see the serious side of this Andy (but hilarious nonetheless)

      Did you spot this?

      “Regarding climate models (ZT), Judith Curry has an interesting post on “Overconfidence in IPCC’s detection and attribution” at http://judithcurry.com/2010/10/17/overconfidence-in-ipccs-detection-and-attribution-part-i/#more-631

      There are some very interesting comments on the worth (or lack thereof) of climate models.”

      That, is the series I’ve been ranting about

    • Richard C (NZ) on 19/10/2010 at 9:59 am said:

      “Can I suggest you put you thoughts into a full blog post sometime?”

      Unfortunately this is the blog post. I just have not got the time to expand, but if you spend some time in that zone, you’ll catch up quick (and then you can teach me).

      Just append any questions here and I’ll see if I can answer. If I can’t, I’ll point you to someone who can, probably at JoNova or TallBloke.

      BTW 1. A fantastic stoush at JoNova “Shock! Climate models can’t even predict a linear rise”


      Builds up to about # 100 then all on, a couple of Big Names v Trolls (e.g.Richard S. Courtney who is on fire!), I’ve X-Ref’ed everywhere, including “Troublesome Trolls” in “Controversy and scandal”https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/open-threads/climate/controversy-and-scandal/#comment-26287 (oh dear and TWinkle)

      BTW 2. I’ve been on a mission (another 3AM job). Please follow the sequence resulting here that resulted from a link you posted – I’ll be adding to it, it might be BIG story https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/open-threads/climate/#comment-26296

      BTW 3. Please see this Tip – it might be helpful https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/open-threads/climate/disproving-agw/#comment-26290

  6. val majkus on 17/10/2010 at 8:40 pm said:

    Richard Treadgold hope you can send a reply to Ken Stewart; he’s the expert who’s done the Australian Temperature record which I copied the link to; please send him a reply (can’t remember in what category but its temperatures and his link is http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2010/05/12/the-australian-temperature-record-part-1-queensland/
    he’s done amazing work!

  7. val majkus on 17/10/2010 at 9:09 pm said:

    thanks Richard;

  8. THREAD on 18/10/2010 at 11:05 pm said:

    Debating Strategies

  9. Richard C (NZ) on 19/10/2010 at 11:04 am said:

    [From JoNova]

    Author: Paul
    Here are a few simple facts that can assist in evaluating the confusing claims and counter-claims regarding the role of atmospheric carbon dioxide in the warming of the earth’s surface.

    1) The primary source of heat on earth is solar radiation, the intensity of which is given by the temperature of the sun and the earth’s distance from it.

    2) Reflection from clouds and the surface of the earth, combined with absorption of some incoming radiation, warming the atmosphere, somewhat modulates how much radiation reaches the surface of the earth and that radiation is the primary source of warmth at the surface.

    3) The oceans are the primary store of the heat that is available at the surface, having a heat-capacity hundreds of times greater than that of the atmosphere and being penetrable by the sun’s rays to about 100 M in depth, whereas land surfaces are impenetrable and lose most of their daily heat-gain overnight.

    4) The air, when warmer than the surface of the ocean, is able to heat the oceans by radiation but that radiation penetrates only the skin of the water and will then be quickly transformed into the latent heat of vaporisation and returned to the atmosphere.

    Putting all that together, it is clear that the driver of global warming/cooling can only be increased/decreased surface solar radiation since the direction of permanent heat exchange is always from the sun to the oceans and from the oceans to the atmosphere.

    The confirmatory evidence that this is so can be clearly seen in the latest warming/cooling episode, in the latter part of last century/start of this century, where the oceans fist warmed at the same time and rate as did the atmosphere and now they are cooling at the same time and at the same rate. They have, therefore, a common driver, which is the changes in surface solar radiation received.

    Since no one contends that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide has any effect on the climate without first warming the atmosphere, the fact that both the oceans and the atmosphere are seen to be equally and at the same time driven by surface solar radiation received leaves no room for any amplification effect. Therefore any increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide will demonstrably have no effect on the climate.

    It really is a simple as that.


    See all comments on this post here:

    • Bob D on 19/10/2010 at 2:47 pm said:

      That’s excellent. There needs to be more work directed at measuring and analysing the surface solar radiation changes. The changes in TSI aren’t great, so something else must be blocking/unblocking the incoming radiation. Cloud cover comes to mind here. Dr Spencer did an interesting piece on cloud cover recently.

    • THREAD on 19/10/2010 at 3:05 pm said:

      “Cloud cover comes to mind here. Dr Spencer did an interesting piece on cloud cover recently.”

      That story (could get HUGE), is here:


      and see up-thread of #comment-26296

      I’ll add to that story as it eventuates

    • Richard C (NZ) on 19/10/2010 at 3:25 pm said:

      I shouldn’t have been THREAD previous 2 comments – finger fault

    • Bob D on 19/10/2010 at 4:17 pm said:

      This is so cool. Richard T, can you add an “Ocean Heat Content” topic as well? I have some papers to add. Also, perhaps a “Radiative Imbalance” thread, or would that fall under “Atmosphere”?

      This is going to be a great resource.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 19/10/2010 at 5:15 pm said:

      Ocean Heat Content and ARGO Project – already done.


      Radiative Imbalance – under Atmospheric Thermodynamics and Heat


      [THREAD is Richard C (NZ) BTW]

    • Richard C (NZ) on 21/10/2010 at 3:48 pm said:


      Is the Western Climate Establishment Corrupt? Part 8: Do Most Western Climate Scientists Believe Global Warming is Man-Made?

      Comment # 61

      October 20th, 2010 at 8:56 pm

      Spatch @ 28 & 32 Oh and “I choose to play by my own rules thank you very much.”

      The solar system will play by its rules and not yours.

      So if the Artic sea ice extent continues to grow instead of shrinking, how many more years will it take of this growth for you to wake up to the cyclic nature of it all, 1?, 3?, 5?
      How many more years of no upper troposphere hotspot?
      How many more years of increasing Antarctic sea ice extent?
      How many more snowmaggedons?
      How long will sea surface temperatures need to keep falling?
      How many more failed predictions of “permanent drought”?
      How many more ways to name “GLOBAL WARMING” anything else?
      How many more years of 1998 holding the record?
      How many more “Gates”?
      How many more ships stuck in ice?
      How many more massive Mongolian cold snaps?
      How many more South American rivers flowing with cold dead fish?
      How many more growing glaciers calving off huge chunks?
      How many more spotless days on the sun?
      How many more global MWP studies?
      How many more scientists resigning in disgust?
      How many more birds killed by wind turbines?
      How many more farms under Greenland ice?
      How much more lost data?
      How many more 612 degree satellite measurements?
      How many more past cooling adjustments?
      How many under sea volcano discoveries?
      How many high cosmic ray counts?

    • Richard C (NZ) on 21/10/2010 at 4:01 pm said:

      From same place, comment # 30

      Brian G Valentine:
      October 20th, 2010 at 2:20 pm

      Spatch, many people have concluded that the “greenhouse” effect is impossible, based on the argument that “greenhouse” gases supposedly “trap” heat in the troposphere, so that the troposphere warms, whilst the stratosphere cools. Since the atmosphere certainly conducts heat through the tropopause, this implies that heat transferred by the “greenhouse” effect from the cooler stratosphere to the warmer troposphere – without expending work.

      This is absolute violation of the second law of thermodynamics, and anyone who claims otherwise has no clue about what the second law says.

      Why then has the “greenhouse” idea persisted for so long? I suppose it is just a refusal of the mind to step back and look at the larger picture. There is no serious counter argument to this.

      The “greenhouse” effect of a warming Earth from water vapour is simply a misunderstanding of a decrease in average diurnal temperatures as a result of water in the atmosphere from evaporation, distributed by convection. There is no mystery to this at all, but fairy tales persist because people somehow need them to be true

    • Richard C (NZ) on 21/10/2010 at 7:09 pm said:

      From JoNova

      Author: allen mcmahon

      An argument is not automatically good because it supports your position, you actually need to sift the useful from the rubbish.

      A good point but on that seems to be lost on many who support the AGW hypothesis. One could look at many issues over the past decade or so such as ice cores, the combined arctic/antarctic ice extent,the ‘hot spot’, paleo evidence or lack thereof, the failure of model forecasts where reason suggests that the hypothesis has failed. But this has not happened, the general fallback position is not evidence based but relies heavily on the manipulation and distortion of existing data coupled with the latest, and generally more alarming, model senarios.
      Coupled with this is the extension of the doomsday time frame, for example, Keelyside 2008 suggests AGW will be back with a vengeance in 2015 while Tsonis 2009 opts for 2020. The discourse from the AGW camp has changed as well and a good example of this is Michael Tobis who has gone from act now or your children suffer to act within the next coupled of decades or your grandchildren will suffer. The cynic in me suggests that the main players are providing enough wiggle room to remain relevant, and employed, until retirement.
      What I find interesting is that the evidence that casts serious doubt and I would say refutes the AGW hypothesis is found within the IPCC reports.
      There are many examples but for brevity I will choose only one, aerosols. The most difficult problem for the hypothesis is the cooling from the 1940s to the 1970s and the solution for the GCMs is the cooling properties of aerosols, the weighting given to aerosols is also a major factor in the differences between models. In the wonderful world of GCMs without the infinite elasticity of aerosols the model output would not hind-cast as well as they do. When we go to the font of all knowledge, the IPCC, we find that the understanding of aerosols is classified as poor. How can one have a <90% confidence in the evils of C02 when a key factor that could lead to this conclusion is poorly understood.To my mind it suggests the modelers are basically guessing and it becomes worse when you look at clouds, the failure of the models to incorporate natural cycles such as PDO/AMO. Even for cycles that are better understood such as El Nino/La Nina events the models are split roughly 50/50 on which will dominate this century. The increased frequency and intensity of El Nino events are a feature of the more apocalyptic model scenarios but the few models that approximate the timing of El Nino events reasonably well overestimate the intensity and duration substantially.
      Should you wish to investigate or dispute any of these claims I can provide you with a list of peer reviewed articles by scientists and in journals that the most ardent AGW supporter would find acceptable.

      See all comments on this post here:

  10. THREAD on 20/10/2010 at 10:29 am said:

    Competitive Advantage

    • Richard C (NZ) on 20/10/2010 at 11:09 am said:

      Competitive Advantage – My Musings

      Text-book management spends a lot of time re keeping strategic info locked away from the prying eyes of competitors and obviously there is a place for that.

      But in the context of the CAGW Proponent – CAGW Sceptic debate.

      Doesn’t matter!

      Let the opposition waste their time spying on our info [I’ve done my share of corporate spying – BTW], meanwhile, we’ve got better things to do. Besides, it gives them an idea of what they are up against.

      And we know what we’re up against – don’t we?. If not, please spend time in the Climategate emails and “Controversy and scandal”


      CAGW has had it’s time in the MSM sun – now it’s our turn.

      Gareth Renowden (and every other warmist), if you are reading this (and I hope you are, if you’re a serious competitor) – fine.

      Game on!

      [RedLogix – thanks for the “professional” complement at HT, I appreciate that]

    • Richard C (NZ) on 20/10/2010 at 1:01 pm said:

      And we know what we’re up against – don’t we?

      Just to be clear.

      ‘Merchants of Doubt’ author details political effects on climate science

    • Richard C (NZ) on 20/10/2010 at 1:29 pm said:

      To complete the brow-beating.

      From Google News:-

      climate science »

      ‘Merchants of Doubt’ author details political effects on climate science
      Manhattan Mercury – Whitney Hodgin – ‎2 hours ago‎
      In the 21st Century, climate science evolved from a conservative political and theological theory to accepted scientific fact, said author Naomi Oreskes at …
      Writer details environmentalism’s political effects K-State Collegian
      all 2 news articles »
      Email this story
      USA Today

      Americans Trust Scientists Over Climate Deniers
      Energy Collective – ‎Oct 18, 2010‎
      This highlights the importance of educating the public about climate science – and how the Obama Administration has failed in this educational …
      Majority of Americans confused on climate change basics Mongabay.com
      Climate change workshop offered Today’s Sunbeam – NJ.com
      Canada Free Press – Sciblogs (blog) – The Guardian – USA Today
      all 90 news articles »
      Email this story

      Investing in Civic Education about Climate Change: What Should Be the Goals?
      Big Think (blog) – Matthew C. Nisbet – ‎4 hours ago‎
      The first area of knowledge—and the most commonly emphasized—is climate science literacy. This focus derives in part from the work of Jon Miller (1998), …
      Ignorance, intensity, and climate politics Grist Magazine
      all 2 news articles »
      Email this story

      Are Americans Climate Dummies?
      Mother Jones (blog) – Kate Sheppard – ‎9 hours ago‎
      That means that, despite all the attacks on climate science in the past year, the number of US citizens who recognize this problem has pretty much held firm …
      Is new global warming poll cause for despair? Energy Collective
      Lingering disbelief in climate change hinders environmental progress SU The Daily Orange (subscription)

      [Get the picture?]

    • Richard C (NZ) on 20/10/2010 at 1:21 pm said:

      Said “professional” complement

      RedLogix October 5, 2010 at 10:34 am

      “The warming MUST occur BELOW the GHG blanket because we are told by AGW proponents that GHG’s “trap” heat.”

      And that’s why I know you don’t actually understand what it is you are pretending to debunk.

      I’m not going to do your homework for you, because if you are sincere (and not just some professional disinformer, which is how you are behaving) you’d want to know the correct science for it’s own sake and your own intellectual curiosity….and no-one could stop you from finding it.

      Which you will never do hanging about denier sites.

      PS … don’t use any bridges, vehicles, enter tall buildings, or god forbid fly in an aircraft. Or indeed use anything engineered/technical system designed anytime in the last 15 odd years. They’re pretty much all designed using those dreadful ‘computer models’ that you are so certain cannot predict anything.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 21/10/2010 at 3:31 am said:

      Author: Richard S Courtney

      At #161 you say:

      A thought has occurred to me relating to the claim that those who are opposed to the ‘Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming’ hypothesis are “anti-science.”

      The reality of this situation is actually the exact opposite.

      Yes, and the tactic is not new.

      It is a well attested precept that was famously advanced by Niccolo Machiavelli five centuries ago in his seminal treatise on statecraft, ‘The Prince’, that an entirely innocent antagonist may be unsettled by accusing him of precisely the offences of which you yourself are most guilty.


      See all comments on this post here:

    • THREAD on 22/10/2010 at 1:52 pm said:

      World wide web of doubt

      The internet is allowing climate change sceptics to gain traction

    • Richard C (NZ) on 22/10/2010 at 3:51 pm said:

      A fascinating new study commissioned by Oxfam and produced by digital mapping agency Profero has shed new insights into the way climate sceptics’ networks operate. The study’s conclusions, as yet unpublished but seen by Left Foot Forward, were presented to a closed meeting of campaigners on Wednesday night.

      Profero’s study analysed online coverage of the “Climategate” debacle that broke last November, tracking its progress from fringe blogs to mainstream media outlets over the ensuing weeks and months.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 22/10/2010 at 3:52 pm said:


    • Richard C (NZ) on 22/10/2010 at 3:53 pm said:

      Combating the growing influence of climate sceptics

      Left Foot Forward

      A fascinating new study commissioned by Oxfam and produced by digital mapping agency Profero has shed new insights into the way climate sceptics’ networks operate. The study’s conclusions, as yet unpublished but seen by Left Foot Forward, were presented to a closed meeting of campaigners on Wednesday night.

      Profero’s study analysed online coverage of the “Climategate” debacle that broke last November, tracking its progress from fringe blogs to mainstream media outlets over the ensuing weeks and months.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 22/10/2010 at 3:59 pm said:

      Skeptical Network v Supporters Network

      Graphical Depiction – zoom out to enlarge and view

      This is how our competitors see the picture.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 22/10/2010 at 5:09 pm said:

      Curious to me that they place the Wall Street Journal in the “Supporters” camp.

      It’s one of the few major newspapers that publish a sceptical point of view.

    • THREAD on 22/10/2010 at 6:55 pm said:

      This for example:

      Green Supremacists
      An environmentalist fantasy of violent totalitarianism.

  11. Richard C (NZ) on 24/10/2010 at 2:39 pm said:



    Comment @ 190

    Author: sunsettommy
    Well tries to sow confusion at post # 182:

    In his reply to this sentence:

    The readings show that we have recovered from the little ice age

    He comes up with this:

    so you say we have warmer whilst others here say we haven’t. can you guys make up your mind!

    Most skeptics knows there has been a warming trend since at least the 1850’s,simply because the LIA ended by that time.That is about 150 years.

    Most skeptics knows that since 1998,there has been no warming to a small cooling trend.That is about 12 years.

    Long term (1850-2000) there has been some warming.
    Short term (1998-2010) there has been no warming to a small cooling trend.

    There you have it.

  12. Richard C (NZ) on 25/10/2010 at 12:27 pm said:

    From JoNova

    Author: Derek

    Richard S Courtney:
    October 20th, 2010 at 2:53 am

    The cult of AGW is dead. Nobody has declared it dead, and nobody will declare it dead. But it is dead.

    The flow of money governments provide to power the ‘gravy train’ will slowly reduce to a trickle and then cease.

    I predict that by the end of this decade the AGW-scare will have been forgotten, just as the ‘acid rain’ scare of the 1980s is now forgotten (few remember that scare unless reminded of it).

    But the stench of the corpse of the AGW-scare will remain for a long time. Part of that stench is loss of public confidence in science, and I regret that.

    Please excuse my partial quoting of your words, but I hope I have conveyed their original intended meaning correctly.
    I do agree in some very real senses (ie, the science) the cult of AGW is dead, or at least dying, but in other also very real senses (politics, general belief, and education) it is most definitely still very much alive, and though it pains me to say it, well.
    The loss of public confidence in science is, overall a small matter compared to the other problems that the AGW scare leaves us with.

    There is a generation gap that must be bridged. The old school, pre AGW folks must get across to the post AGW generations what has happened.
    I am somewhere inbetween, so maybe that is why I “see” this (knowledge / belief / view) generation gap.

    If the stench of this AGW scam is not to linger on for many years, if not decades, causing untold miseries to millions, mostly the poor and the young, then “skeptics” need a champion presenter to get the real state of climate science and knowledge across.
    But this is the rub, “we” can not agree, because there is no replacement school of thought “we” can all agree to,
    because we simply do not know sufficient at present, and it appears “we” will not for some time yet.

    AGW is far too big though (and has far too much potential to cause economic and social damage) to just let die, it must be stopped,
    so “we” need to all act now, and together.

    I would suggest here what I have heard proposed elsewhere, by far, far better than me,
    that the best step forward is to take a huge leap backwards, to before AGW.
    A counter revolution, of approximately 20 to 30 years. The last time climate science made any sense..
    And then move forwards.

    AGW must be removed from politics, education, and the general understanding / belief of many, that is the real problem
    the now dead “science” of AGW leaves us with.

    See all comments on this post here:

  13. Richard C (NZ) on 26/10/2010 at 2:13 pm said:

    Wednesday, October 20, 2010

    Physicist: Global Warming 1980-2008 caused by Sun, not Man

    Dr. Horst Borchert, the Director of the Department of Physics of the Johannes-Gutenberg Institute, Mainz, Germany, presented a paper, Using Satellite Measurements to study the Influence of Sun Activity on Terrestrial Weather at the Space Weather Workshop held in Boulder, Colorado earlier this year. Dr. Borchert finds from satellite measurements that global warming between about 1980 to 2008 was “not anthropogenic but caused by natural activities of the Sun’s surface.” He relates changes of the solar magnetic field to cosmic rays and cloud formation (the cosmic ray theory of Svensmark et al) and to effects on the North Atlantic Oscillation, which affects weather phenomena around the globe.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 26/10/2010 at 2:51 pm said:

      Wrong link – should be:


    • THREAD on 26/10/2010 at 3:16 pm said:

      Thursday, October 7, 2010

      Paper: Sun affects Climate much more than thought

      Adding the the recent spate of papers showing that – surprise – the Sun has much, much more to do with climate change than previously thought, the respected German Physics Journal Annalyn der Physik recently published a paper analyzing solar irradiance data from 1905 to 2008 which finds cosmic rays modulated by solar activity cause a large portion of atmospheric aerosols (clouds) with profound effects on climate [see the cosmic ray theory of Svensmark et al]. The paper concludes, “The contribution of the active sun, indirectly via cosmic rays, to global warming appears to be much stronger than the presently accepted [IPCC] upper limit of 1/3.”

    • THREAD on 26/10/2010 at 3:40 pm said:

      Paging IPCC: Much of recent global warming actually caused by Sun

      By Lewis Page • The Register Posted in Environment, 7th October 2010

      New data indicates that changes in the Sun’s output of energy were a major factor in the global temperature increases seen in recent years. The research will be unwelcome among hardcore green activists, as it downplays the influence of human-driven carbon emissions.

      As the Sun has shown decreased levels of activity during the past decade, it had been generally thought that it was warming the Earth less, not more. Thus, scientists considered that temperature rises seen in global databases must mean that human-caused greenhouse gas emissions – in particular of CO2 – must be exerting a powerful warming effect.

      Now, however, boffins working at Imperial College in London (and one in Boulder, Colorado) have analysed detailed sunlight readings taken from 2004 to 2007 by NASA’s Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) satellite. They found that although the Sun was putting out less energy overall than usual, in line with observations showing decreased sunspot activity, it actually emitted more in the key visible-light and near-infrared wavelengths.

  14. THREAD on 28/10/2010 at 6:13 pm said:


    Climate sceptics launch campaign to overturn green targets

    Climate sceptics, including a number of high profileTory backbenchers, are launching a campaign to overturn the Coalition’s green targets.

    By Louise Gray, 27 Oct 2010, Telegraph UK

    The ten challenges sceptics have asked ‘supporters of the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused climate change’ to prove:

    1. Variations in global climate in the last hundred years are significantly outside the natural range experienced in previous centuries.

    2. Humanity’s emissions of carbon dioxide and other ‘greenhouse gases’ (GHG) are having a dangerous impact on global climate.

    3. Computer-based models can meaningfully replicate the impact of all of the natural factors that may significantly influence climate.

    4. Sea levels are rising dangerously at a rate that has accelerated with increasing human GHG emissions, thereby threatening small islands and coastal communities.

    5. The incidences of malaria and other infectious diseases are now increasing due to recent climate changes;

    6. Human society and natural ecosystems cannot adapt to foreseeable climate change as they have done in the past.

    7. Worldwide glacier retreat, and sea ice melting in polar regions, is unusual and related to increases in human GHG emissions.

    8. Polar bears and other Arctic and Antarctic wildlife are unable to adapt to anticipated local climate change effects, independent of the causes of those changes.

    9. Hurricanes, other tropical cyclones and associated extreme weather events are increasing in severity and frequency.

    10. Data recorded by ground-based stations are a reliable indicator of global surface temperature trends.

  15. Richard C (NZ) on 30/10/2010 at 8:44 pm said:

    Another paper on the Fallacy of the ‘Greenhouse Effect’

    Tuesday, October 26, 2010

    Adding to the list of papers disproving conventional greenhouse theory, this paper by geophysicists Gerhard Kramm and Ralph Dlugi shows the ‘greenhouse effect’ is a fallacy based upon erroneous data and physical assumptions including a simplistic ‘global average temperature’. Using realistic empirical data, the authors find that the atmospheric models utilized by the IPCC and Kiehl/Trenberth “do not provide evidence for the existence of the so-called atmospheric greenhouse effect.” Related and also recommended: a new chapter by professor Claes Johnson, Climate Thermodynamics, which also shows the ‘greenhouse effect’ to be a fallacy and that adding ‘greenhouse gases’ to the atmosphere does not cause warming.

  16. Richard C (NZ) on 31/10/2010 at 9:25 am said:

    Shattering the Greenhouse Effect

    September 26, 2010

    A recommended essay by Swedish climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring offers a high school through advanced level debunking of the so-called ‘greenhouse effect.’ Dr. Jelbring finds that basic scientific principles demonstrate that global temperatures are not controlled by human emissions of ‘greenhouse gases’ and the ‘greenhouse effect’ is explainable using only the physics of pressure, gravity, volume, and the adiabatic lapse rate.

  17. Richard C (NZ) on 31/10/2010 at 9:32 am said:

    Earth Energy Budgets without ‘Greenhouse Gases’ or ‘Back Radiation’

    August 8, 2010

    The foundation of the greenhouse theory is that ‘greenhouse’ gases absorb infrared radiation from the earth and then ‘back-radiate’ this energy to the earth to cause global warming. Several prior posts have illustrated that the concepts of greenhouse gas ‘back-radiation,’ ‘heat-trapping,’ ‘heat capture,’ and ‘radiative forcing’ are essentially all referring to the same unphysical, fundamental error of the greenhouse theory that cannot be found in textbooks of physics. Several commenters have indicated that they think it is impossible to explain the temperatures of the earth and atmosphere without incorporating ‘greenhouse gases’ and ‘back-radiation’ in diagrams of the Earth’s energy budget, such as the famous Kiehl/Trenberth/IPCC Energy Budget, which shows ‘back-radiation’ to be a very significant 324 W/m2 (95% of the average solar input!) at all times 24/7/365.
    However, the earth-atmosphere system can be much more simply described (see Occam’s Razor) with real physics without using ‘greenhouse gases’ or ‘back-radiation’ at all. Here are five Earth Energy Budgets which completely explain the earth-atmosphere system without ‘greenhouse gases’ or ‘back-radiation,’ in stark contrast to the IPCC alarmist & unphysical Energy Budget:

  18. Richard C (NZ) on 31/10/2010 at 9:36 am said:

    See – The Shattered Greenhouse: How Simple Physics Demolishes the “Greenhouse Effect”.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 31/10/2010 at 10:16 am said:

      Climate Models Without a ‘Greenhouse Effect’

      October 27, 2010

      Several posts have demonstrated that the Earth’s climate can be physically described without any need to invent a ‘greenhouse effect’ caused by ‘heat-trapping’ ‘greenhouse gases’ that ‘back-radiate’ from the colder atmosphere to heat the hotter Earth surface in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Five published Earth energy budgets which roughly agree and do not incorporate ‘greenhouse gases’ at all were shown in the post Earth Energy Budgets without Greenhouse Gases, including one from the NASA Langley Research Center. A peer-reviewed paper by Ozawa et al published in Reviews of Geophysics also develops an Earth energy budget and climate model that does not incorporate a ‘greenhouse effect’ from ‘greenhouse gases.’ This is in remarkable contrast to the Earth energy budget of Kevin Trenberth used by the IPCC, which claims that ‘greenhouse gases’ heat the Earth by 324 Wm-2 compared to only 168 Wm-2 directly from the Sun! Thus, we have at least 6 published Earth energy budgets stating the contribution to the Earth surface temperature from ‘greenhouse gases’ is zero, compared to the IPCC/Trenberth budget claiming ‘greenhouse gases’ heat the Earth almost twice as much as direct sunlight and in violation of the 2nd law. Kevin “missing heat” Trenberth’s energy budget is indeed, in his own words, “a travesty.” The reason Trenberth’s budget has “missing heat” is because it never existed in the first place, since ‘greenhouse gases’ cannot provide added energy to warm the Earth; only the Sun and geothermal energy sources can add heat to the Earth’s surface.

      Reviews of Geophysics, 41, 4 / 1018 2003 doi:10.1029/2002RG000113


      Hisashi Ozawa, Atsumu Ohmura, Ralph D. Lorenz & Toni Pujol

      The long-term mean properties of the global climate system and those of turbulent fluid systems are reviewed from a thermodynamic viewpoint. Two general expressions are derived for a rate of entropy production due to thermal and viscous dissipation (turbulent dissipation) in a fluid system. It is shown with these expressions that maximum entropy production in the Earth’s climate system suggested by Paltridge, as well as maximum transport properties of heat or momentum in a turbulent system suggested by Malkus and Busse, correspond to a state in which the rate of entropy production due to the turbulent dissipation is at a maximum. Entropy production due to absorption of solar radiation in the climate system is found to be irrelevant to the maximized properties associated with turbulence. The hypothesis of maximum entropy production also seems to be applicable to the planetary atmospheres of Mars and Titan and perhaps to mantle convection. Lorenz’s conjecture on maximum generation of available potential energy is shown to be akin to this hypothesis with a few minor approximations. A possible mechanism by which turbulent fluid systems adjust themselves to the states of maximum entropy production is presented as a self-feedback mechanism for the generation of available potential energy. These results tend to support the hypothesis of maximum entropy production that underlies a wide variety of nonlinear fluid systems, including our planet as well as other planets and stars.

  19. Richard C (NZ) on 31/10/2010 at 10:06 am said:

    See – Another paper on the Fallacy of the ‘Greenhouse Effect’

    Global Warming 1980-2008 caused by Sun, not Man

    Here are a few simple facts that can assist in evaluating the confusing claims and counter-claims regarding the role of atmospheric carbon dioxide in the warming of the earth’s surface.

    Climate Change Catastrophes in Critical Thinking


    Carbon rises 800 years after temperatures The Vostok Icecores







  20. THREAD on 31/10/2010 at 11:18 am said:

    AGW Busted – Debunking Articles

  21. val majkus on 01/11/2010 at 2:00 pm said:

    Just for fun ‘What to say to a Global Warming Alarmist’; (2/2010 so a few ‘gates’ may be missing but the main ones are there;

  22. val majkus on 15/11/2010 at 1:27 pm said:

    How accurate are CGM’s


    A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed data
    Authors: G. G. Anagnostopoulosa; D. Koutsoyiannisa; A. Christofidesa; A. Efstratiadisa; N. Mamassisa

    We compare the output of various climate models to temperature and precipitation observations at 55 points around the globe. We also spatially aggregate model output and observations over the contiguous USA using data from 70 stations, and we perform comparison at several temporal scales, including a climatic (30-year) scale. Besides confirming the findings of a previous assessment study that model projections at point scale are poor, results show that the spatially integrated projections are also poor.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 15/11/2010 at 6:08 pm said:

      Good to see a comparison against actual values instead of the idiotic intercomparisons advocated by Schmidt (GISS) as a better methodology. Intercomparisons are only useful for peer-group benchmarking – nothing else.

      A pity though that the model selection is very much out of date now and even the AR4 submissions had been superseded by new versions at the time i.e. the AR4 simulations were rubbish.

      Right now, the submissions from models being prepared for CMIP5 and AR5 are already out of date e.g. NCAR CAM4 t1 and t5 will be the AR5 submissions but the CAM5 description says this:

      “CAM has been modified substantially with a range of enhancements and improvements in the representation of physical processes since version 4 (CAM4). In particular, the combination of physical parameterization enhancements makes it possible to simulate full aerosol cloud interactions including cloud droplet activation by aerosols, precipitation processes due to particle size dependant behavior and explicit radiative interaction of cloud particles. As such the CAM 5.0 represents the first version of CAM that is able to simulate the cloud-aerosol indirect radiative effects.”

      So again, the AR5 simulations will be rubbish but will be analyzed ad nauseum. In excess of 171 TBytes of output data have been downloaded from PCMDI for “analysis” but I wonder if those “analysts” have a clue as to the nature of the inputs or coding of physical formulations etc.

      The Anagnostopoulos study results are predictable. As long as the models are spun-up with a major forcing of CO2, they will never be able to predict the past (especially the 30’s-40’s warming, 60’s-70’s cooling), let alone predict the future. No sun-spot cycles, no global brightening/dimming from cloud cover changes, no low cloud in AR4. We are only now starting to see models that if it wasn’t for the CO2 forcing might do a reasonable job of mimicing the past but only if volcanic activity is added retrospectively.

      And yet scientific validity has been attributed and policy built on these model outputs.

      From the Anagnostopoulos paper:-

      “In general, the results differ substantially from the observed time series (Fig. 12). The observed annual mean temperature of the USA gradually rose between 1890 and 1940, then had a falling trend until 1970, and from 1970 until today it had a slight upward trend. None of the model outputs fit these fluctuations of the annual mean temperature; most indicate a constant increase that becomes steeper in the last decades of the 20th century. The results closest to reality are the outputs of PCM-20C3M, but even these do not include the falling trend in 1940-1970 and have a very low coefficient of efficiency in 30-year time scale (only 0.05).”

      “However, we think that the most important question is not whether GCMs can produce credible estimates of future climate, but whether climate is at all predictable in deterministic terms.

      “Do we have something better than GCMs when it comes to establishing policies for the future? Our answer is yes: we have stochastic approaches, and what is needed is a paradigm shift. We need to recognize the fact that the uncertainty is intrinsic, and shift our attention from reducing the uncertainty towards quantifying the uncertainty (see also Koutsoyiannis et al., 2009a). Obviously, in such a paradigm shift, stochastic descriptions of hydroclimatic processes should incorporate what is known about the driving physical mechanisms of the processes. Despite a common misconception of stochastics as black-box approaches whose blind use of data disregard the system dynamics, several celebrated examples, including statistical thermophysics and the modelling of turbulence, emphasize the opposite, i.e. the fact that stochastics is an indispensable, advanced and powerful part of physics. Other simpler examples (e.g. Koutsoyiannis, 2010) indicate how known deterministic dynamics can be fully incorporated in a stochastic framework and reconciled with the unavoidable emergence of uncertainty in predictions.”

      I note when looking at the evolution of the NCAR CAM series of models and particularly in the context of the G&T criticism that radiative transfer takes precedence over convection, conduction and evaporation processes in IPCC RF methodology that “CAM 5.0 was designed for tropospheric simulation” (from the CAM5 Description).

      It is typical of the models that surface level conduction and many processes between the surface and PBL (100m-3000m) including low cloud (stratus) effects have been neglected in the past and yet these effects are substantial. To put this in perspective, for CO2: “most of the radiated energy is absorbed at the lowest levels below about 10 m” (Nicol 2008)

      Main points of the Nicol paper:-

      1) Infrared radiation from the surface is absorbed in the first few feet of the atmosphere.

      2) 99% of the absorbed radiation is converted to kinetic energy within milliseconds.

      3) Heat transport in the troposphere is dominated by convection.

      “And the back-radiation, on which the CAGW hypothesis rests, is shown to be both fixed and infinitesimal, leaving absolutely no mechanism by which the so-called ‘green house’ effect can warm the surface.”

      It is encouraging that that both radiative transfer and the physical processes (except conduction) are now in advanced development at NCAR/AER.

      Hopefully one day, the models will have evolved to the point where the physical processes take precedence (especially for the lower troposphere), the CO2 forcing will have been abandoned, and the models can predict the past. Until that happens – not much chance of predicting the future.

  23. Richard C (NZ) on 16/11/2010 at 9:57 am said:

    ‘The Greenhouse Effect in Wonderland’

    November 14, 2010

    A scientist writing for an Italian climate blog has 2 recent posts illustrating 7 reasons why the laws of physics have been used incorrectly to describe the so-called greenhouse effect. Most of these points have been repeatedly covered here, but for those interested in another refutation added to the now more than 30 from other scientists who have dis-proven conventional greenhouse theory, here are the 2 posts (use Google translation):

  24. 33noa333 on 29/11/2010 at 10:41 am said:

    How to make deserts and continent
    green + energy + food + land + water + cooler climate.

    Use mighty power of nature. In the northwestern Australia, we have huge tides,
    huge evaporation and huge dry rivers and lakes.
    Tides are up to 12m. Evaporation is up to 4m per year and can be increased.
    Huge 12m tidal erosion can revive old dry paleo dormant once mighty rivers, creeks and lakes,
    desalinate the country and change deserts to rain forests to provide more rain across Australia.
    World population is growing rapidly and we need more energy, food, land and water.

    this will change deserts and whole continent for better climate –
    environment, provide hydro energy, permanently and economically.

    energy + food + land + water + cooler climate

    Plenty of energy and HYDROGEN TO RUN YOUR CAR environment friendly.

    • 33noa333 (gee, I hope you give us a proper name to use),

      I nearly binned this, but I’ve had a quick look and I’d like to hear comments from others.

      This is a proposal to use seawater to desalinate and revitalise the North-Western Australian desert. I notice the copyright claim on the material at the Australian government site you link to.

      I strongly suggest that you get someone to edit your material to improve the English and WRITE A SUMMARY describing the concept.

      My main question is how do you get the tides — large though they may be — to flow onto the land? Maybe I overlooked it.

      Why do you advertise “plenty of energy”? Where would it come from?

      How would you increase the evaporation?

    • val majkus on 29/11/2010 at 9:21 pm said:

      I’m no scientist and I have no engineering training; I did however look at the submission with interest and afterwards googled tidal power on the web
      here’s a link http://aie.org.au/Content/NavigationMenu/Resources/SchoolProjects/FS10_TIDAL_ENERGY.pdf
      from page 5
      The North West of Australia has some of the highest tides in the world with
      up to 10 metres. Tidal power has been proposed in the Kimberley region of
      Western Australia since the 1960s, when a study of the Derby region
      identified a tidal resource of over 3,000 MW.
      In recent years a proposal to construct a 50 MW tidal plant near Derby was
      developed by Derby Hydro Power. This project received a substantial grant
      from the Australian Greenhouse Office’s to further develop the project. To
      make use of the energy generated a 500 kilometre transmission line was
      needed to take the electricity to Broome and Fitzroy Crossing as well as a
      number of remote Aboriginal communities (SMEC 2003). The tidal power
      proposition faced significant challenges in terms of the initial construction
      cost and perceived impacts on the environment. Consequently, a natural
      gas powered system was adopted for most of the regional power needs.
      and here’s another link more recent
      Wilson Tuckey’s tidal power
      there’s a couple of links and a couple of explanations of how it would work which I think is missing from the submission
      Tuckey quoted the World Energy Council in a 61-page document, which is available as a pdf on his website, that lists Australia as one of nine countries that has potential sites for huge tidal energy projects. Of particular interest are Walcott Inlet and Secure Bay, north of the Kimberley town of Derby.

      What makes these two sites so attractive is that their surface or basin area is about 400 square kilometres, and these basins fill and empty with seawater, twice a day, through narrow entrances. The power of the seawater emptying and filling these bays, pounding through really narrow gaps, is breathtaking. Just these two Kimberley sites, Walcott Inlet and Secure Bay, have the potential to generate 4280 MW of electricity, according to the World Energy Council.

      The great problem with harnessing electric power in the Kimberley has always been the difficulty of transmitting the electricity generated. The long distances to places where it can be used, such as Perth or the Eastern or Southern seaboards, would see the electricity dissipate before it reached its destination. Wilson Tuckey says that this problem has been solved by a system called HVDC — High Voltage Direct Current transmission. The largest HVDC transmission line in the world is currently in operation in Australia. BassLink which connects Victoria and Tasmania, via a cable under Bass Straight, uses the latest HVDC transmission technology.
      can 33noa333 point to a successful operation anywhere in the world?
      there was a planned operation proposed to be built in Korea but I don’t know what happened to that

  25. val majkus on 29/11/2010 at 9:30 pm said:

    there’s also quite a comprehensive overlook at the various kinds of ‘green energy’ here http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/emission-reductions-are-not-blowin-in-the-wind/story-fn59niix-1225962376534
    tidal power doesn’t get a mention

  26. val majkus on 29/11/2010 at 10:02 pm said:

    As a matter of interest I did ask a friend of mine with expertise and this is what he says:

    No one has to date successfully hardnessed tidal power.
    Broome certainly has big tides but it is along way from any where to have a viable power production to supply where there is large power demand ie Perth.
    In the long term the only viable large scale power will be nuclear. Unfortunately, I missed the presentation at the Sunshine Coast IEAust branch from Martin Thomas about small (25 to 50 MW) portable (and cheap) nuclear plants. These are now available in Russia and US . You may know small units have existed for some time in nuclear submarines. I understand the units are modular fuel and garanteed for 10 years after which the supplier would replacement and take away the old units for renewal.
    Both the Russians and US are progressing with nuclear fusion (mechanism in hydrogen bombs) which has an unlimited supply of fuel, deuterium, in the oceans.
    The “greens” alternative energy solutions such as solar, wind, geothermal, tidal are not viable for base enrgy supply now and will never be viable.

    Does 33noa333 have any comment

    • 33noa333 on 04/12/2010 at 12:19 am said:

      val majkus – well I was looking something to improve Australian climate
      but more energy is just luck and makes proposal more economical
      true that tidal power is nearly discarded evrywhere
      reason probably engineering structure in sea are much more difficult to build and managed than on land
      Tidal power could be devided into structures in sea and structures on tidal river like
      – tidal river Amazon (5m tides)
      Amazon provides about 80% of environment friendly electrical energy for Brasil
      and they are building another huge hydro power station.

      more evaporation from tidal river water, mangrove swamps along tidal river = more rain
      and more rain once desert gets green because of more rain.

      more rain = more water in 12m tidal river
      and more rain – water for existing hydropower stations across Australia like Snowy Mountain.

      my opinion about transmision of energy … its easy to get hydrogen from water with
      electrolysis of water.
      cars, busses, planes already run on hydrogen… environment friendly.
      and probably some better technology for storing hydrogen will be developed.

      well it would be nice
      to have farm or ranch in Flinders ranges Green Valley with fresh water lake full of fish.

    • THREAD on 06/12/2010 at 4:19 pm said:


      I’ve started a “Tidal Power” thread under “Energy and Fuel”


      “Disproving AGW” is not really the place for it to hang out

      I’ll try to find some links to the Kaipara Tide Power proposal FYI that I’ll place there.


  27. val majkus on 30/11/2010 at 10:28 am said:

    I was thinking this thread should be called ‘AGW is there proof’ or ‘AGW proved or not’; that is no longer than ‘controversy and scandal’ and puts the onus where it should be

    • Richard C (NZ) on 30/11/2010 at 1:08 pm said:

      Val, the title is moot because AGW is not the central issue (never was).

      See James Dellingpoles post on this:-

      “Why I now deeply regret my last post ”

      4. By allowing ourselves to get bogged down in tedious How Many Drowning Polar Bears Can Dance On The Head Of A Pin arguments like, say how much Greenpeace contributed to the ban on DDT and whether it really was a ban, we miss the bigger picture. AGW is on its last legs. The watermelons who still talk about it and obsess about it (most of them below this blog, more’s the pity) are the equivalent of a tiny suicide rearguard that gets left behind by a losing army to cover its retreat. Meanwhile, the main Green war effort rumbles on regardless. Ecofascism can lose the AGW battle because – as befits the Leninist method underpinning its philosophy – AGW was never more than a convenient means to an end. Controlling the world, is what this war is ultimately about – not saving it for Mother Gaia.


    • val majkus on 30/11/2010 at 1:26 pm said:

      Well Richard I disagree about the mootiness or otherwise – but I’m not fussed enough to bother about it other than I like to see reflected in the title where the proper onus lies
      but no matter …
      Yes I read that post by JD yesterday and liked it
      and Quadrant online has a nice article today:
      Truth in observation
      by Alex Stuart
      November 28, 2010
      Satellites show there’s been no global warming for 12 years http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/11/alex-stuart
      and Dr S Fred Singer has an article in American Thinker
      November 29, 2010
      The Cancun Climate Capers
      This conference promises to be another two-week extravaganza for some 20,000 delegates and hangers-on, who will be enjoying the sand, surf, and tequila-sours — mostly paid for by taxpayers from the U.S. and Western Europe. For most delegates, this annual vacation has become a lifetime career: it pays for their mortgages and their children’s education. I suppose a few of them actually believe that they are saving the earth — even though the Kyoto Protocol (to limit emission of greenhouse [GH] gases, like CO2, but never submitted for ratification to the U.S. Senate) will be defunct in 2012 and there is — thankfully — no sign of any successor treaty.
      But never fear: the organizers may “pull a rabbit out of a hat” and spring a surprise on the world. They will likely announce that they have conquered the greenhouse gas hydrofluorocarbon (HFC).

      Read on… you’ll learn about the dangers of HFC and the case of the blind sheep

    • Richard C (NZ) on 30/11/2010 at 2:11 pm said:

      Following the contradictions, gyrations, convolutions and failed predictions e.g. “snow a thing of the past” and the knots that some of the people are tying themselves in as highlighted in those articles is developing into a spectator sport.

      The mirth potential is unlimited.

      “the case of the blind sheep” is a cracker. That could describe NZ govt policy and OZ seems desperate not to be outdone.

      I note that the scam savvy Chinese gamed HFC-23 mitigation quick-time, making the situation worse in the process.

      “Chinese firms blamed in huge greenhouse gas scam”


      Re the Quadrant article.

      “If this foundational assumption – that water vapour amplifies a greenhouse-induced rise in temperature – turns out to be wrong, then the notion that man-made CO2 is a source of catastrophe for mankind is also wrong.”

      The same GHGs that inhibit energy loss also inhibit energy gain from incoming solar. In this case, H2O in the form of clouds is most efficient at deflecting incoming solar radiation (25% approx).

      This needs to be shouted out at every available opportunity.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 30/11/2010 at 10:20 pm said:

      Out of curiosity I looked up lightning in Wiki to see the energy transfer because climatology discussions don’t touch on it much.

      An average bolt of negative lightning carries an electric current of 30,000 amperes (“amps”) — 30 “kiloamps” (kA), and transfers five coulombs of electric charge and 500 million joules — 500 “megajoules” (MJ) of energy. Large bolts of lightning can carry up to 120 kA and 350 coulombs.[14] The voltage is proportional to the length of the bolt.

      An average bolt of positive lightning carries an electric current of about 300 kA — about 10 times that of negative lightning

      The average peak power output of a single lightning stroke is about one trillion watts — one “terawatt” (1012 W), and the stroke lasts for about 30 millionths of a second — 30 “microseconds”.[16]

      Lightning rapidly heats the air in its immediate vicinity to about 20,000 °C (36,000 °F) — about three times the temperature of the surface of the Sun.


      So much for “trapped” energy.

      And yes, lightning is parameterized in the climate models (at least in NCAR’s CAM5 that is), but to what degree – I only know this much from the CAM5 description:-

      5.1.4 Lightning
      The lightning parameterization differs slightly from that used in MOZART-2 [Horowitz et al.,
      2003]. The lightning strength still depends on cloud top height, with a stronger dependence
      over land than ocean [Price et al., 1997a]. The definition of ocean grid boxes has been refined to include only boxes surrounded by ocean, so that the land parameterization is extended one grid box beyond the continents Price and Rind [1992]. Flash frequency is determined by area, not grid box. The vertical distribution of NO emissions has been modified from that given by Pickering et al. [1998], to have a reduced proportion of the emissions emitted near the surface, similar to that used by DeCaria et al. [2006]. In addition, the strength of intra-cloud (IC) lightning strikes is assumed to be equal to cloud-to-ground strikes, as recommended by Ridley et al. [2005].
      Because the lightning NO source is very resolution-dependent, it can be scaled under non
      standard resolutions to a produce 5-7 Tg(N)/year globally.

    • 33noa333 on 12/12/2010 at 2:21 pm said:

      yes very very true
      History repeats one or some against established idea – earth is flat
      CO2 perhaps ? but solution they propose might be unworkable.

      ask your friend engineer or somebody else to compare cost re:
      well you friend can answer only about engineering – earth works associated
      with huge 12m tidal erosion mainly in existing huge river beds silted up with
      desert sand, mud, clay, sandstone or salt pans.
      I was working in NW Australia – huge earth works – quantities
      so I have some opinion about costs and like to compare with your friend approx. estimate

      Good to know also when were tidal rivers on NW Australia operating last
      and how was climate and environment across Australia when huge tidal rivers
      similar to Amazon were flowing in NW Australia.
      The age of old tidal rivers may be found by age of fossils – remnats of animals
      Maybe somebody can answer that.

  28. Richard C (NZ) on 01/12/2010 at 4:28 pm said:

    The causes of global warming and climate change!

    There are two competing theories for the recent global warming trend.

    * The first is based on a theory which followed the warming trend that occurred between 1975 and 1998.

    * The second theory is based on highly correlated data going back thousands of years.

    Most agree that the temperature has increased about 0.6 – 0.7 Centigrade over the last century and that the level of CO2 or Carbon Dioxide a greenhouse gas has been increased in the atmosphere by 25-30% from pre industrial values.

    * The first theory, which is the generally accepted one, is that the release of greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuel and from land use is responsible for the resent temperature increase.

    * The second theory is that the sun’s magnetic field and the solar wind modulate the amount of high energy cosmic radiation that the earth receives. This in turn affects low altitude cloud cover and how much water vapor there is in the atmosphere and thus regulates the climate.

    Cosmic Rays and Climate

    By: Nir J. Shaviv

    In 1959, the late Edward Ney of the U. of Minnesota suggested that any climatic sensitivity to the density of tropospheric ions would immediately link solar activity to climate. This is because the solar wind modulates the flux of high energy particles coming from outside the solar system. These particles, the cosmic rays, are the dominant source of ionization in the troposphere. More specifically, a more active sun accelerates a stronger solar wind, which in turn implies that as cosmic rays diffuse from the outskirts of the solar system to its center, they lose more energy. Consequently, a lower tropospheric ionization rate results. Over the 11-yr solar cycle and the long term variations in solar activity, these variations correspond to typically a 10% change in this ionization rate. It now appears that there is a climatic variable sensitive to the amount of tropospheric ionization — Clouds.

    Clouds have been observed from space since the beginning of the 1980’s. By the mid 1990’s, enough cloud data accumulated to provide empirical evidence for a solar/cloud-cover link. Without the satellite data, it hard or probably impossible to get statistically meaningful results because of the large systematic errors plaguing ground based observations. Using the satellite data, Henrik Svensmark of the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen has shown that cloud cover varies in sync with the variable cosmic ray flux reaching the Earth. Over the relevant time scale, the largest variations arise from the 11-yr solar cycle, and indeed, this cloud cover seemed to follow the cycle and a half of cosmic ray flux modulation. Later, Henrik Svensmark and his colleague Nigel Marsh, have shown that the correlation is primarily with low altitude cloud cover. This can be seen in fig. 3.

    The solar-activity – cosmic-ray-flux – cloud-cover correlation is quite apparent. It was in fact sought for by Henrik Svensmrk, based on theoretical considerations. However, by itself it cannot be used to prove the cosmic ray climate connection. The reason is that we cannot exclude the possibility that solar activity modulates the cosmic ray flux and independently climate, without any casual link between the latter two. There is however separate proof that a casual link exists between cosmic rays and climate, and independently that cosmic rays left a fingerprint in the observed cloud cover variations.


  29. 33noa333 on 06/12/2010 at 12:33 pm said:

    Why do you advertise “plenty of energy”? Where would it come from ?

    Lets say that technology how to use energy of huge 12m tides on NW Australia is developed.
    how much energy is in 12m tides – how much hydrogen can be produced
    and price compared to petrol.

    If tidal river is constructed huge hydropower stations can be built.
    Not to forget Amazon has 5m tides with 2 huge hydropower stations.
    Amazon river has very little slope (1 to 2 cm per km)
    Amazon river currents can be strong up to 3m/sec (well tidal)

    NW Australia has 12m tides.
    Once first tidal river is operational second is much easier to construct
    using tidal power of first for erosion of second.

    Plus more hydro power for existing hydropower stations across Australia because of more rain.

    Oil is finite.
    Tides are permanent.

  30. Richard C (NZ) on 06/12/2010 at 3:07 pm said:

    What happened to the ‘warmest year on record’: The truth is global warming has halted

    Last updated at 4:17 PM on 5th December 2010

    A year ago tomorrow, just before the opening of the UN Copenhagen world climate summit, the British Meteorological Office issued a confident prediction. The mean world temperature for 2010, it announced, ‘is expected to be 14.58C, the warmest on record’ – a deeply worrying 0.58C above the 19611990 average.

    World temperatures, it went on, were locked inexorably into an everrising trend: ‘Our experimental decadal forecast confirms previous indications that about half the years 2010-2019 will be warmer than the warmest year observed so far – 1998.’

    Met Office officials openly boasted that they hoped by their statements to persuade the Copenhagen gathering to impose new and stringent carbon emission limits – an ambition that was not to be met.

    Last week, halfway through yet another giant, 15,000delegate UN climate jamboree, being held this time in the tropical splendour of Cancun in Mexico, the Met Office was at it again.

    Never mind that Britain, just as it was last winter and the winter before, was deep in the grip of a cold snap, which has seen some temperatures plummet to minus 20C, and that here 2010 has been the coolest year since 1996.

    Globally, it insisted, 2010 was still on course to be the warmest or second warmest year since current records began.

    But buried amid the details of those two Met Office statements 12 months apart lies a remarkable climbdown that has huge implications – not just for the Met Office, but for debate over climate change as a whole.

    Read carefully with other official data, they conceal a truth that for some, to paraphrase former US VicePresident Al Gore, is really inconvenient: for the past 15 years, global warming has stopped.


    • val majkus on 06/12/2010 at 3:59 pm said:

      interesting historical data on WUWT today Has Charles Dickens shaped our perception of climate change?
      starting from 1816 Dickens life demonstrates the extraordinary variability of the British winters during that era, when the coldest and warmest winters in the CET records can be juxtaposed. Generally there are few examples of constant cold winters year after year-the LIA was becoming much more sporadic than it had been several centuries earlier, when bitter cold weather appears to have been the norm. To put this era into perspective mature English people might be surprised to learn they lived through a much colder winter than Dickens ever experienced. 1962/3 at -0.33C was the third coldest in the entire CET record compared to Dickens coldest year 1814 at 0.43c, the fourth coldest in the record. (1962/3 was a bit of a one off-Dickens experienced a greater number of relatively cold winters)

      the climatic trough in 1880 is the exact point from when GISS commenced their temperature records and there are additional articles on GISS records since that data

    • THREAD on 06/12/2010 at 4:33 pm said:

      Val, I’m desperately hoping that if we’re in for a cold phase with those sort of temperatures that it will be mostly felt in the NH..

      I’m as skinny as a rake and feel the cold and it wont help that in 2030 I’ll be 74 (God willing).

      I don’t think though that this time around the temps will plunge as low as Maunder or Dalton minimum – but that’s not out of the question.
      As an aside, I’ve started a “Tidal Power” thread under “Energy and Fuel”


      I’ve duplicated the Tide Power thread from Disproving AGW over to there and you may be interested in the NZ Kaipara Harbour Tide Power Project that I’ve put a bunch of info up for.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 06/12/2010 at 4:40 pm said:

      THREAD says:
      December 6, 2010 at 4:33 pm

      This was me, forgot to change my name after doing the tide thread thing.

  31. Richard C (NZ) on 09/12/2010 at 11:03 am said:

    Scepticism of AGW has no bearing unless backed by scientific rebuttal i.e. exposure of the fallacy of the AGW hypothesis.

    The assertion that anthropogenic climate change (AGW – ACC) is a “well established fact” is exposed as unfounded by the rebuttal papers available.

    One recent paper

    “Falsi fication Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse E ffects Within The Frame Of Physics”

    by physicists Gerlich and Tscheuschner (G&T 2009)

    does just that several times over. Consequently it is hated and denigrated by AGW proponents with vehemence.

    G&T is heavy going but I’ve found a synopsis (G&T “Lite”).

    This is from “Solar Flux” by Joe Postma

    1- The radiative surface of the earth is not the same thing as the ground surface of the earth. Therefore, comparing the actual ground-air temperature to the theoretical radiative equilibrium blackbody temperature is an invalid concept – there is no reason to do this from the outset. The theoretical radiative equilibrium temperature is measured to be exactly just that, on average, as seen from space.

    2- The simple Ideal Gas Law, and the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, tell us that the atmospheric temperature increases with density in a gravitational field.

    3- Given the dry adiabatic lapse rate is known from thermodynamics and meteorology, and the altitude of the radiative equilibrium temperature is known from measurement, the average ground surface air temperature is calculated to be +220C, via thermodynamics.

    Therefore the real question and science is found in: How much does outgoing radiative transfer contribute to the height of the radiative equilibrium surface, thus contributing to warming of the ground-air due to thermodynamics? Then, how much is this height affected by CO2? Then, how much by anthropogenic CO2? Satellite-measured data has already answered the last question for us: It’s too little to matter! Thus the need for positive feedbacks (see last).

    Additionally: The idea that the ground-air temperature is due exclusively to the mechanics of outgoing infrared radiative transfer is false. A significant portion of ground-air heating must be due to simple thermodynamics a-priori, because the majority of incoming solar energy is absorbed directly by the atmosphere, raising the radiative equilibrium surface far above the ground.

    There is no such thing as an atmospheric Greenhouse Effect as popularly understood by the lay-public: the analogy was never valid to begin with. A horticulturalists’ greenhouse is warm because the glass prevents convective cooling of sunlight-heated air. It is not because the glass absorbs or traps infrared radiation. IR transparent glass could be used and a greenhouse will still be warm. Air actually conducts & convects heat away from sun-lit ground, acting rather as an air-conditioner. The sun-lit surface of the moon is after-all, with no atmosphere, hundreds of degrees hotter than the Stefan-Boltzmann equation would predict. This is because there is no atmosphere present to share the thermal load, distribute the heat, and convectively cool the lunar regolith. The atmospheric greenhouse analogy is invalid and misleading, and sidesteps true understanding based on well-accepted theory and physical principles. We need a better mnemonic than the one we have.

    “The present approach of dealing with climate as completely specified by a single number, globally averaged surface temperature anomaly, that is forced by another single number, atmospheric CO2, limits real understanding. So does the replacement of physical theory by model simulation”1 and simple-minded misleading mnemonics. Theory is further abused in the error of proposing that the ground-air temperature is determined exclusively by the amount of radiation in it, rather than the amount of radiation being determined by the temperature. Any stellar atmospherics astrophysicist knows that the amount of radiation in an atmosphere is determined by its temperature, not the other way around. If it was, then astrophysicists should concern themselves with the “Greenhouse Effect” in stars…They don’t.

    Full paper here


  32. Richard C (NZ) on 11/01/2011 at 10:55 am said:

    Articles Tagged “A Graph to Debunk AGW”


    See – “Articles by Climate Realists and Topics” on the Climate Realists Home page.

  33. Andy on 05/04/2011 at 11:12 am said:

    How Scientific Is Climate Science?
    What is arguably the most important reason to doubt global warming can be explained in plain English.


    For years, some researchers have argued that the evidence for global warming is not nearly as strong as has been officially claimed. The details of the arguments are often technical. As a result, policy makers and other people outside the debate have relied on the pronouncements of a group of climate scientists. I think that is unnecessary. I believe that what is arguably the most important reason to doubt global warming can be explained in terms that most people can understand.

    Consider the graph of global temperatures in Figure 1, which uses data from NASA. At first, it might seem obvious that the graph shows an increase in temperatures. In fact the story is more involved.

    Imagine tossing a coin ten times. If the coin came up Heads each time, we would have very significant evidence that the coin was not a fair coin. Suppose instead that the coin was tossed only three times. If the coin came up Heads each time, we would not have significant evidence that the coin was unfair: Getting Heads three times can reasonably occur just by chance

    Read more…

  34. Andy on 06/04/2011 at 9:25 pm said:

    Patrick Moore, ex-Greenpeace, lays it on the line


  35. Richard C (NZ) on 23/06/2011 at 3:44 pm said:

    Don Easterbrook has compiled this book due to be released in Oct 2011:-

    “Evidence-Based Climate Science. Data Opposing CO2 Emissions as The Primary Source of Global Warming”.

    What is interesting is where I stumbled upon it – “Business Wire”, a Berkshire Hathaway company (Warren E. Buffet), Research and Markets.


    Even more interesting is what “Customers who bought this item also bought”

    The Warming Papers

    The Copenhagen Diagnosis. Updating the World on the Latest Climate Science

    The Global Carbon Market 2009: Trading Thin Air

    Introduction to Gas Hydrates

    Climate Change. Observed impacts on Planet Earth

    Analyzing the Carbon Emissions Trading in Europe – The EU ETS Scheme

    Carbon Trading and the Effect of the Copenhagen Agreement: Technical Options and Economic Drivers to a Low Carbon Future

    European Renewable Energy Industry – PEST Framework Analysis

    Guide to CO2 Capture, Sequestration, and Storage

    Global Warming & the Insurance Industry

    Not much counter-consensus. The blurb states:-

    Global warming and human-induced climate change are perhaps the most important scientific issues of our time. These issues continue to be debated in the scientific community and in the media without true consensus about the role of greenhouse gas emissions as a contributing factor.

    Evidence-Based Climate Science: Data opposing CO2 emissions as the primary source of global warming objectively gathers and analyzes scientific data concerning patterns of past climate changes, influences of changes in ocean temperatures, the effect of solar variation on global climate, and the effect of CO2 on global climate to clearly and objectively present counter-global-warming evidence not embraced by proponents of CO2.

    * An unbiased, evidence-based analysis of the scientific data concerning climate change and global warming
    * Authored by 8 of the world’s leading climate scientists, each with more than 25 years of experience in the field
    * Extensive analysis of the physics of CO2 as a greenhouse gas and its role in global warming
    * Comprehensive citations, references, and bibliography
    * Adaptation strategies are presented as alternative reactions to greenhouse gas emission reductions

    Key Topics Covered:

    * Geologic evidence of recurring climate cycles and their implications for the cause of global climate changes
    * Evidence for synchronous global climatic events: Cosmogenic exposure ages of glaciations
    * A critical look at surface temperature records
    * 2010-the hottest year on record?
    * Relationship of Multidecadal Global Temperatures to Multidecadal Oceanic Oscillations
    * Setting the frames of expected future sea level changes by exploring past geological sea level records
    * The Maldives: a measure of sea level changes and sea level ethics
    * Arctic sea ice
    * Have increases in CO2 contributed to the recent large upswing in Atlantic basin major hurricanes since 1995?
    * Solar changes and the climate
    * The current solar minimum and consequences for climate
    * Total solar irradiance satellite composites and their phenomenological effect on climate
    * Global brightening and climate sensitivity
    * The relationship of sunspot cycles to gravitational stresses on the sun
    * A simple model to examine the relationship between atmospheric CO2 concentration, and ocean and land surface temperatures

  36. Richard C (NZ) on 24/07/2011 at 9:39 am said:

    Anti-AGW papers debunked


    This is a great (but not complete and not quite up with recent developments) resource for papers that go against the AGW consensus and some of the responses to them from the “greenhouse community”.

  37. Richard C (NZ) on 01/03/2012 at 2:30 pm said:

    Climate Experts Spencer and Lindzen Lash Out as Pet Theory is Trashed

    Two irate top climatologists launch into a flurry of name-calling and innuendo as their beloved greenhouse gas theory collapses threatening to take their careers with it.

    Dr. Roy Spencer this week followed the lead of Dr. Richard Lindzen in spitting insults after fellow skeptic scientists debunked the greenhouse gas effect (GHE). Lindzen confined his insults to private emails. But Spencer openly blogged his personal attack after reading how cutting-edge scientific research by specialists in astrophysicists, space engineering and mathematics had exposed Spencer’s weak grasp of physics; something particularly identified by NASA’s former Apollo Mission engineer, Dr. Pierre R. Latour.

    Highly credentialed scientists, among them Latour, Professor Nasif Nahle, Dr. Matthias Kleespiesand other leading experts in their respective fields have been remorselessly debunking the GHE in a series of articles and peer-reviewed papers. The GHE is the cornerstone of the man-made global warming hysteria.

    Discussions Terminated After Tempers Fray

    With unseemly venom Spencer and Lindzen have scorned further dialog from several fellow man-made global warming skeptics for refusing to toe the line over the increasingly discredited greenhouse gas theory (GHE).

    Like many climatologists, Spencer and Lindzen have built successful careers as skeptics of the man-made global warming narrative, but all the while they’ve denounced anyone who has pinpointed errors woven into the GHE. Some quarters refer to such skeptics as ‘lukewarmers.’

    But in recent months a paradigm shift has been underway and a whole slew of hard core GHE contrarians are no longer prepared to stay silent – and can you blame them?



    Must confess I’ve had to think hard about the “paradigm shift”, being of the “cold space” (2.7K) belief.

    “Everyone who has studied thermodynamics knows space doesn’t have a temperature. That’s the first trick question you get on the first day of the first semester of introductory thermodynamics – nope, not that I remember, but I’ll look up ‘Applied Heat’ (our main text) to see what that says.

    I’m now struggling to understand how “…only the cooling effect of ‘wet’ gases in our turbulent atmosphere dispose of the excess heat energy via convection and conduction” – dispose to where?

    I had thought that the dissipation process included space but if space has no temperature (neutral), the dissipation must be completed within the atmosphere.

    This is shaking my tree.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 01/03/2012 at 2:40 pm said:

      Yes, Virginia, the “Vacuum” of Space Does have a “Temperature”

      Written by Dr. Roy W. Spencer | February 23 2012

      Usually, I refrain from addressing silly scientific claims. But since some people seem determined to go to any extent to ‘disprove’ greenhouse gas theory, in this instance I am going against my better judgment to answer a particularly crazy article entitled, “Roy Spencer’s Fatal Error: Believing the Vacuum of Space Has a Temperature“.



    • Andy on 01/03/2012 at 3:25 pm said:

      What is “space”? If they mean a vacuum with no energy, then this doesn’t exist. “Space” as we know it has cosmic rays, photons, neutrinos and all sorts of other stuff flying backwards and forwards.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 01/03/2012 at 3:44 pm said:

      O’Sullivan says about half way down:-

      “Spencer and Lindzen wrongly assumed that the so-called cosmic ‘microwave’ – the background radiation (or CMBR, generated by the ‘Big Bang’) is what the rest of vacuum space registers as temperature (the CMBR is quoted at around 2.7K).

      But even that pro-green online encyclopedia, Wikipedia knows there is no ‘real’ temp in space – they refer to the “color temperature’ of the decoupled photons” which they say “has continued to diminish ever since [the ‘Big Bang’]; now down to 2.72548 ± 0.00057 K,[3]” ”

      I’m confused by this. They seem to be separating CMBR from vacuum space (how?) but as you say, there’s “other stuff” and I always thought that was what registered the 2.7 K. I think we might be wrong about that.

      I looked up my ‘Applied Heat’ text but it didn’t cover space. Being “applied”, my thermodynamic intro skipped the big picture and went on to the practical applications. I just accepted what I found when I looked up “temperature of space” on the internet without too much thought.

      Have to go for a run then sleep on this.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 01/03/2012 at 5:40 pm said:

      Clues here:-


      The CMB gives a snapshot of the universe when, according to standard cosmology, the temperature dropped enough to allow electrons and protons to form hydrogen atoms, thus making the universe transparent to radiation. When it originated some 380,000 years after the Big Bang—this time is generally known as the “time of last scattering” or the period of recombination or decoupling—the temperature of the universe was about 3000 K. This corresponds to an energy of about 0.25 eV, which is much less than the 13.6 eV ionization energy of hydrogen.[53]

      Since decoupling, the temperature of the background radiation has dropped by a factor of roughly 1,100[54] due to the expansion of the universe. As the universe expands, the CMB photons are redshifted, making the radiation’s temperature inversely proportional to a parameter called the universe’s scale length. The temperature Tr of the CMB as a function of redshift, z, can be shown to be proportional to the temperature of the CMB as observed in the present day (2.725 K or 0.235 meV):[55]

      Tr = 2.725(1 + z)

      For details about the reasoning that the radiation is evidence for the Big Bang, see Cosmic background radiation of the Big Bang.


    • Richard C (NZ) on 01/03/2012 at 7:56 pm said:

      The “other stuff” has no temperature apparently.

      I don’t understand why the cosmic microwave background radiation has temperature but the “other stuff” doesn’t (or maybe is does but its close to 0 K).

      It could be that cold space and neutral space co-exist.in vacuum space because at least the CMB has temperature.

      That would not create a thermal path from atmosphere to space for heat transfer though (i.e. no medium I don’t think). The upper atmosphere is sparse enough, this study concludes particle heating only accounts for 5.5% of upper atmosphere heating if I\m interpreting correctly:-

      ‘Climatology of Extreme Upper Atmospheric Heating Events’



      “Solar extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation is the single largest contributor to the upper atmospheric heating budget and is typically assumed to account for about 80% of the energy. Joule heating [electrical – my insert] and precipitating particle heating, which together we call geomagnetic heating, make significant contributions to the remainder of the budget”

      Nothing about how the heat dissipates to space though. They’ve determined the input budget but not the output. I assume the output is all radiative energy (more research reqd by me).

    • Andy on 02/03/2012 at 8:43 am said:

      This simple explanation of temperature in space seems to concur, roughly
      (The biggest contribution is apparently the background microwave radiation)


    • Richard C, you say: “I had thought that the dissipation process included space but if space has no temperature (neutral), the dissipation must be completed within the atmosphere.”

      Let me hasten to say there’s little in this discussion I understand and I haven’t spent long reading it. But this statement stood out. It is surely incorrect. The earth, satellites, our moon, the planets and other bodies are warmed by heat from the sun. The heat energy, clearly, is radiated through space or it would not arrive. I must believe that the sun’s energy is radiated in every direction, not just towards bodies that are warmed. This means the sun is cooling directly to space, which gives us a direct analogue of the situation you mention with the Earth. Thus the (heat) radiation is independent of the medium through which it radiates or its temperature. The earth itself (say a large surface rock) can indeed radiate heat energy into space beyond the atmosphere. I haven’t considered whether the radiative frequency is important here.

      Do you agree?

    • Richard C (NZ) on 01/03/2012 at 4:45 pm said:

      Sorry, should have replied here, See down-thread.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 02/03/2012 at 11:08 am said:

      I see Nasif Nahle has a diagram showing upper atmosphere heat transfer and a note attached to atmosphere => space heat flow:-



      I wonder if he will be making an amendment?

  38. Richard C (NZ) on 01/03/2012 at 4:40 pm said:

    May I be so bold as to modify a sentence RT?

    “The [energy], clearly, is radiated through space or it would not arrive”

    The RADIATIVE energy is only converted to HEAT energy when it encounters matter.

    I agree to a degree with what you say. What I was getting at is that the conduction, convection and collision processes that dissipate HEAT energy must be completed within the atmosphere in the “neutral space” paradigm..

    If space is neutral those processes cannot cross over from atmosphere to space.

    Then the only way for energy to leave the atmosphere after the HEAT energy dissipation is complete within the atmosphere is by RADIATIVE energy dissipation from atmospheric matter.

    This is a reverse of the sequence in the third sentence down from top of this comment. It’s only matter that can have temperature (anything above 0 K) and matter that has a temperature (molecular excitation) radiates

    (I’m not sure about photons, neutrons etc having temperature though, the “other stuff” Andy referred to. I had thought that there was the odd particle of matter suspended in space but maybe not).

    Plenty of earth’s surface RADIATIVE energy rockets out to space at the speed of light but once there it doesn’t heat space due to the lack of matter. HEAT energy dissipation on the other hand is a slow process (conduction, convection, collision) until RADIATION takes over.

    What Andy and I (and others apparently) are confronted with is perhaps a different understanding of the nature of space. That understanding (about only 2.7 K) makes a big difference as you can see by the acrimonious controversy.

    BTW, re frequency. The energy that heats land, ocean and atmosphere is within the solar range of the electro-magnetic spectrum but that gets complicated; different frequency/matter combinations result differently – heating from some, no heating from others.

    Suggest you get other reputable opinions on all the above but where from given the spat? Those involved in space exploration would surely have a better understanding of space than climate scientists I would have thought.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 01/03/2012 at 5:09 pm said:

      “HEAT energy dissipation is complete” might be better stated as:-

      “HEAT energy [transfer] is [minimal]”

      Energy dissipation then continues RADIATIVELY.


    • Richard C (NZ) on 01/03/2012 at 5:30 pm said:

      Neutrinos (as Andy stated), not neutrons (as I stated) – garrgh!

    • Andy on 01/03/2012 at 7:06 pm said:

      Temperature is a measurement related to the kinetic energy of the matter that surrounds the measuring device.

      If there is no matter surrounding the measuring device, then you have no temperature, though the measuring device itself invalidates the experiment as it introduces matter into the system. This is the classical Observer Paradox postulated by Schrodinger.

      “Space” as we know it contains particulate matter in the form of various cosmic rays, neutrinos, and light quanta (photons) that can also be described as particles in quantum mechanics.

      Therefore, the theoretical concept of a matter-less and energy-less state that has a measurable temperature doesn’t actually exist, as far as I can see. If you introduce a thermometer into “space”, at some point it will register a temperature above absolute zero.

      That is my understanding, though I am always keen to be corrected.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 01/03/2012 at 8:24 pm said:

      That’s my understanding too Andy (or at least it was) and even if it wasn’t I wouldn’t be the one to correct you because I’m at the edge of my zone.

      I’ve mulled over some sort of co-existent state up-thread here:-


      The “other stuff” may have negligible temperature as compared to CMB and the CMB temperature may not be temperature as we know it. O’Sullivan refers to “color temperature” but the Wiki description at my “Clues here” comment says “….the temperature of the CMB as observed in the present day”

      Someone has “observed” CMB temperature with some type of instrument somewhere, possibly from both spacecraft and remotely. I’ll have to read the rest of Wiki CMB tomorrow.for clues

      (This sure beats being ad hominemed at Hot Topic)

    • Richard C (NZ) on 02/03/2012 at 10:13 am said:

      Couple of thoughts.

      CMB is thermal radiation (first sentence):-


      Neutrinos are elementary subatomic particles:-


      CMB is BACKGROUND, implying there is foreground radiation, however radiation is not a medium that would facilitate HEAT energy transfer from atmosphere to space.

      Particles such as neutrinos might provide that medium but they are a) traveling too fast, b) too small. There is on the other hand, enough of them “Most neutrinos passing through the Earth emanate from the Sun. About 65 billion (6.5×1010) solar neutrinos per second pass through every square centimeter perpendicular to the direction of the Sun in the region of the Earth”

      So it is only background (described in Wiki CMB) radiation that has temperature in space that matches the observed 2.7 K to the the theoretically determined 2.7 K (3000 K when the universe was approximately 379,000 years old).

      Not that I know what I’m talking about of course.

      On measuring CMB, turns out that the 2.7 K is an “average”:-

      “Often, experiments are interferometers which only measure the spatial fluctuations in signals on the sky, and are insensitive to the average 2.7 K background”


      Search – Cosmic Microwave Background temperature measurement

      Effects of CMB temperature uncertainties on cosmological …
      The evolution of the cosmic microwave background temperature …
      Cosmic Microwave Background Measurements
      Measurement of the temperature of the Cosmic Microwave …


      Cosmic Microwave Background http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CMB.html


      “The graph above shows the measured brightness temperature TB of the CMB at many different wavelengths. Clearly TB = 2.725 K is consistent with all the data within the statistical scatter expected for the stated errors.”

      Includes data from FIRAS, ground and balloon, CN & ARCADE, 2.725 K Blackbody


      Color temperature is a characteristic of visible light that has important applications in lighting, photography, videography, publishing, manufacturing, astrophysics, and other fields. The color temperature of a light source is the temperature of an ideal black-body radiator that radiates light of comparable hue to that of the light source. Color temperature is conventionally stated in the unit of absolute temperature, the kelvin, having the unit symbol K.


    • Richard C (NZ) on 02/03/2012 at 7:42 pm said:

      Dr Latour:-

      “Thermal T is a point property of matter, a scalar measure of its kinetic energy of atomic and molecular motion. It is measured by thermometers. It decreases with altitude. The rate of thermal energy transfer by conduction or convection between hot Th and cold Tc is proportional to (Th – Tc).

      Radiation t is a point property of massless radiation, EMR, a directional vector measure of its energy transmission rate per area or intensity, w/m2, according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law. It is measured by pyrometers and spectrometers. Solar radiation t increases with altitude. Black bodies are defined to be those that absorb and radiate with the same intensity and corresponding t. Real, colorful bodies reflect, scatter, absorb, convert and emit radiant energy according to the nature of the incident radiation direction, spectrum and body matter reflectivity, absorptivity, emissivity and view factors”.

      “Much of GHE theory fails to make clear distinctions between these two different kinds of temperature, T and t. One temperature, t, is analogous to velocity, 34 km/hour north; the other, T, is analogous to density, 1 kg/liter.”


      There’s the matter-radiation temperature distinction (I thought I had this first time around).

      The way I’m reconciling the situation is that the 2 components of black vacuum space are:-

      2.725 K = background cosmic microwave radiation (tr-b)

      0 K = foreground radiation + space matter (tr-f + Tm)

      I’m not intuitively convinced that tr-f + Tm = 0 K but I’ve nothing else to go by so I’m willing to go along with this until the facts change.

      Finally from me on this part of the paradigm-shift an anecdote I read somewhere recently but can’t recall the link (maybe Latour or NASA). The problem that NASA had in designing spacesuits was not cold in space but getting rid of body heat. Same goes for the space station, there’s large radiators to get to move the heat away radiatively.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 02/03/2012 at 7:54 pm said:

      I suggest now that we focus on the 2nd part of the new paradigm and check out the validity or otherwise of it. That being GHE COOLING rather than GHE warming.

      This is important because it’s completely contrary to Hansen, Spenser, Lindzen et al.

      Some points from O’Sullivan’s article:-

      # ‘Thermos Flask’ analogy More Compelling than ‘Blanket Effect’

      # Time and again independent scientists have demonstrated to leading climatologists in private emails that space has no temperature because it is an empty vacuum and as such acts as a perfect insulator (like a thermos flask). Thus it inhibits the escape of heat energy from Earth’s atmosphere; only the cooling effect of ‘wet’ gases in our turbulent atmosphere dispose of the excess heat energy via convection and conduction.

      # The reverse of the alleged greenhouse gas effect is true – atmospheric gases act to keep out planet COOLER than it would otherwise be.


  39. Richard C (NZ) on 23/09/2012 at 6:53 pm said:



    Fifty Years of Monthly Temperature Data have NO Correlation with CO2

    Diagrams showing HadCRUT3 [see source for GISS, and NCDC] monthly global surface air temperature estimates (blue) and the monthly atmospheric CO2 content (red) according to the Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii.

    The Mauna Loa data series begins in March 1958, and 1958 has therefore been chosen as starting year for the diagrams. Reconstructions of past atmospheric CO2 concentrations (before 1958) are not incorporated in this diagram, as such past CO2 values are derived by other means (ice cores, stomata, or older measurements using different methodology, and therefore are not directly comparable with modern atmospheric measurements. The dotted grey line indicates the approximate linear temperature trend, and the boxes in the lower part of the diagram indicate the relation between atmospheric CO2 and global surface air temperature, negative or positive.



  40. Richard C (NZ) on 06/03/2013 at 9:36 am said:

    Man-made global warming theory is falsified by satellite observations

    Global warming theory proposes that CO2 traps longwave (infrared) radiation in the troposphere to reduce outgoing longwave radiation [OLR] to space. However, satellite measurements since 1975 indicate that global OLR has instead increased by about 1.3 Wm-2. This is in direct contradiction to global warming theory that “trapping” of radiation by CO2 should have instead reduced* OLR by .93 Wm-2 since 1975.

    >>>>>>> [Warning: linear trend]


  41. Richard C (NZ) on 06/03/2013 at 1:17 pm said:




    Prof. Peter A. Ziegler Dr. h.c.
    February, 2013


  42. Magoo on 08/04/2013 at 1:08 pm said:

    A couple of interesting quotes from the IPCC regarding the tropospheric hotspot no show. The first from AR4 and the second from AR5 draft:

    ‘To summarise, the available data do not indicate a detectable trend in upper-tropospheric relative humidity.’ (2007)

    ‘In summary, there is a high confidence (robust evidence although only medium agreement) that most, though not all, CMIP3 and CMIP5 models overestimate the warming trend in the tropical troposphere during the satellite period 1979-2011. The cause of this bias remains elusive.’ (2012)
    (Section, p. 9-27, lines 31-33)

  43. Richard C (NZ) on 18/06/2013 at 3:46 pm said:

    Man-Made Global Warming WRONG – The Ten Reasons.


    1 Temperature…….
    2 Models……….
    3 The sun (1).

    AGW science says the sun has little effect on temperature compared with CO2 forcing. Dr Ka-Kit Tung disagrees and has compared the long-term solar record with the longest temperature record on the planet, the Central England Temperature [CET]. The final image in Tung’s slide presentation is revealing and shows a remarkable correlation between the CET record and Total Solar Irradiation [TSI]. This correlation between temperature and TSI has also been derived in 2 other studies. The first is by Glassman at Figure 1 where he uses global HADCRUT3 data. The second is by Stockwell at Figures 4-7 where all the major land-based temperature indices are shown to correlate with TSI using his model. Stockwell’s model is simply that temperature responds to TSI mean with the rate of temperature increase/decline determined by the movement away from the mean.

    4 The sun (2)………
    5 The sun (3)………..
    6 The Moon………..
    7 Aerosols…………
    8 Water………….
    9 Carbon Dioxide (CO2)……..
    10 Angry summer……….


    From 3 The sun (1), “Tung’s slide presentation”:

    ‘Evidence for a Multidecadal Oscillation in Global Temperature and Its Impact on the Deduced Anthropogenic Warming Trend’

    K.K. Tung and J. Zhou

    Department of Applied Mathematics
    University of Washington
    September 2012

    Page 36, Analyzing CET data, Graph EEMD: Low-frequency component (last 3 IMFs)


    The CET 40 yr moving average and low frequency EMD IMFs correlate with TSI from 1659 (Maunder Minimum) – present.

    The 40 yr average is 8.6 C at 1680 and 9.9 C at 1980, a difference of 1.3 C.

    Short monthly series: CET Mean September 2012: 13.0 °C, Mean temperature whole of 2011: 10.70 °C


    The (what looks like) 2010 CET update to the long annual series shows a plummet from 10.7 at around 2006 to about 8.8 C 2010, which is lower than the 9 C at 1659 and just above the 8.6 C 40 yr average at 1680.


    Small wonder the UK Met Office is convening a meeting to consider the recent UK weather when temperatures in the last 5 years have plumbed levels typical of the Maunder Minimum.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 18/06/2013 at 7:55 pm said:

      Have laid out the Tung and Zhou, CET/TSI case in the latest Stuff Nation opinion piece on Bill McKibben by Sarah Hardie ‘Time to fight climate change’:


      Should send polymath into paroxysms of denial, dismissal, and denegration, if Fone and Harris form is anything to go by. And Hardie form in response to AndicNZ “…no warming for 17 years and 4 months…”:

      polymath 6 hours ago

      Lies, lies and more lies. […]

      Warming has NOT stopped for 17 years, or for any period. Every bit of evidence shows it is still getting warnmer. The models have been succesful – the predictions made in IPCC report in 1990 have been proven correct – the warming we have observed is firmly within the range predicted.

      # # #

      polymath is an NZer, very prolific, and more than a little manic (but his spelling is atrocious). I think there must be an activist connection somewhere.

    • I haven’t read Tung and Zhou so I don’t know their case, but if polymath accepts the IPCC position, it might be useful to mention the increasing divergence in global temperature evolution between model output and observation. Dr Spencer’s interesting graphs at Global Warming Slowdown: The View from Space and EPIC FAIL: 73 Climate Models vs. Observations for Tropical Tropospheric Temperature show considerable disparity.

      You can see similar divergence in the Climate Lab Book and the IPCC WGI Fifth Assessment Report, Second Order Draft, Chapter 9, p.26, says:

      ‘Nevertheless, almost all model ensemble members show a warming trend in both LT and MT larger than observational estimates’ and ‘In summary, … most … CMIP3 and CMIP5 models overestimate the warming trend in the tropical troposphere during the satellite period 1979–2011.’

      The paper Panel and multivariate methods for tests of trend equivalence in climate data series, McKitrick et al. (2010) states: “Over the interval 1979 to 2009, model-projected temperature trends are two to four times larger than observed trends in both the lower and mid-troposphere and the differences are statistically significant at the 99% level” — a strong sign that the GCMs are not too accurate.

      The report “State of the Climate in 2008” published as a Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society vol.90 (8), in 2009, said: “The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 years or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.” So 15 years with no substantial warming means models are invalidated. We’ve seen at least 16 years.

      Other signs include the EU changing its mind on chasing a reduced carbon footprint, giving the green light to fracking to get cheap gas and planning new coal-fired power stations, along with the collapse of the carbon price and veritable slaughter of the Spanish solar “industry,” so what are we waiting for? Why don’t we just announce the end of AGW?

    • Richard C (NZ) on 19/06/2013 at 11:18 am said:

      >”I haven’t read Tung and Zhou so I don’t know their case”

      There’s a link to a slideshow synopsis (T&Z) of their work (Z&T) up-thread but here it is again:


      It’s an easy clear read and among other things corrects Foster and Rahmstorf’s “anthropogenic warming trend” using a longer dataset (HadCRUT4) and F&R’s own methods which I’ve pointed out at Stuff. Z&T introduce AMO cyclicity (quasi 70 yr cycle) as a regressor in addition to F&R’s factors. This is interesting to me because I’ve always thought the 60 year PDO cycle was what produced the oscillation in HadCRUT3/4. Needless to say, Z&T incurred the ire of Foster (Tamino/Open Mind), Real Climate and Skeptical Science and were immediately tagged “deniers”.

      But if nothing else, take a look at the CET/TSI graph on page 36. 350+ years of clear indication that the sun is the driver of temperature, not CO2.

      >”…if polymath accepts the IPCC position, it might be useful to mention the increasing divergence in global temperature evolution between model output and observation”

      Yes, good suggestions, quoting the IPCC is a very good idea and I’ll give it a go, if not for polymath’s eyes then for others…..

      I’ve already put Dr Spencer’s graphs in front of polymath in the Fone and Harris thread but to no avail. In the Sarah Hardie thread he just says “The models have been succesful – the predictions made in IPCC report in 1990 have been proven correct” i.e. he’s not interested in facts, he just wants to perpetuate a meme for as long as possible.

      The problem is links at Stuff are not “hot” enabled (I’ve asked for them to be enabled but no response), they’re dumb so you have to copy them into your browser but in doing so the URL gains some extraneous characters that have to be edited out to get the link to work. This plays into the hands of the likes of polymath because he doesn’t link to anything except maybe SkS, he just waves his hands. Sceptics on the other hand, and myself as you know, tend to use links liberally in support of claims but quoting the IPCC doesn’t require the reader to look via a link.

      It’s more about tactics in these public forums than anything else IMO.

    • “here it is again:” Thanks, RC, I’ll have a look.

      If it’s made clear that the statements from AR5 are more recent than anything we’ve heard from the IPCC (i.e., they have not been published yet) it should impress any Doubting Thomas.

      Good luck.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 19/06/2013 at 1:34 pm said:

      >”If it’s made clear that the statements from AR5 are more recent than anything we’ve heard from the IPCC”

      I’ve done that using the word “latest”, should appear in the next comments update.

      What seems to happen is that comments without links get posted first and comments with multiple links have to get dug out of the spam trap so I’ve hedged my bets with two comments, the first one without links pertaining to the IPCC AR5 SOD quote and McKitrick et al, the other a multi-linked comment re models/observations divergence and model invalidation.

      UPDATE: the first linkless comment has been posted.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 19/06/2013 at 4:08 pm said:

      Comments closed after only 88 comments. Fortunately I managed to put my best case and all comments posted although I still had an ace to play (‘Paper finds ~50% of warming over past 30 years was due to natural ocean oscillations’, the other 50% solar).

      I guess it wasn’t going so well for Sarah Hardie:

      “…it’s going be a dark, scary future, and we have to fight it.”

      “So what do we do? How exactly do we fight? And will we win?”

      “Are we going to win?”

      “I’m going to fight, who’s going to join me?”

    • Richard C (NZ) on 19/06/2013 at 5:37 pm said:

      >”…managed to put my best case”

      Forgot to quote Dr David Whitehouse from ‘The Global Warming Standstill’ (models “on the cusp of falsification”) in conjunction with Dr Roy Spencer’s recent similar statements which I did quote.

      Get’s a bit of a head full keeping it all front-of-mind – especially when there’s so much to choose from.

      Incidentally, comments in the Fone/Harris thread are now hidden but the time sequence of comments (not the nested reply sequence) can be accessed by clicking the RSS feed. I’m guessing the Sarah Hardie comment thread will be hidden in due course too.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 19/06/2013 at 3:32 pm said:

      >”Z&T introduce AMO cyclicity (quasi 70 yr cycle) as a regressor in addition to F&R’s factors. This is interesting to me because I’ve always thought the 60 year PDO cycle was what produced the oscillation in HadCRUT3/4″

      Turns out its a combo:

      ‘Paper finds ~50% of warming over past 30 years was due to natural ocean oscillations’

      A paper presented at the NTU International Science Conference on Climate Change finds that the natural Pacific Decadal Oscillation [PDO] and Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation [AMO] are responsible for about 50% of the warming observed over the past 30 years. According to the author, “In the past 30 years, the two multi-decadal oscillations contribute about half of the global mean surface temperature warming.” Prior research has shown that solar activity changes were responsible for at least 50% of the observed warming over the past century. In addition, solar activity has been shown to influence ocean oscillations. Thus, most or all of the observed warming in recent decades can be attributed to natural causes.

      ‘An Observational Analysis of Oceanic and Atmospheric Structure of Global-Scale Multidecadal Variability’

      Prof. Peng Liu ( Department of Atmospheric Sciences, Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology, China )

      “First we apply the Hilbert-Huang Transform (HHT) method to the global mean surface temperature (ST_gm) data to obtain a centennial global warming trend”

      “The two oscillations [PDO & AMO] are expected to slow down the global warming trends in the next decade.


      The fundamental part of the HHT is the empirical mode decomposition (EMD) method as used by Zhou and Tung. I see EMD being used more and more for climate data analysis.

  44. Richard C (NZ) on 22/02/2015 at 9:25 am said:

    ‘How pressure-dependent atmospheric warming explains the entire 33C greenhouse effect’

    The Hockey Schtick

    Nice to see that others are beginning to appreciate the Maxwell/Carnot/Clausius atmospheric mass/gravity/pressure theory of the greenhouse effect [hotlink], which completely explains the atmospheric temperature profiles from the Earth’s surface all the way to the top of the atmosphere at ~100,000 km, entirely without radiative forcing from greenhouse gas ‘back-radiation’ [hotlink].

    The latest is a forthcoming series of articles at the Swedish climate skeptic site Stockholm’s Initiative, the first chapter of which is below [Google translation + editing]. These concepts have been discussed in further detail in the series of Hockey Schtick posts on the ‘greenhouse equation’ [hotlink] and in relation to the Maxwell/Carnot/Clausius atmospheric mass/gravity/pressure theory of the 33K greenhouse effect [hotlink].

    ‘The atmosphere from inside out’

    02/18/2015 by Goran Ahlgren .

    Chapter 1.

    So here it is:

  45. AGW / CAGW has been disproved. Mathematically, scientifically, irrefutably disproved.


    The climatologists claim their purported “greenhouse effect” is caused by “backradiation”, and that “greenhouse effect” is causing AGW / CAGW.

    Disprove “backradiation”, and their claimed “greenhouse effect” falls, and with it AGW / CAGW.

    “Backradiation” is nothing more than a mathematical artifact due to the climatologists misusing the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, and is provably physically impossible.

    • John Power on 16/06/2024 at 12:11 pm said:

      Hi LOL@K…,

      I’m not an advocate for CAGW, or for AGW, but I can’t help noticing that your argument contradicts some of the commonly-held beliefs and tenets of the orthodox physics community over the subject of the atmospheric greenhouse effect. However, I won’t try to debate your argument with you because you’ve already declared it to be “irrefutable”, which tells me that you are not open to considering alternative views on the subject anyway. So, I’ll just save my breath, metaphorically speaking, and respect your natural right as a sovereign individual to think and believe whatever you like about the matter.

  46. Tricky Dicky on 28/06/2024 at 9:42 am said:

    Hi John,

    Challenging some of the common held beliefs and tenets of the orthodox physics community is something we should do regularly. There is a common held belief that there is cold dark matter and cold dark energy to explain the universe as we see it. Given our model of how the universe came about, there is “solid evidence” that both exist even though we can’t find them. We can’t see them, but we can see their effects. But these tenets are being seriously questioned by findings from the James Webb telescope. Cosmology is being turned on its head. If you refer to the paper by Kramm et al, this pretty much concludes: “Finally, based on the 24 DLRE datasets our study showed that applying the Stefan-Boltzmann power law to the globally averaged bolometric temperatures provides meritless results for rocky celestial bodies.”


    Applying the Stefan – Boltzmann equation to Earth comes up with an average global temperature of -18 c. However, according to NASA, the average global temperature is 15 c and we therefore need to find an extra 33 c from somewhere. Enter the greenhouse effect to explain this. A common held belief that may well be the basis for steering us in the wrong direction from the outset.

    In another paper, the authors concluded:

    “Based on our findings, we may conclude that the effective radiation temperature yields flawed results when used for quantifying the so-called atmospheric greenhouse effect.” “These values demonstrate that the power law of Stefan and Boltzmann provides inappropriate results when applied to globally averaged skin temperatures.”

    According to an experiment by Seim and Olson from the University of Oslo: “The change in observed backscatter radiation should give us a measurable temperature increase of 2.4 to 4 K by using the Stefan Boltzmann law. But we only observe a very slight temperature increase due to CO2 backscatter. This
    indicates that heating, due to IR backscatter from CO2, is much less than what is assumed from the Stefan Boltzmann law or from the forcing Equation (1a) and Equation (1b).”

    Always question. Setting out from an incorrect starting point only compounds the errors, especially if no one has the temerity to question that foundation. It leads us to the cold dark matter cosmic unicorn and a run away greenhouse effect global hobgoblin.

    • John Power on 02/07/2024 at 12:23 am said:

      Hi TD,

      You make some very good points and I agree with all that you have said. However, in case anyone should have misunderstood what I wrote in reply to LOL@K…(etc) above, let me clarify that I was not setting out to advocate for the orthodox physics community’s position on back-radiation (“BR”) and the greenhouse effect (“GE”) but was just trying to point out that his/her argument against these theoretical ideas would not be “irrefutable” in the eyes of the orthodox physics community, that is all.

      As you say, “Challenging some of the common held beliefs and tenets of the orthodox physics community is something we should do regularly” and I have no problem with people challenging them however and as often as they wish to do so. But with regard to LOL@K…(etc)’s claimed “irrefutable” refutation of the orthodox concepts of BR and GE, where and how has he/she addressed the orthodox scientific community’s explicit reasons for believing in them? As far as I can see he/she hasn’t even attempted to do that, so it’s not a very convincing argument from the orthodox physics community’s point of view.

      Re. Kramm et al: “…. our study showed that applying the Stefan-Boltzmann power law to the globally averaged bolometric temperatures provides meritless results for rocky celestial bodies,”, I can well believe it.

      But how is it relevant? Earth is not a rocky celestial body but has over 70% of its surface occupied by water and, to the best of my knowledge, GE-theorists do not use the Stefan-Boltzmann law to estimate Earth’s actual surface temperature anyway; they only use it to calculate the planet’s so-called “effective temperature”, which is a purely abstract, theoretical concept representing the maximum possible global average temperature that could be supported by absorbed insolation (i.e. absorbed in-coming solar radiation) alone.

      You say: “Applying the Stefan – Boltzmann equation to Earth comes up with an average global temperature of -18 c.”

      Agreed – with the proviso that this result is only a rough estimate of the maximum possible global average surface temperature that absorbed insolation could support as I just said.

      “However, according to NASA, the average global temperature is 15 c and we therefore need to find an extra 33 c from somewhere. Enter the greenhouse effect to explain this.”

      Agreed; that is the logic of one orthodox scientific argument in support of the existence of the GE as I understand it. However, it may be worthwhile to note that this argument does not finally prove the existence of the greenhouse effect, because alternative planetary warming-mechanisms may exist which could also explain the observed difference between Earth’s effective temperature and its actual temperature in principle. By the same token though, disproving this argument could not possibly disprove the greenhouse effect because the existence of the GE does not depend on this argument being true. The concept of the GE is conceived and defined as a direct effect of the action of so-called greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, so I think it would be necessary to disprove the existence of those gases in order to disprove the existence of the GE.

      “A common held belief that may well be the basis for steering us in the wrong direction from the outset.”

      Indeed it may, but I think the practical situation confronting us is that the orthodox scientific community is holding on to this common belief and it is not going to change its collective mind in favour of a different one unless it is presented with some compelling scientific reasons to do so. To date, no such compelling reasons appear to have been forthcoming.

      Re. Kramm et al’s “Based on our findings, we may conclude that the effective radiation temperature yields flawed results when used for quantifying the so-called atmospheric greenhouse effect.”

      No doubt, but I think disputes about how the greenhouse effect should be quantified are irresolvable at the present stage of development of human science and technology, due to our current inability to measure any of the relevant global climate variables with sufficient accuracy and precision to be useful. This inability makes it impossible for theoretical propositions about the global climate system to be critically tested empirically.

      And: “These values demonstrate that the power law of Stefan and Boltzmann provides inappropriate results when applied to globally averaged skin temperatures.”

      I agree, they do. But this is already well-known to orthodox GE-theorists, who do not normally use the Stefan-Boltzmann law to globally average actual planetary skin temperatures anyway, as I mentioned already above.

      Re. Seim and Olson: “The change in observed backscatter radiation should give us a measurable temperature increase of 2.4 to 4 K by using the Stefan Boltzmann law. But we only observe a very slight temperature increase due to CO2 backscatter. This indicates that heating, due to IR backscatter from CO2, is much less than what is assumed from the Stefan Boltzmann law or from the forcing Equation (1a) and Equation (1b).”

      Again, this may be true but, to my way of thinking, an argument about the quantity of increased back radiation that we can observe from a specific increase in the quantity of atmospheric CO2 is not an argument against the existence of back radiation altogether. In fact, the quote from Seim and Olson seems to imply that BR definitely does exist because they claim to have gone out and actually measured it.

  47. Tricky Dicky on 28/06/2024 at 11:29 am said:

    We also have to look seriously at the starting point for the level of warming caused by the greenhouse effect.
    Commonly held tenets:

    Average global surface temperature without the greenhouse effect:
    NASA: – 18 c
    UCAR: – 20 c
    British Geological Survey: – 17 c

    Average global surface temperature should be:
    NASA Greenhouse effect FAQ19: 15 c
    NASA Kids : 14 c
    UCAR: 14.5 c

    So NASA can’t even agree with themselves. We might be talking about a degree or so, but, let’s face it, all the current hysteria is about 1 degree c.

    To calculate the surface temperature, using the Stefan – Boltzmann equation, you need to include the total solar irradiance.
    IPCC : Values ranged from 1,322 to 1,465 W sq m. With a current estimate of 1,365 W sq m
    NASA: 1,361 W sq m
    Encyclopedia.com : 1,367 W sq m
    Science Direct, Mendoza: 1,367 W sq m
    Nature: 1,365.39 W sq m during the last solar minimum.

    Given that, according to Mendoza, there was a drop of 2.9 W sq m during the Maunder Minimum, resulting in the little ice age, I think we can call in to question some of these commonly held beliefs, especially given the very obvious variation in the so called “solar constant”. NASA use 1,361 W sq m to get to 15c and 14 c. Good on their maths. And there is your problem with the commonly held tenet of the IPCC. Natural variation in total solar irradiance + man’s activities = climate change. The IPCC consider that there is no natural variation in total solar irradiance so that part of the equation becomes zero. Really IPCC? Come on, given your statement above!!!! So the equation becomes man’s activities = climate change. QED. And that becomes the staring point for the circular reasoning. A logical fallacy but a commonly held belief.

  48. Tricky Dicky on 06/07/2024 at 8:05 pm said:

    Hi John,

    Interesting information and a good detailed response.

    As for the Kramm assertion about the application of the Stefan-Boltzmann power law to rocky celestial bodies. I would consider that, if this approach provides a meritless result with a reasonably uniform rocky celestial body, it is therefore a completely pointless exercise applying it to a body like the Earth that is rocks and water. The greenhouse effect undoubtedly exists to some extent, but, as you point out, getting an accurate idea of just how much this effects our climate is somewhat up in the air at the moment (pun intended!!!). There are plenty of scientific papers that do look for alternative explanations, but as you rightly suggest, these do not alter the views of the main stream science community. In the paper earlier this year from the University of Athens, they analyzed the carbon isotopes in the CO2 in the atmosphere and concluded that, of the increase in CO2 over the past 20 years, man’s contribution is 4%. The rest is from natural sources and, in conjunction with a previous paper, concluded that increased CO2 is not driving the global temperatures rise, but that the rise in temperature is driving the increase in CO2. That has certainly not been acknowledged by the mainstream science community. There have been plenty of papers that show such things as Asian monsoon seasons are controlled by solar activity. Again, not been acknowledged. A couple of years ago, an American school boy was nominated for a science prize as he was able to accurately predict Atlantic hurricanes from sunspots.
    There is plenty of credible science out there. Just because the mainstream chooses to ignore it, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist and doesn’t mean it isn’t valid. What it really means is that it doesn’t fit the narrative, it must be dismissed as a conspiracy theory, or “debunked” using vacuous and irrelevant “opinion”. It is reasonably difficult to find something when you don’t go looking for it.

    Consider the graphs of solar and long wave radiation values shown on page 936 of the 2021 IPCC report. They took the reflected solar radiation values and the outgoing long wave radiation values. Unfortunately, the solar radiation set showed solar forcing as responsible for the recent heating and the outgoing long wave radiation values completely undermined the greenhouse effect hypothesis. Bugger. Can’t have that. So, the main stream multiplied both data sets by -1, effectively inverting both graphs and getting the outcomes they wanted. Job done. Corrupt or what?

    But when you actually take the time, you can find scientific papers that show that there is much more to consider. Such things as increased shortwave radiation. This is mainly attributed to a reduction in cloud cover, strangely blamed on a decrease in particulate pollution. One aspect that is completely dismissed is the effects of the Earth’s weakening magnetic field. The field strength has dropped by an estimated 30% since the 1850s and, according to the latest SWARM data, the drop has accelerated to around 5% per decade. We know this leads to an increase in high energy solar particles entering the climate system and significant changes in the electro magnetic coupling between the solar wind and the Earth. The South Atlantic magnetic anomaly is a pretty big area of increased electromagnetic activity and these things affect the Earth’s weather but the main stream refuse to accept this. This year was the 6th largest Antarctic ozone hole since satellite records began and this should not be happening after the Montreal protocol from 1987. Main stream physics looks for reasons to blame climate change and man’s activities and egregiously ignore any other possible causes such as increased high energy particle collisions. The changes in the position of the magnetic poles also means a repositioning of the point of entry these energetic particles into the Earth’s system. Many have seen the visual effects of the pole shift and the field strength drop when we were “treated” to the recent auroral displays across the world. Comparatively, X3 flares should not result in auroral displays as far south as Costa Rica, or the spectacular show in the north Waikato, where I live.

    When we look at Saturn – According to data from NASA’s Cassini probe, “electric currents, triggered by interactions between solar winds and charged particles spark the auroras and heat the upper atmosphere. (Bear in mind that these same charged particles are dismissed as irrelevant here on Earth). By building a complete picture of how heat circulates in the atmosphere, scientists are better able to understand how auroral electric currents heat the upper layers of Saturn’s atmosphere and drive winds. The global wind system can distribute this energy, which is initially deposited near the poles, toward the equatorial regions, heating them to twice the temperatures expected from the Sun’s heating alone.” The same effect has been seen on Jupiter. Yet NASA claims these effects do not work on Earth. Really? So main stream physics has figured out these effects on other planets, yet refuse to accept that these same processes happen on Earth and will be of much greater influence given that we are closer to the Sun. According to NASA this effect cannot happen on Earth as the atmosphere is not made of iron. The last time I looked, the atmospheres of Saturn and Jupiter are not made of iron either, but it works there. Funny that. The recent solar flares “juiced up” the global electrical circuit and the effects on weather were fully expected by some of us. The recent rain storms over Dubai and Abu Dhabi mysteriously happened when drones were used to send electrical discharges into the clouds. Strange how that worked when “main stream physics” said it couldn’t and certain sources were very quick to cover their arses and claim it didn’t happen. They desperately claimed climate change was the reason. Just like the inverted solar forcing and outgoing long wave radiation graphs. Add to that the IPCC’s stitch up of the late 1980’s TSI readings with a known, totally corrupt analysis from the PMOD labs and you can see why the main stream does not have any alternative answers – or credibility.
    Yet, main stream media gives us – Hurricane Beryl proves man made climate change, because man made climate change caused hurricane Beryl. Yeah, right. Circular reasoning to the rescue.

    I hope you understand that I appreciate your position that the main stream science community has not come up with credible alternatives, but, quite frankly, given the blatant data manipulation that is rife, it is not surprising.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *