Sunday, 8 September 2019

Reasons why the greenhouse gas effect is very wrong

Under construction

  • Assumption: This is similar to an axiom in maths. It is an assumption made about the world. In science assumptions are often unvoiced. For example Newtons Law of Gravity assumes instantaneous action at a distance
  • Law
  • Model: has a dual meaning in science. It can be either
    • a relatively simple: hypothesis or theory. Model can apply to either a hypothesis or a theory
    • or a more complex: mathematical model, or computer model. This kind of scientific model incorporates many know scientific theories and perhaps some hypotheses
  • Hypothesis
  • Theory

The greenhouse gas effect, GHGE assumes:

  1. doubling CO2 in the atmosphere (from 280ppm to 560ppm) will raise earth's surface temperature by 1C.
  2. this initial 1C warming will force air to hold more water. The extra water vapour will add an additional 2C of warming.
  3. Total average surface warming, per doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will be 3C (=1C + 2C). This is called the equilibrium climate sensitivity, ECS, or sometimes just the Climate Sensitivity, CS.

The greenhouse gas effect is a hypothesis, used as a core part of complex computer models. David Evans describes it.

Question: Why is this wrong?

Answer 1: Because it is an untested, non-validated model.

Answer 2: Because when the model was been tested but it failed its tests

There's nothing wrong with hypothesising the greenhouse gas effect. It all went wrong when modelers usurped science.

  1. They made no proper attempt to test their models. Which is why we say it is an "untested, non-validated model". It's untested because its fans avoided telling tests. It's non-validated because a good hypothesis must past all tests we can imagine before we call it validated.
  2. GHGE fans claimed their critics were: climate deniers, fossil fuel shills and flat-earthers. GHGE fans avoided critics and, so, by-passed scientific methods to promote this GHGE proposition to politicians

Hypothesis testing and validation

There are an almost infinite number of ways to model the world. It's thought that the fundamental laws of physics may be explained using String Theory. But there are, maybe, 10500 possible String Theories. Each a separate, distinct, hypothesis. Do any explain the world? We can only know by testing a prediction made by a model against what actually happens in reality. In comparison, it is estimated that there are between 1078 to 1082 atoms in the known, observable universe.

A hypothesis test is an experiment of observation done under controlled conditions. It's results are then compared with the predictions of the hypothesis acting under the same conditions. When the results agree, the test passes and it validated the hypothesis. When the results disagree: it fails the hypothesis and it is invalidated. A single failing test, fails the hypothesis. If 20 tests pass but one fails, the hypothesis is still failing. When a test fails, it may be possible to amend a hypothesis, perhaps by making it more complex. So that the amended hypothesis can then be tested. An amended hypothesis must be tested from the start. It must pass all its tests to be considered validated.

A hypothesis made with example tests is called a testable hypothesis. Scientists don't generally waste their time on untestable hypotheses. Because there are an infinite number of such, and no way to say whether any give a true explanation for something in the world. When a hypothesis has passed sufficient tests, we say it is a validated hypothesis. That is about the same thing as an accepted scientific theory.

How does the greenhouse gas hypothesis measure up?

  1. No good tests were ever written for the greenhouse gas hypothesis. This is partly because it is a complex hypothesis. With an initial CO2 warming effect followed by an water vapour amplification (the feedback). Also because it is a hypothesis about earth's climate system. We don't do such experiments on climate. This explains why the greenhouse gas effect is untestable from the conventional point-of-view.

    It does not make the greenhouse gas effect intrinsically untestable. It's possible to find simple tests which can be done as experiments. One such test is to quantify the surface warming effect. One could take an infrared, which emits at CO2 radiative frequencies, and measure the warming observed on a known quantity of water. This is the simplest, and probably the cheapest, experiment I can think of. A kosher scientific hypothesis should be tested in as many ways as possible. At least a dozen different ways.

    It's the responsibility of the hypothesis inventor to propose suitable tests, but anyone many join in finding more. The job of research science is mainly a job of discovery. Discovering whether a hypothesis is a true picture of the world is the most important; because this gives us new, fundamental science.

  2. 1. Infrared emitted by atmospheric gases, including carbon dioxide does not penetrate into water very far. It goes mere micrometres. This means oceans are not warmed by more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In particular, alarmists claim surface temperatures will warm by 1C when CO2 atmospheric concentrations reach 560ppm. For that to happen the IR must penetrate as deeply into water as sunlight does. Instead much of the infrared energy absorbed by water will be immediately lost. To both re-radiation (towards the sky), and evaporative cooling. In evaporative cooling, latent heat is absorbed by water from it's surroundings and used to break hydrogen bonds holding water molecules together in chains. This latent heat does not raise water temperature. Vapourised water takes about 8 days, on average, to reach cloud layer where it's much cooler. Once there it condenses, emitting it's latent heat as infrared to space.

    71% of earth's surface is water. Let's assume that most of the warming is lost (60%). The

  3. Real scientists are collaborators. They rely on other scientists to find flaws in their ideas and to propose clear-cut tests for their hypotheses. Real scientists are ever eager to discover whether a scientific hypothesis is any good. Whether it passes its tests. Good scientists know that it's senseless to use a non-validated hypothesis to predict the climate. It's insane to shield a non-validated hypothesis from criticism.
  4. Climate alarmists have known about the inability of CO2 to penetrate far into water for decades. They were told they needed to experiment to find precise water warming value. They monopolise climate research funds but refuse to fund essential quantitative experiments. Alarmists never made serious attempts to test their mathematical models against reality. I know of no climate modelers in the so-called climate consensus, who care what really happens in the climate. They are too busing using it as a political football.

Penetration of Infrared radiation into water

2. There's no sign of climate feedback which supposedly triples warming due to CO2.

Saturday, 7 September 2019

WMO Secretary-General Warns Against Climate ‘Doomsters and Extremists’

Reblog from: WMO Secretary-General Warns Against Climate ‘Doomsters and Extremists’

A bit of refreshing news, via The GWPF:

Petteri Taalas, Secretary-General of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO)

London, 6 September: The General-Secretary of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) says that the alarmist narrative on climate change has gone off the rails and criticised the news media for provoking unjustified anxiety.

Speaking to Finland’s financial newspaper Talouselämä (“The Journal”) on 6 September 2019, Petteri Taalas called for cooler heads to prevail, saying that he does not accept arguments of climate alarmists that the end of the world is at hand.

Dr Taalas also spoke of the dangers of green extremism:

“While climate sceptisism has become less of an issue, now we are being challenged from the other side. Climate experts have been attacked by these people and they claim that we should be much more radical. They are doomsters and extremists; they make threats.”

And he called for the media both to challenge experts and allow a broader range of opinions to be heard.

The director of the Global Warming Policy Forum, Dr Benny Peiser, welcomed Dr Taalas’s intervention:

“It’s very welcome to hear the Secretary-General of the World Meteorological Organization finally challenging eco-zealots.

“I hope mainstream climate scientists and the news media sit up and take notice; it’s high time they put some professional distance between themselves and radical greens and start to question their apocalyptic narrative of doom.” 

Thursday, 29 August 2019

Real climate cannot be modeled

Reblog from NoTricksZone

NASA: We Can’t Model Clouds, So Climate Models Are 100 Times Less Accurate Than Needed For Projections

NASA has conceded that climate models lack the precision required to make climate projections due to the inability to accurately model clouds. 

Clouds have the capacity to dramatically influence climate changes in both radiative longwave (the “greenhouse effect”) and shortwave.

Cloud cover domination in longwave radiation

In the longwave, clouds thoroughly dwarf the CO2 climate influence. According to Wong and Minnett (2018):

• The signal in incoming longwave is 200 W/m² for clouds over the course of hours. The signal amounts to 3.7 W/m² for doubled CO2 (560 ppm) after hundreds of years.

• At the ocean surface, clouds generate a radiative signal 8 times greater than tripled CO2 (1120 ppm).

• The absorbed surface radiation for clouds is ~9 W/m². It’s only 0.5 W/m² for tripled CO2 (1120 ppm).

• CO2 can only have an effect on the first 0.01 mm of the ocean. Cloud longwave forcing penetrates 9 times deeper, about 0.09 mm.

Image Source: Wong and Minnett, 2018

Cloud cover domination in shortwave radiation

In its shortwave albedo capacity, cloud cover modulates the amount of solar radiation that warms the ocean. Changes in the Earth’s radiation budget “are caused by changes in tropical mean cloudiness.” (Wielicki et al., 2002).

When cloud cover increases, less shortwave radiation reaches the surface, leading to cooling. When cloud cover decreases – as it has since the 1980s – more solar radiation is absorbed.

The decrease in cloud cover in recent decades can therefore explain the 1979-2017 warming (Herman et al., 2013Poprovsky, 2019, Loeb et al., 2018).

Image Source: Herman et al., 2013

Image Source: Poprovsky, 2019

Image Source: Loeb et al., 2018

IPCC and NASA acknowledge that we can’t model clouds with requisite accuracy

The IPCC has admitted there is a great deal of “continuing uncertainty” in the sign and magnitude of the cloud influence. Most models indicate a positive feedback (more warming), but this “is not well understood” and the IPCC scientists “are not confident that it is realistic.”

Image Source: IPCC (2013)

NASA has been even more candid about the massive uncertainties associated with cloud climatology.

Some clouds “cool more than they heat” and other clouds “warm more than they cool.”

In some models “clouds decrease the net greenhouse effect, whereas in others they intensify it.”

Because the uncertainties are so pervasive, NASA concludes that “today’s models must be improved by about a hundredfold in accuracy” if we wish to make climate projections.

Image Source: NASA

Uncertainty in the effects of cloud forcing are 20-40 times larger than the projected greenhouse gas warming for the next century

Due to the enormous uncertainties associated with cloud cover changes, the IPCC’s CO2 emission scenarios used to calculate warming are reduced to the realm of nearly evidence-free presumption.

Using the IPCC’s emission scenarios, for example, the projected greenhouse gas-induced warming by 2100 is 3.7°C. Due to cloud forcing errors, the uncertainty in this projection is ±130°C!

When both the cloud and the forcing uncertainties are allowed to accumulate together, after 5 years the A2 [greenhouse gas-induced] scenario includes a 0.34°C warmer Earth but a ±8.8°C uncertainty. At 10 years this becomes 0.44±15° C, and 0.6±27.7°C in 20 years. By 2100, the projection is 3.7±130°C.”

Image Source: Frank, 2008

Unless we can model clouds, we cannot model climate with any precision

Due to the dominant influence of cloud cover in facilitating climate change, dramatically improving our woefully insufficient capacity to model clouds is both necessary and fundamental.

Climate science should rise to the challenge rather than continuing to gloss over or even dismiss the profound cloud modeling problem undermining climate projections.

Tuesday, 27 August 2019

Climate science juggernaut to nowhere

Silver bullet or poisoned chalice?

Climate modelers admit their models are inadequate in some ways. They claim the next model, or one after that, will soon get it right. Modelers claim they're doing 'simple physics'. So they just need slightly more sophisticated models and the pieces of the climate jigsaw will all fall into place. This is the impression they always give - the solution to life, the universe and climate is just around the corner in the next climate model iteration. Built on the current model of applied "simple physics". Current models are nearly perfect. Future models need become just a little more perfect. Their next grant will allow them to bring it all together and deliver that silver bullet to destroy the bugbear of climate uncertainty. Such is the cosy, rosy world of climate modelers with their greenhouse gas effect models.

Modelers chase grant money. They need to find ever more grant money just to keep their jobs in academia. Grants lead to model tweaks and new papers. New papers must get favourable reviews by the climate establishment. Which explains why the climate modelers are so intellectually conservative. Researchers dare not upset the climate gravy train by developing anything radically new; or they are toast. Think outside the small box of greenhouse-gas-effect establishment dogma and they go from climate hero: solving the climate silver bullet and feeding off the rich bounty of climate science grants to climate denier: grant-less, possibly job-less, and persecuted by the SJW and climate alarmist media. Climate heroes cannot afford to admit to any big doubts in their models or the grants go elsewhere. Modelers are like deluded businessmen, one step away from bankruptcy. To the last moment, they're certain their business will be saved. They're certain their plans are coming together. Just one more loan will save the day. This money chase makes modelers fundamentally dishonest about how science should be done. The failure of climate models is a failure of the scientific community to properly do science, and a failure of scientific funding to understand how good science is done. In their case modelers are, in imagination and rhetoric, just one more grant away from finding the silver bullet to kill the climate uncertainty bugbear.


Back to the models. Climate models are more than just simple physics artfully combined to solve the climate jigsaw puzzle. Modelers make many assumptions about how known physics combine. Many of these assumptions are hidden in the fact they wrote complex, interdependent maths in computer languages. No outsider can read one of these climate programs to see the assumptions gluing the climate physics together. Even if the outsider knows both the totality of existing physics and the computer language in use! The outsider would still need to learn the structure of the climate model, and concerns of the computer program.

The problem with models is not just existing complexity and modelers ignorance about, say, the precise effects of clouds, giving rise to parameterizations in models in place of physics, for example. Nor is it other specific problems identified with existing models. Model assumptions ignore many real-world climate factors such as the host of solar cycles. There are over ten important solar cycles which must be considered in the climate. Solar magnetism are well as insolation changes during cycles. Weaker magnetic fields allow more cosmic rays through to our atmosphere. These cosmic rays cause cascades of atmospheric ionization, each ion may become a nucleuses for cloud formation. These. potentially important. solar forcing moderation effects are ignored by modelers. Many modelers claim scientists studying cosmic ray effects mediated by solar magnetism are 'climate deniers'. Conceit much? This is one example of unknown physics which may one day make a better model, but which is currently ignored as pseudoscience by modelers. I've just been talking about a potential effect mediating some solar cycles. There are over ten solar cycles and potentially more effects.

Models have:

  • hidden assumptions
    • many of which are likely right,
    • others may be wrong and breaking any possible working model,
  • obsession and faith in a narrow definition of the greenhouse gas effect which is neither a law, hypothesis, nor theory
  • by implication other interpretations of the greenhouse gas effect are ignored
  • black-listed physics. (such as various solar cycles); the blacklist enforced by careerism, tribalism, groupthink, politics and grants
  • potentially still unknown climate effects,
  • flaws in model construction which can't be discovered while other flaws are present

What is it? Is it a bird, is it a plane, ...

When one makes assumptions about how the world works in science, one speculates and hypothesizes. We're taught that scientific hypotheses become accepted as scientific theory after the hypothesis makes repeatable, predictions about the world. A useful hypothesis is reused because it gives useful results; and is eventually called theory. Useless hypotheses are discarded. No one ever pretends that the hypothesis is true; but scientists eventually act as if an hypothesis is accepted theory and absolutely true. This 3-stage scientific method: "hypothesis -> real world test(s) -> accepted theory, or failed hypothesis" is a cardboard cutout caricature. Used by philosophers of science. It is untrue. It does not work like that.

  • It ignores the crucial role of induction. Physics was first put together as a set of laws. Laws are basically true inferences about how the world works guided by observation and experiment. We have gas laws, laws of thermodynamics, etc. Each law is a very simple relationship between independent variables; always found to be approximately true. Scientific theories go a step further than laws. Theories explain how and why laws work. When a new hypothesis is proposed it must, sensibly, fit current laws of physics, and current theories. There are already a lot of constraints in place restricting new hypotheses. Namely the entire structure of existing science: currently accepted laws and theories. Scientists often see the development of science as just a tweak to smooth off the rough edges of science. This, kind of, explains the climate modelers' over-confidence in their non-working models. In their heads, they are just a few tweaks away form finding their silver bullet and Nobel prize!
  • It ignores symmetry or 'beauty'. Much successful science in the last century has been guided by efforts to apply symmetry in science. This has both helped to solve problems and hindered to lead scientists down unsolvable blind alleys (such as the String Theory search for a unified theory of everything).
  • It ignores the conservatism and groupthink, political constraints of scientists themselves. I already implied black-listed science and a greenhouse gas effect which works only one, politically driven, way. Establishment ideas aim to hype this greenhouse gas effect as a world destroyer unless humanity fixes its errant fossil fuel ways. Alternative explanations of how the greenhouse gas effect works cannot even be considered. Alternatives to the centrality of the greenhouse gas effect are scientific heresy and career suicide.

One ring to bind them all

What really is this greenhouse gas effect? It's The lynchpin upon which models are built, existing policy depends. It is not a law, not a hypothesis, and not a theory. It is a magic construction made from bits and bobs with hidden assumptions. It is political dynamite, and abracadabra. It will make or break careers in: science, policy formation, politics and media. Accept it and you have guaranteed acceptance by the establishment. Reject or criticise greenhouse gas hypotheses then you are a "shill", "denier", or "flat-earth" believer; a heretic to be tortured and burnt in public. To set an example to other potential heretics. This was set in stone, over 30 years ago when the UNFCCC recruited all Environmental NGOs as their propagandists, and shock troops to "stop climate change", "save polar bears" and avert "climate crisis"

The greenhouse gas effect, GHGE is not an accepted theory. It is too useless and unworkable to be that. Nor is it a proper hypothesis because it is nowhere defined. No canonical text explains it, and gives conditions under which it may be falsified. No proposed tests allow us to say whether it works or fails as an actual hypothesis. It may be partly right, and partly wrong at the same time. James Hansen, one of its principle promoters, said scientists who disbelieved it should be imprisoned. Many self-styled liberals and progressives believe imprisonment and persecution of scientific heretics will "save the planet" and "stop climate change" which they think threaten their very existence; their lives. The GHGE is basically Suaron's One Ring, but a dud magic ring; its power all derived from hypnosis, groupthink and belief that magic works.

The scientific establishment made the world like this. On the one hand: the climate model juggernaut, on a never-ending journey to nowhere. Spoon fed money to support establishment neo-Malthusian policy. On the other hand: penniless scientific heretics and unbelievers in search of lost climate science.

Q: Why am I certain GHGE is wrong? A: because the GHGE cannot reproduce the fingerprint of natural climate change found in climate data.

Monday, 26 August 2019

1995 Santer paper.

Reblog of John L. Daly's "Critique of a paper by Santer et al which became the subject of the IPCC Controversy involving the notorious `Chapter 8' allegations."

A Discernible Human Influence ...
John L. Daly

  •  In a major paper published in the British science journal "Nature" (Vol.382, 4 July 1996, p.39-46) the top players in the Greenhouse Industry (Benjamin Santer of the IPCC, Tom Wigley of NCAR, Philip Jones of CRU, John Mitchell of the U.K. Hadley Centre, A. Oort and R. Stouffer of GFDL among others) all lent their names to a paper titled "A Search For Human Influences On The Thermal Structure Of The Atmosphere". This paper was trumpeted by the Greenhouse Industry as the final `proof' that Greenhouse was already here, proved not just by models, but also by actual observed data.  And it was little surprise that the `observed data' agreed with the models.

  •  They claim to have found the imprint of human influence in observations of upper troposphere temperatures as recorded by sonde balloons, matched these observations with what their model would predict under similar conditions and found the very match they were `searching' for.
  •  This result then inspired the much quoted claim that there was " ... a discernible human influence on global climate", a remark made in the notorious Chapter 8 of the 1995 IPCC Report, a remark added later to the report after the meeting of drafting scientists in Madrid.

  •  Here's how they found their "discernible human influence ..."

The observed radiosonde record chosen by Santer et al  for comparison with the models -

But this is what the whole record looks like -

It's the same data source, except the lower graph shows the full time period available.

  •  Santer et al choose the dates in the upper graph as a basis on which to compare observed conditions against those that the models would predict. Since the models predict upper troposphere warming under enhanced Greenhouse conditions, it was necessary to show that observed data agreed with the models, thus validating those models and proving that the Greenhouse human fingerprint was already evident.
  •  When the full available time period of radiosonde data is shown (Nature, vol.384, 12 Dec 96, p522) we see that the warming indicated in Santer's version is just a product of the dates chosen. The full time period shows little change at all to the data over a longer 38-year time period extending both before Santer et al''s start year, and extending after their end year.
  •  And which version should we trust? The simple rule in all cases like this is -
  • The longer the time span of a data series, the more reliable is the underlying trend

  •  It was 5 months before `Nature' published two rebuttals from other climate scientists, exposing the faulty science employed by Santer et al. (Vol.384, 12 Dec 1996). The first was from Prof Patrick Michaels and Dr Paul Knappenberger, both of the University of Virginia, who said in part -
  • "When we examine the period of record used by Santer et al. (1st graph) in the context of the longer period available from ref.5 (2nd graph) , we find that in the region with the most significant warming (30-60 0S. 850-300 hPa), the increase is largely an artefact of the time period chosen"
  •   The second rebuttal was from a German scientist, Gerd R. Weber, who drew attention to the fact that even the period of warming chosen by Santer et al could itself be explained thus -

    "Regarding the role of natural factors, the early years of the period 1963-87 were substantially influenced by tropospheric cooling (and stratospheric warming) following the eruption of Mount Agung, whereas the end of that period was influenced by several strong El Nino events, which have led to some tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling, particularly in the southern subtropics of the lower latitudes. Therefore the general tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling trend between 1963 and 1987 has been accentuated by widely known natural factors and could at least partially be explained by them."

  •  In other words, even the warm trend selected out by Santer et al was itself largely explainable by known natural events and not induced through any man-made cause.
  •  So, did Santer et al  really discover a " discernible human influence on global climate " ?  Hardly. The obvious intent inherent in the paper's title, mounting external pressures for some unambiguous sign of human climatic impact, and the choice of a time period which just happened to show a warming phase in an otherwise neutral longer-term record, indicates only that there is today " a discernible human influence on global climate change science ".

John L. Daly , June 1997

Interview with Professor Nir Shaviv; censored by Forbes.

Reblog of interview with Professor Nir Shaviv, removed from Forbes

Against Censorship: The Climate Story Forbes Doesn’t Want You To Read

Date: 09/08/19 | Doron Levin

This is the story journalist Doron Levin wrote for Forbes about the scientific research by Professor Nir Shaviv and Professor Henrik Svensmark, two members of the GWPF’s Academic Advisory Council. The Forbes editor, however, doesn’t seem to like the piece and has therefore removed it from its website. We publish the censored story here for interested readers to make up their own minds about the research by Nir Shaviv and Henrik Svensmark.

Global Warming? An Israeli Astrophysicist Provides Alternative View That Is Not Easy To Reject

The U.S. auto industry and regulators in California and Washington appear deadlocked over stiff Obama-era fuel-efficiency standards that automakers oppose and the Trump administration have vowed to roll back – an initiative that has environmental activists up in arms.

California and four automakers favor compromise, while the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) supports the president’s position that the federal standards are too strict. The EPA argues that forcing automakers to build more fuel efficient cars will make them less affordable, causing consumers to delay trading older, less efficient vehicles. Complicating matters is California’s authority to create its own air quality standards, which the White House vows to end.

However the impasse is resolved, the moment looks ripe to revisit the root of this multifactorial dustup: namely, the scientific “consensus” that CO2 emissions from vehicles and other sources are pushing the earth to the brink of climate catastrophe.

In a modest office on the campus of Jerusalem’s Hebrew University, an Israeli astrophysicist patiently explains why he is convinced that the near-unanimous judgments of climatologists are misguided. Nir Shaviv, chairman of the university’s physics department, says that his research and that of colleagues, suggests that rising CO2 levels, while hardly insignificant, play only a minor role compared to the influence of the sun and cosmic radiation on the earth’s climate.

“Global warming clearly is a problem, though not in the catastrophic terms of Al Gore’s movies or environmental alarmists,” said Shaviv. “Climate change has existed forever and is unlikely to go away. But CO2 emissions don’t play the major role. Periodic solar activity does.”

Shaviv, 47, fully comprehends that his scientific conclusions constitute a glaring rebuttal to the widely-quoted surveys showing that 97% of climate scientists agree that human activity – the combustion of fossil fuels – constitutes the principle reason for climate change.

“Only people who don’t understand science take the 97% statistic seriously,” he said. “Survey results depend on who you ask, who answers and how the questions are worded. In any case, science is not a democracy. Even if 100% of scientists believe something, one person with good evidence can still be right.”

History is replete with lone voices toppling scientific orthodoxies. Astronomers deemed Pluto the ninth planet – until they changed their minds. Geologists once regarded tectonic plate theory, the movement of continents, as nonsense. Medical science was 100% certain that stomach ulcers resulted from stress and spicy food, until an Australian researcher proved bacteria the culprit and won a Nobel Prize for his efforts.

Lest anyone dismiss Shaviv on the basis of his scientific credentials or supposed political agenda, consider the following: He enrolled at Israel’s Technion University – the country’s equivalent of MIT – at the age of 13 and earned an MA while serving in the Israel Defense Force’s celebrated 8200 Intelligence unit. He returned to Technion, where he earned his doctorate, afterward completing post-doctoral work at California Institute of Technology and the Canadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics. He also has been an Einstein Fellow at The Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton.

In other words, he knows tons more about science than Donald Trump or Al Gore.

As for politics “in American terms, I would describe myself as liberal on most domestic issues, somewhat hawkish on security,” he said. Nonetheless, the Trump administration’s position on global climate change, he said, is correct insofar as it rejects the orthodoxy of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC’s findings and conclusions are updated every six years; the latest report, released this week, noted that deforestation and agribusiness are contributing to CO2 emissions and aggravating climate change.

In 2003, Shaviv and research partner Prof. Jan Veizer published a paper on the subject of climate sensitivity, namely how much the earth’s average temperature would be expected to change if the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is doubled. Comparing geological records and temperature, the team came up with a projected change of 1.0 to 1.5 degrees Celsius – much less than the 1.5 to 4.5 degree change the IPCC has used since it began issuing its reports. The reason for the much wider variation used by the IPCC, he said, was that they relied almost entirely on simulations and no one knew how to quantify the effect of clouds – which affects how much radiant energy reaches the earth – and other factors.

“Since then, literally billions have been spent on climate research,” he said. Yet “the conventional wisdom hasn’t changed. The proponents of man-made climate change still ignore the effect of the sun on the earth’s climate, which overturns our understanding of twentieth-century climate change.”

He explained:

“Solar activity varies over time. A major variation is roughly eleven years or more, which clearly affects climate. This principle has been generally known – but in 2008 I was able to quantify it by using sea level data. When the sun is more active, there is a rise in sea level here on earth. Higher temperature makes water expand. When the sun is less active, temperature goes down and the sea level falls – the correlation is as clear as day.

“Based on the increase of solar activity during the twentieth century, it should account for between half to two-thirds of all climate change,” he said. “That, in turn, implies that climate sensitivity to CO2 should be about 1.0 degree when the amount of CO2 doubles.”

The link between solar activity and the heating and cooling of the earth is indirect, he explained. Cosmic rays entering the earth’s atmosphere from the explosive death of massive stars across the universe play a significant role in the formation of so-called cloud condensation nuclei needed for the formation of clouds. When the sun is more active, solar wind reduces the rate of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere. A more active solar wind leads to fewer cloud formation nuclei, producing clouds that are less white and less reflective, thus warming the earth.

“Today we can demonstrate and prove the sun’s effect on climate based on a wide range of evidence, from fossils that are hundreds of millions of years old to buoy readings to satellite altimetry data from the past few decades,” he said. “We also can reproduce and mimic atmospheric conditions in the laboratory to confirm the evidence.

“All of it shows the same thing, the bulk of climate change is caused by the sun via its impact on atmospheric charge,” he said. “Which means that most of the warming comes from nature, whereas a doubling of the amount of CO2 raises temperature by only 1.0 to 1.5 degrees. A freshman physics student can see this.”

Nevertheless, the world of climate science has “mostly ignored” his research findings. “Of course, I’m frustrated,” he said. “Our findings are very inconvenient for conventional wisdom” as summarized by the IPCC. “We know that there have been very large variations of climate in the past that have little to do with the burning of fossil fuels. A thousand years ago the earth was as warm as it is today. During the Little Ice Age three hundred years ago the River Thames froze more often. In the first and second IPCC reports these events were mentioned. In 2001 they disappeared. Suddenly no mention of natural warming, no Little Ice Age. The climate of the last millennium was presented as basically fixed until the twentieth century. This is a kind of Orwellian cherry-picking to fit a pre-determined narrative.”

Shaviv says that he has accepted no financial support for his research by the fossil fuel industry. Experiments in Denmark with Prof. Henrik Svensmark and others to demonstrate the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation were supported by the Carlsberg Foundation. In the U.S. the conservative Heartland Institute and the European Institute for Climate and Energy have invited him to speak, covering travel expenses.

“The real problem is funding from funding agencies like the National Science Foundation because these proposals have to undergo review by people in a community that ostracizes us,” he said, because of his non-conventional viewpoint.

“Global warming is not a purely scientific issue any more,” he said. “It has repercussions for society. It has also taken on a moralistic, almost religious quality. If you believe what everyone believes, you are a good person. If you don’t, you are a bad person. Who wants to be a sinner?”

Any scientist who rejects the UN’s IPCC report, as he does, will have trouble finding work, receiving research grants or publishing, he said.

In Shaviv’s view, the worldwide crusade to limit and eventually ban the use of fossil fuels isn’t just misguided “it comes with real world social and economic consequences.” Switching to more costly energy sources, for example, will drive industry from more industrialized countries to poorer countries that can less afford wind turbines and solar panels.

“It may be a financial sacrifice the rich are willing to make,” he said. “Even in developed countries the pressure to forego fossil fuel puts poor people in danger of freezing during the winter for lack of affordable home heating. The economic growth of third world countries will be inhibited if they cannot borrow from the World Bank to develop cheap fossil-based power plants. These are serious human problems in the here and now, not in a theoretical future.”

For Shaviv, the rejection and closed-mindedness his minority view provoke may contain a silver lining. Just think of the acclaim that awaits if his research — and scientific reconsideration of the current orthodoxy — one day proves persuasive.

Thursday, 22 August 2019

All science is "necessarily falsifiable", and that's settled!

"Methods aren’t always necessarily falsifiable"

--Sophie Lewis

I had to do a double take there too. She really does mean it. Sophie Lewis called computer models such as General Circulation Models, GCMs 'methods'. She believes these GCMs discover facts about the world! She is not left-field either. A recent climatology textbook I read described computer model runs as experiments.

Q: What ideas go into the programs making GCMs? A: In a sense the GCMs are cherry-picked physics working in a particular way to describe the climate; built using some established Scientific Theories. That is why the self-styled climate consensus call their climate models and ideas 'simple physics'.

But I would call a GCM a hypothesis (and not a scientific one either). Because the way it assembles physics theories was never tested against the real world. GCMs have no falsifiability criteria either. So modeling has become a new way to pretend to do science. All the while claiming to be doing 'settled science'.

Q: What do mainstream scientists mean by the term 'settled science'? A: 'settled science' is science developed by framing testable hypotheses (that is: by establishing falsifiability rules for hypotheses) then validating those hypotheses experimentally or observationally such that no facts contradict the hypotheses. Hypotheses which pass their falsifiability criteria are then called Scientific Theories, or 'settled science'.

The terminology of 'settled science' in climatology is just a ruse for doing pseudoscience, or fake science (AKA GCMs and climate models). But getting paid for it while avoiding critics. All the while, calling your critics climate deniers, shills and flat-earth believers. Explaining to other climate scientists, observing and experimenting that their science is wrong in some way when their facts contradict your models.

A scientific hypothesis must be framed with falsifiability criteria. Otherwise it's just speculation because:

The scientific worldview began 2600 years ago in Ionia on the Aegean shore when Thales, followed by Anaximander, began their systematic projects to explain the world in terms of things, of this world. They were no longer prepared to let story-tellers, and religious leaders dominate the narrative with tales of Gods and nature spirits moving the stars. How did it go? The Greeks made some quick gains leading to ancient Greek science, then it got stuck. Western civilization went two millennia with precious little scientific progress. Then just over 400 years ago a few practical people like Galileo began a new way of science. They falsified many establishment laws of nature, by experimentally showing how things really worked. Ideas of Aristotle and Ptolemy, so-called natural law were refuted with facts. This scientific revolution gave us our modern world, with magnificent advances in technology, life-span, health, welfare, education, wealth, travel. Civilization everywhere on earth is now predicated on a scientific model explained best by the likes of Popper and Feynman. They propose a model of how science is best done, based on how science best advanced.

You can say you have another 'model of science' but nothing shows your model will work. The 16th century scientific revolution led by the likes of Galileo worked because it created a model for scientific discovery leading to certain understanding. Advanced speculation does not work. For example: millions of person-hours spent "advancing" String Theory gave us nothing of material value; because the speculatively made hypotheses of String Theory were not falsifiable, and there are billions of possible String Theories.

That's just one example of how science goes wrong. There are many ways to break science whilst pretending to do it. Bad statistics is another way. Most published science is false. Science does not need post-normal science, and bad modeling to invent new ways to get things wrong. We already know there is only one route to do working science. The route explained by Popper and Feynman. The route taken by scientists who actually discover and invent useful technologies. It pains me that our universities produce so many scientists ignorant about the basics of what their their craft should be.

Wednesday, 21 August 2019

Fingerprints of ‘natural’ climate variability.

Reblog: By: Ulric Lyons | March 4, 2019 at 9:45 am

The fingerprint for man-made climate warming in the climate record is controversial. A fingerprint has been claimed more than once. Most famously by Santer in 1995. But no legitimate CO2-fingerprint is found. See: Searching for the Catastrophe Signal, by Bernie Lewin. In contrast, the signal of natural climate change is easy to see in the climate data record.

Ulric Lyons

Fingerprints of ‘natural’ climate variability.

Rapid AMO warming from the mid 1990’s is covariant with:

  1. A decline in low cloud cover globally, leading to surface warming, and increased upper ocean heat content.
  2. Changes in the vertical distribution of water vapour: Declines in lower stratosphere water vapour leading to cooling. Increases in low-mid troposphere water vapour, at least due to higher SST’s coupled with an increase in surface wind speeds over the oceans, leading to low-mid troposphere warming.
  3. Reduced CO2 uptake in the warmer North Atlantic and in land regions made drier by the warm AMO phase (and increased El Nino).
    All because ocean phases vary inversely to changes in climate forcing.

Added by me:

  1. Combined solar cycles (red) correlate with temperatures: 1000frolly
  2. Correlation between sea levels with solar cycles:
  3. The sun controls the Mississippi.

Correlations of global sea surface temperatures with the solar wind speed:

Wednesday, 24 July 2019

All world temperature series may be illegitimate.

According to HadCet, the data has been adjusted to account for urban heat island affects

-- Long Term Temperature Records Contradict GISS Temperature Record, by Mark Fife

Two points:

  1. Urban Heat Effect. That does not necessarily mean they adjusted it correctly. It seems most UHE adjustments have been too low. The correct average adjustment for an UHE-station seems to be about 2C. But only at night. I'd like to know by how much they adjust east station.
  2. Homogenization. All these temperature data series seem to be homogenized today. Which, I gather, means deleting outliers (from my reading of the Wikipedia entry). In 2018 Lansner & Pedersen published as study "Temperature trends with reduced impact of ocean air temperature". The took all temperature data for the past 110 years. Split stations into 2 groups.
    • OAA : Ocean Air Affected
    • OAS : Ocean Air Sheltered

    OAS stations showed no recent warming. OAS stations in USA showed no warming since the mid-1930s! OAA stations show recent warming. So it looks like all warming is due to ocean air warming the land. This is not really compatible with what we're told about the greenhouse gas effect.

    The killer here is: it looks like stations are currently homogenized based on proximity. homogenization is only theoretically legitimate when one finds a set of similarly located stations which all change for the same reason. In this case it's done by dropping outliers. One should not homogenize OAA and OAS stations. Before accepting any homogenized data one must check that no OAS & OAA homogenizations affected the other type of station.

    Although Lansner & Pedersen don't make this point about homogenization, their results clearly show that homogenizations will be invalid unless differences between OAS and OAA are taken into account (which I doubt they are - otherwise the Wikipedia entry would tell us).

Sunday, 21 July 2019


Ned Nikolov, Ph.D. @NikolovScience ( 5h5 hours ago)

A totally backward understanding of the role of clouds in #ClimateChange by CarbonBrief

"A new study helps unravel one of the biggest uncertainties for scientists making climate change projections – how clouds will be affected as the Earth’s warms up."

Ned Nikolov, Ph.D. @NikolovScience

Clouds do NOT change in response to warming. Instead, #climate warms in response to a decrease of global cloud cover/albedo. Why is it so difficult to grasp this simple fact?

Joh A @Latebird2013 ()

Replying to @hoffballs @NikolovScience

  • Changes in Earth’s Energy Budget during and after the “Pause” in Global Warming: An Observational Perspective, 2018
  • Cloud Feedback Key to Marine Heatwave off Baja California, 2018
  • Evidence for Large Decadal Variability in the Tropical Mean Radiative Energy Budget, 2002
  • Decreasing cloud cover drives the recent mass loss on the Greenland Ice Sheet, 2017
  • Late Twentieth-Century Warming and Variations in Cloud Cover, 2014

Wednesday, 17 July 2019

How many insects are wind turbines killing?

An amateur study published in PLOS ONE "More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas", claims a massive fall in German insect populations. Germany has the highest density of wind turbines in the world.

Wind capacityglobal %MWe / 1000km²
United States:96,665MW16.30%11
United Kingdom:20,970MW3.50%86

Source: Wikipedia 2018

When we add another column showing wind capacity per 1000 km² we see Germany has the highest density of wind turbines per area. Twice UK.

Dr. Franz Trieb of the Institute of Engineering Thermodynamics concludes that a "rough but conservative estimate of the impact of wind farms on flying insects in Germany" is a “loss of about 1.2 trillion insects of different species per year” which “could be relevant for population stability.”

This was all too predictable: build wind-turbines all over the world and expect no affect on flying animal populations. <-- Only activists could be so dim. Now greens are mostly ignoring the study is in Germany, which has the most wind turbines. Greens are blaming it on global warming or environmental destruction due to capitalism. Anything to keep themselves out of the dock.

Note: Most land-based wind-turbines in UK are in Scotland. Most wind-turbines in UK are probably offshore in the North Sea. PS: This sentence is entirely subjective, and an aside; if I think it matters I will calculate it.

Sunday, 14 July 2019

The climate consensus overstate man-made climate change 10 times over

From the paper in print, by J. Kauppinen & P. Malmi. 2019


We prove that the GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 cannot correctly compute the natural component included in the observed global temperature. The reason is that the models fail to derive the influences of low cloud cover fraction on the global temperature. A too small natural component results in a too large portion for the contribution of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. That is why IPCC represents the climate sensitivity more than one order of magnitude larger than our sensitivity 0.24°C. Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO2 is less than 10%, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change. Low clouds mainly control the global temperature.


No Empirical Evidence for Significant Anthropogenic Climate Change by J. Kauppinen and P. Malmi, 2019


Climate sensitivity has massive uncertainty in scientific literature. From close to near 0 to 9. High climate sensitivities promoted by the establishment (IPCC) all come from models (GCMs). Many non-model studies have much lower climate sensitivities.

Observation shows a 1% increase in low cloud cover decreases temperature by 0.11°C

... The time interval (1983-2008) in Fig 2 is limited to 25 years because of the lack of the low cloud cover data. During this time period the CO2 concentration increased from 343 ppm to 386 ppm and both Figures 1 (IPCC) and 2 show the observed temperature increase of about 0.4°C. The actual global temperature change, when the concentration of CO2 raises from C0 to C, is

where ΔT2 CO2 is the global temperature change, when the CO2 concentration is doubled and Δc is the change of the low cloud cover fraction. The first and second term are the contributions of CO2 [5] and the low clouds, respectively. Using the sensitivity ΔT2 CO2 = 0.24°C derived in the papers [3,2,4] the contribution of greenhouse gases to the temperature is only about 0.04°C according to the first term in the above equation.

It turns out that the changes in the relative humidity and in the low cloud cover depend on each other [4]. So, instead of low cloud cover we can use the changes of the relative humidity in order to derive the natural temperature anomaly. According to the observations 1% increase of the relative humidity decreases the temperature by 0.15°C, and consequently the last term in the above equation can be approximated by -15°C Δφ, where Δφ is the change of the relative humidity at the altitude of the low clouds.

The IPCC climate sensitivity is about one order of magnitude too high, because a strong negative feedback of the clouds is missing in climate models. If we pay attention to the fact that only a small part of the increased CO2 concentration is anthropogenic, we have to recognize that the anthropogenic climate change does not exist in practice. The major part of the extra CO2 is emitted from oceans [6], according to Henry`s law. The low clouds practically control the global average temperature. During the last hundred years the temperature is increased about 0.1°C because of CO2. The human contribution was about 0.01°C


More 2019 Evidence of Nature’s Sunscreen, by Ron Clutz

Wednesday, 10 July 2019

Global warming explained.

This satellite measurement shows that the steep warming of the 1980s to 2000s corresponded with over a 6 Watt per square meter reduction in the global average cloud coverage.

Not only does this change represent over a 6 Watt per square meter increase in incoming solar radiation (aka Sunshine), but also there is an associated reduction in down-welling IR radiation from back reflection off of cloud bottoms.

For this reason, Global Warming is rightfully called Global Brightening.

This increase in Sunshine is over 20x larger than the theoretical radiative forcing associated with rising CO2 concentrations.

The questions remains: What caused this cloud-cover decrease?

See: Data: Global Temperatures Rose As Cloud Cover Fell In the 1980s and 90s

"Conclusion: We have proven that the GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature. The reason is that the models fail to derive the influences of low cloud cover fraction on the global temperature. A too small natural component results in a too large portion for the contribution of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. That is why IPCC represents the climate sensitivity more than one order of magnitude larger than our sensitivity 0.24°C. Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO2 is less than 10 %, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change. The low clouds control mainly the global temperature."

Wednesday, 26 June 2019

It was the Sun wot dun it. Probably most important science you'll read in your lifetime ....

Reposted comment from Nature regarding solar research by V. V. Zharkova, S. J. Shepherd, E. Popova & S. I. Zharkov

For those who cannot read the paper from the first time, let us repeat again what has been done. By applying the Principal Component Analysis to the solar background magnetic field, we discovered, at least, four pairs of eigen values (or 4 pairs of independent components of magnetic field) in the solar full disk magnetograms for 21-23 cycles with the first pair being the principal components (Zharkova et al, 2012). These two principal components are shown to be caused by a dipole dynamo sources while the other 3 pairs of independent components are shown to be caused by quadruple sources (Popova et al., 2013) as simulated for latitudinal variations of magnetic field dynamo waves.

Hence, in Fig. 3 we presented the summary curve of the two principal components of the solar magnetic field waves caused by the dipole magnetic sources only, to fit the classic dynamo theory by Parker (1955, 1993). And this curve reproduced correctly the activity in the past 800 years: the main solar minima (Dalton and Maunder), produced further minima in the medieval period (which by the way comprises 5-15 century), reproduced the minimum by Wolf (if the curve is extended by another 400 years) and the modern maximum. If the horizontal lines showing schematically where these minima are located are slightly shifted, this does not matter, because the summary curve is there and shows the exact locations of these minima. To build such the complex plot (Fig. 3) in the modern plotting software, one need to trade the visibility of words with their location. And given the fact, that this curve is only produced by the dipole dynamo waves, this fit looks rather remarkable. The first attempt is the most difficult one as Parker (1955) has shown us.

So far we did not have a chance yet to process temporal variations of quadruple components which are shown to have amplitudes comparable but slightly lower than the dipole ones. These other eigen values are shown to affect the magnetic filed wave variations in each hemisphere (Popova et al, 2013). They will definitely modify the summary curve, and this work can be done in the nearest future. However, we do not believe that these modifications will be as dramatics as the authors of the comment show to produce the Sporer minimum derived from the terrestrial data. We believe, this minimum needs to be look at more carefully before one can decide if this minimum can be reproduced by quadruple components of the solar magnetic field, or it is simply the terrestrial feature.

But after we built the curve for 5000 years which I will show in the few upcoming meetings and we publish in another paper, we can confidently say, that this method allowed us to derive a very robust law for the solar activity which fits nicely not only Wold minimum moaned by Dr. Usoskin but also the Roman warm period and many others features. And we are very glad this happened, because we have the tool now to make a spectral analysis for these magnetic waves, similar to a prism affecting the white light and to explore separately each mechanism of the dynamo wave generation, one after another, and not all simultaneously, as many authors do so far.

Does anyone seriously believe that the Sun would have such the stochastic heartbeat as a schizophrenic's brain scan shown by Dr. Usoskin in his comment below, and not a more regular heartbeat with a grand cycle of 300-370 years reported by Clough, 1894, Kinsmill, 1906, by us (Zharkova et al., 2015 above) and by many other authors (N. Scafetta et al, 2015, for example)? These references cited in our paper or in the ADS.

The authors Usoskin and Koval'tsov use only 400 years of the solar data for sunspots available after 17 century and then merge (without any validation) them with the data found from the terrestrial proxies for definition of the solar activity before 17 century. This merge is something one would call 'comparing the apples with oranges'... Because the terrestrial data are strongly affected by many terrestrial events occurred beyond any registration in the past, like local fires, volcanos, asteroids, comets etc., which can block the solar light and disguise the solar activity as result. Of course, in the early medieval years the humankind could not affect the variations of solar irradiance but natural disasters can be a very key issue, which is definitely not considered by the keen authors of the comment.

As soon as we present our curves for 5000 years to the meetings and compete the paper describing the progress, we will make them all available on this website as well. Shall I say 'Watch this space'...

With very warm regards,

Valentina Zharkova,

on behalf of the co-authors

Valentina Zharkova's Statement to Ben Davidson of Suspicious Observers

This person Ben speaking nonsense, I am sorry to hear it. I wonder if he can read in plain English, because he twists everything said in our paper. The science is not a religion, it reports real facts despite anybody’s believes.

This person Ben did not understand that the oscillations of the baseline magnetic field are much smaller than the magnetic field variations during normal solar cycles or during grand solar cycles. These oscillations are related to the view of the Sun from the Earth, and not related to the processes on the Sun which produce solar activity of 11 or 22 years and grand cycles reported by us in the paper Zharkova et al, 2015.

Our current paper exposes that the Earth came though 60 super-grand cycles of 2000 years . The Earth (and other planets) will be warming by up to 3C and cooling every 2000 years. And despite this warming in the past the Earth is still here as usual rotating around the sun and around its axis, so there are natural mechanisms allowing it to survive these processes without any human interaction. Romans grew grapes in Scotland and England during the Roman Empire times and we might come back to these times.

This steady warming caused by the orbital motion of the Sun and Earth is still to be interrupted twice by the grand solar minima when the solar input will be reduced. These grans solar minima (GSM) are to be generated by double solar dynamo waves inside the sun as it was predicted earlier. The GSMs will occur in 2020-2055 and in 2370-2415 and the solar irradiance will decrease during these periods because not much activity will happen on the Sun. Nowhere here in our estimations is CO2 participated as we did not investigate the terrestrial atmosphere besides using the research by Akasofu, 2010. And if you look at his paper, Fig. 9 he exposed the fault in statistical extrapolation of terrestrial temperature by IPCC.

Hence, in our paper we provide the proof that our planet can survive much bigger temperature increases than IPCC people scaremongering the humankind. Furthermore, it raises the attention to the fact that we observe solar activity from a celestial body and thus cannot avoid the effects of orbital motion, like Milankovitch cycles. The solar inertial motion is the additional effect to Milankovitch cycles. I hope, that our paper would advise all these pupils who were brainwashed by the alleged human-made global warming to return to schools and to continue to study better Maths and Astronomy.

This paper also explains that the grand solar minima in the solar activity will be real blessings for the people on Earth allowing them to catch up their breath and to sort out their businesses to embrace the natural chain of events with increasing temperature. Although, they would need to make some arrangements for providing food and heating in these period. But we need to embrace the natural events and adjust our lives to them. May I suggest to read our paper carefully before jumping to any wrong conclusions.

Best regards

V. Zh.

Pseudoscience behind, 'radiative forcing' and greenhouse gas effect

Pseudo-scientific assumptions behind, 'radiative forcing' version of the greenhouse effect, and man-made global warming hoax. Summing up:Man-made climate change is basically all speculation without proof.

Pseudo-scientific assumptionReality
a greenhouse effect makes earth's surface 33K warmer than it would be without its atmosphereThere's no actual evidence for this. It's summized from a 'thought experiment', or speculation.
this greenhouse effect is only due to greenhouse gases (which absorb & emit infrared radiation)Adiabatic warming & cooling explain why surface atmosphere is warmer than rest of troposphere
badly correlated CO2, and temperature rises prove causationIn science, correlation does not prove causation.
CO2 'traps' outbound infrared photon energyCO2 absorbs photons & emits them at about the same energy. It's a relay, not a trap.
effect of H2O vapour, a more powerful and 10 times more numerous greenhouse gas than CO2, can be ignored.Water vapour and clouds are 95% responsible for any greenhouse gas warming. Not CO2
earth's climate should be in equilibrium. Only man is destroying this equilibrium.Climate is not in equilibrium. It is always changing because the sun is always changing
long-term averages of transient, non-equilibrium variables can be analysed as a system in equilibriumPure pseudo-science
upward (infrared) and downward (sunlight) fluxes at an ill-defined, imaginary, boundary in tropopause are equal and equivalent.None of this is proven by experiment, nor rigorous quantitative observation.
change in CO2 concentration perturbs this equilibrium, so that the resultant flux change determines a new surface temperature equilibrium, 10km below.More hocus pocus.
small (1 to 4 W/m²) flux changes in a cold, thin, stratospheric air 'layer' at 217K and 0.22 atm act to warm an already much warmer, denser, surface at 288K and 1 atm, acting through 11km of warmer denser air.Most idiotic pseudoscience in history of idiocy. Once again, as with the hocus pocus (above) it only makes sense to someone ignorant of the 2nd Law of thermodynamics, and the meaning of the word law in its scientific context.
heat capacity of surface is zero; or can be ignored (when calculating surface temperatures).Surface retains some heat
surface evaporative cooling can be ignoredsurface evaporative cooling is responsible for about half of earth's surface cooling
conversion of IR to other forms of energy can be ignoredEnergy forms convert. e.g. radiation to heat.
2nd Law of thermodynamics does not hold. Energy (heat) can flow from cold to hot.The 2nd Law says what scientists always observe. It is a statement of fact.
the sun is constantly shining - there is no nightEarth spins. So we have nights
everywhere on earth gets equal solar flux, 390W/m², all the timePolar regions get little sun. Equator gets alot
there are no seasonsEarth's surface experiences seasons due to its tilted spin & eliptical orbit


There is too little CO2 in our atmosphere not too much. Atmospheric CO2 has been falling since life on earth began. Life sequesters it away as limestone and fossil fuel. It fell to only 180ppm in the last major glaciation (ice age), when colder oceans sucked so much of it out of the atmosphere. When it falls to 150ppm life on earth is over. Because plants die with CO2 at that meagre level and all animals feed on plants or other animals.

Nor should anyone assume the CO2 currently in our atmosphere will stay there. The atmospheric residence time of CO2 is about 7 years. Not 100 years as the IPCC lie it is.

Humans are not killing the planet. We have been saving the planet for life by putting CO2 into our atmosphere.

Saturday, 22 June 2019

Means end rationality and the climate science framing issue.

I know disrupting the climate consensus on the basis of it's framing issues is a way to go for actual scientists who must keep their jobs, but I still prefer to attack it on its core ideas. Namely (1) the greenhouse gas effect itself, (2) the 100% man-made claim, (3) that solar-driven climate change is climate denial. I think we should stop telling people its anything to do with religion. It's politics: scientists doing what politicians tell them to. If any disbelieve that, please read Bernie Lewin’s book, suggested by Judith. Alarmist/consensus politics are driven by means-ends rationality. Although science seems to be driven by a similar rationality, it isn't quite. Science has principles which almost transcend any specific science. I'm thinking Feynman here. These principles are diametrically opposed to climate alarmism.

Sunday, 16 June 2019

Data Tampering


A German professor has confirmed what skeptics from Britain to the US have long suspected: that NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies has largely invented “global warming” by tampering with the raw temperature data records.

by James Delingpole, 24 Nov 2015

Professor Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert is a retired geologist and data computation expert. He has painstakingly examined and tabulated all NASA GISS’s temperature data series, taken from 1153 stations and going back to 1881. His conclusion: that if you look at the raw data, as opposed to NASA’s revisions, you’ll find that since 1940 the planet has been cooling, not warming.

According to Günter Ederer, the German journalist who has reported on Ewert’s findings:

From the publicly available data, Ewert made an unbelievable discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950. […] A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed.

Apart from Australia, the planet has in fact been on a cooling trend:

Using the NASA data from 2010 the surface temperature globally from 1940 until today has fallen by 1.110°C, and since 2000 it has fallen 0.4223°C […]. The cooling has hit every continent except for Australia, which warmed by 0.6339°C since 2000. The figures for Europe: From 1940 to 2010, using the data from 2010, there was a cooling of 0.5465°C and a cooling of 0.3739°C since 2000.

But the activist scientists at NASA GISS – initially led by James Hansen (pictured above), later by Gavin Schmidt – wanted the records they are in charge of maintaining to show warming not cooling, so they began systematically adjusting the data for various spurious reasons using ten different methods.

The most commonly used ones were:

  • Reducing the annual mean in the early phase.
  • Reducing the high values in the first warming phase.
  • Increasing individual values during the second warming phase.
  • Suppression of the second cooling phase starting in 1995.
  • Shortening the early decades of the datasets.
  • With the long-term datasets, even the first century was shortened.

Ewert’s findings echo that of US meteorologists Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts who examined 6,000 NASA weather stations and found a host of irregularities both with the way they were sited and how the raw data had been adjusted to reflect such influences as the Urban Heat Island effect.

Britain’s Paul Homewood is also on NASA GISS’s case. Here he shows the shocking extent of the adjustments they have made to a temperature record in Brazil which has been altered so that a cooling trend becomes a warming trend.

Unadjusted temperature record: shows cooling trend.

For still more evidence of NASA’s adjustments, check out Alterations to Climate Data at Tony Heller’s Real Climate Science.

Tony Heller made these gifs to illustrate NASA GISS edits to the global temperature record:

Thursday, 2 May 2019

Today's so-called "Skeptics" are our Witch-finder Generals

First let me say that I agree with the underlying premise. It is not a logical fallacy (argument from authority) to defer to a strong consensus of legitimate expert opinion if you yourself lack appropriate expertise. Deference should be the default position
-- Steven Novella

Today, the so-called Skeptical Science community turn their backs on skepticism. They deny 'argument from authority' is a logical fallacy. By redefining its meaning so they can do it without thinking ill of themselves.

They are not true critical thinkers. Novella's basic argument is when in doubt: guess. The safest guess is the majority one. Side with the majority of 'experts'. This is both anti-critical and anti-skeptic idea. It is a betrayal of Western Philosophy, Science and the Enlightenment tradition. Immanuel Kant said that 'Enlightenment is thinking for yourself'. Dare to be open-minded ; to work it out for yourself. Socrates said that it made no sense to accept an argument on the authority of another person - because unless one is able to articulate why you think as you do - you are not actually thinking; you are echoing other people's words. Accepting argument from authority is to: to echo another person's thoughts without understanding much about the issue.

This is anti-skeptical. It legitimises self-lobotomy. Don't think for yourself. Don't do due diligence. Just side with the majority, burn the witches.

There are many reasons why we should reject the authority of self-styled experts in the climate debate:

  1. Many experts are not experts. These experts had a paper retracted because they were too lazy to check their primary school-level arithmetic. Some experts!
  2. Causes of climate change aren't really that hard to figure out for oneself. I managed it, and I'm no Einstein.
  3. Self-styled experts in climate science of the 97% persuasion refuse to debate their critics. Even were I to consider accepting their argument from authority on climate change, the fact they are too cowardly to debate is a certain sign they know they're wrong. It is a massive red flag. I notice Steven Novella did not publish my reply to his blog. He obviously does not believe in debate. He is a fake skeptic.
  4. Accepting argument from authority as a legitimate stance bows one's head to authoritarianism. It is anti-intellectual, tribal, and nothing good will come of it. It is profoundly anti-democratic.

Tuesday, 16 April 2019

Why the basic greenhouse gas model is wrong

1. Scientific data used to make the models is wrong

Chemists, and climate scientists: John Abbot and John Nicol wrote a chapter in Climate Change: The Facts 2017 explaining, in detail, how actual experimental data and empirically derived results are ignored by climate models (demonized in fact as climate denial) Climate models are written by mathematical modelers who tell the real world how it should behave. They ignore actual radiative behaviour of carbon dioxide, in favour of their own imaginary behaviour for it.

  • Barrett; 1985, 2005
  • Laubereau, A & Iglev H; 2013
  • Lightfoot, HD & Mamer, OA 2014

2. CO2 emits more IR radiation than it absorbs at most atmospheric temperatures

Although CO2 absorbs thermal radiation from the Earth, it emits more. Carbon dioxide is in thermal deficit in terms of radiative balance. Nitrogen and oxygen constantly feed CO2 with heat so that it maintains a temperature higher than its radiative equilibrium. CO2 is a coolant.

CO2 is in radiative deficit until the temp is down to -77.8°C.

When you only use up and down meters, you’ll only see up and down readings. Have you heard of something called mean free path length by the way?

CO2 is being kept warm by collisions with warm N2, O2, and H2O (water vapour) while it is busy trying to radiate it’s way to radiative equilibrium at -77.8C

-- Rog Tallbloke‏

Normally, even the tropopause and statosphere don't get cold enough to tip the carbon dioxide radiative balance to absorb more often than it emits.

3. Infrared radiation does not heat oceans

A simple experiment shows that "nearly all the Long Wave GHG energy is returned almost immediately to the atmosphere and space as latent heat of evaporation."

... CMIP5 models don’t ... allow for the fact that the long wave GHG energy is almost entirely absorbed in the evaporation layer of water while solar energy is not ...

-- RA Irvine

71% of earth's surface is covered by water. Sunlight penetrates deeply into water and heats it. Infrared radiation penetrates mere micrometres into water; it can only heat the surface skin. But such heating results in the energy being used to provide latent heat of vapourization, LHV, which causes water to evaporate. The evaporated water than goes to cloud layer (due to convection, because water (MWt = 18), molecules are much lighter than nitrogen or oxygen.

As wet convected atmosphere rises it cools. At the cloud layer water precipitates out as cloud droplets; giving back its latent heat of vapourization miles above earth's surface. So this energy of LHV 'warms'[note] the upper troposphere where clouds form. The atmosphere there then radiates that energy, mostly to space.

Latent heat of vapourization, LHV: This is the heat/energy required to change the state of water (or other liquid, from liquid to gas in this case). When absorbed, it does not raise the temperature of water. It breaks the hydrogen bonding in liquid water. The amount of LHV is equal to 66% of the heat which would otherwise raise the temperature of water from 0 C to 100 C. It is a lot of heat. This is why, when water boils, it does not all evaporate at once. It still needs latent heat of vapourization to change state from liquid to gas. Hydrogen bonds in liquid water are much stronger than most other liquids, and explain why water has such a high LHV value. In turn, that high LHV, explains why this method of evaporative cooling is so important to earth's climate and so flexible. If earth does get a bit warmer, evaporative cooling of oceans can quickly increase to cool it down. So it accounts for earth's remarkably steady climate temperature over billions of years. It's climatic air-conditioning.

LHV causes about half the surface cooling. The other half is due to radiative cooling.

note: Rather than warm, we should say it pauses the cooling. Because the higher the atmosphere rises, the less dense it becomes, so the cooler it would normally get. Anyhow: we know the released LHV is not retained in the atmosphere. It is immediately emitted as infrared at an altitude where the atmosphere is much thinner (than at the surface) and there is a lot less water vapour able to reabsorb it. Much of the space-bound infrared released as LHV can go straight out to space.

  • Irvine, RA, 2015, 'A comparison of the efficacy of green house gas forcing and solar forcing'; WIT Transactions on Engineering Sciences, Vol 83, 2014; ISSN 1743-3533 (on-line), doi:10.2495/HT140241

4. "Who stole my water vapour feedback?" Two-thirds of the model(s) effect is pure fraud

Models mostly assume that an approximate 1C global temperature rise results from doubling carbon dioxide in earth's atmosphere. In addition to this the warmer atmosphere (due to carbon dioxide radiative forcing) will retain the same relative humidity. With a warmer temperature this means that actual specific humidity will increase. Because water vapour is a greenhouse gas too, the extra water vapour will cause another 2C global temperature rise. For a total of 3C.

Another body of empirical evidence that demonstrates the incorrect assumptions in CAGW climate models is from radiosonode data, which shows that specific humidity near the top of the troposphere (i.e., 300 mb) is on the decline as CO2 concentrations increase.

This inverse relationship yet again demonstrates that the overstating of positive feedbacks in climate models and in this case the supposed positive feedback of tropospheric H2O to rising CO2 concentrations, is contrary to empirical evidence and another reason models consistently overstate anomalous rises in tropospheric air temperatures over the past 20 years.

--Joseph Fournier

This increased humidity is fraudulent. It is not found. I'm willing to let people guess about it for a decade or so, but this has been projected in climate models for over 30 years, since at least 1988. Just about all climate models do it. It is pure fraud.

5. The assumed balance sheet for earth's energy budget is wrong.

The calculations for carbon dioxide radiative forcing assume that earth was in energy equilibrium before carbon dioxide increased, in the last 100 years. But the energy budget has huge errors in it. The potential errors in readings were already ten times the supposed imbalance caused by carbon dioxide.

In addition to the already existing errors, there are even more. We are now discovering that the sun emits large amounts of very high energy radiation: x-rays (and even gamma rays. Modern accurate data is often ignored by models.

6. The optical thickness of the atmosphere is unchanged

The climate consensus greenhouse gas model predicts that atmosphere will become more opaque to infrared radiation. But that is not happening.

Here is a study that examined evidence looking for changes in the overall optical thickness of the atmosphere. If IR active gases such as CO2 and H2O increase, then the optical thickness likewise increases. However, what they showed is that because H2O has its own mind and follows changes in sea surface temperature and surface solar radiation, there has been little no net increase in the optical thickness over the past 80 years.

--Joseph Fournier

7. The basic model is wrong

I will look at a paper published by James Hansen, et al., in 2011. In this, he gives a simple, concise, explanation for the greenhouse gas effect, GHGE. He discusses how it could be validated (AKA tested, and passed using falsification criteria). He does not actually use such a phrase. Hansen talks of testing his model; but a failed test should amount to model falsification in any scientific discussion.

What do I mean by 'model'

I do not mean IPCC computer model. Not the kind of models which must be run on supercomputers. I (and James Hansen) refer to a much simpler, basic model which calculates the greenhouse gas effect. This basic model is modified in many different ways. By selecting different feedbacks, etc. It is then built into those computer models. It's important to know that every climate alarmist modeler is using the same basic model. They all employ the same basic calculations to find the GHGE (expected climate warming). Any significantly different model is deemed climate denial. Funds will be cut off to anyone using such a model and they will be driven out of employment. As happened, for example to, Ferenc Miskolczi. Climate alarmists do not tolerate dissent. Ooops. Must not rant. The fact they're all using the same basic model is good because we can refute this basic GHGE model in the same way. Thereby refuting every alarmist computer model.

After explaining it, Hansen draws upon his GHGE model; as if the model is 'real'. I.e. As if the model represents reality. This is a massive fallacy; essentially a reversion to a kind of idealism. Like Plato's world: but where the 'ideals' are scientific models and theories.

Falsification Criteria

Hansen is clear, in his paper, that heat energy, leaving earth, measured from space, will validate his model. This heat energy is electromagnetic radiation known as infrared. It is also called outgoing longwave radiation, OLR.

The model only 'works' to warm the climate because, it describes an 'energy imbalance' caused when there is less energy emitted to space (as OLR) than arrives on earth (as insolation; AKA sunlight).

Hansen's GHGE model is what he believes happens in the real world. That GHGE is due to less OLR emitted to space. It is not just a mathematical trick. He believes it is a simulation of reality. As such reality behaves as his model describes. If reality did not behave that way his simulation must be wrong. So his model must be wrong.

What does the Satellite data Show?

Hansen believes there are 2 ways to measure the climate warming he models. One way is by measuring heat energy emitted to space, but satellites. The diagram below is not Hansen's work. It was published last year.

Actual satellite data of radiated heat (OLR) shows it increased since 1985. The satellite data clearly shows the impact of the 2nd-largest volcanic eruption of the 20th century: Mount Pinatubo, in 1991, which killed 847 people at the time, and led to considerable climate cooling.

The OLR data diametrically oppose Hansen's GHGE simulation/model. So the data falsify the climate consensus GHGE model. In interpreting the Satellite data - an increase in OLR reflects previous warming and a decrease shows cooling (e.g. 1991-1992, due to Mount Pinatubo). This is, the complete opposite of what Hansen says warming represents.

Perhaps you believe that the warming is happening but is obscured by other variable factors? The 'climate consensus' are clear that 90%, or more, of modern climate change is man-made. Meaning 90% is the GHGE. Therefore the effects predicted by James Hansen's GHGE model should dominate.

PS: Hansen's paper is open access: You can download the pdf or read the paper online. Search for it using the doi: