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:

Sunday, 14 April 2019

Why I became a climate change skeptic.

Originally I was a believer. I swallowed the myth that there was a consensus of scientists who believed man-made climate change was a civilization threatening issue and caused by greenhouse gases.

But there were always some large circles which could not be squared.

Climate sensitivity. Estimates variety over an order of magnitude range: from 1.1 to 11. Yet they say they're doing 'simple physics'! Everywhere else in physics numbers are given to several places of decimals; at most within the same ball-park (like the age of the universe from 3 decades ago). How can one claim to be so certain when one is so uncertain?

That go me hooked; even though the science seemed cryptic and unfathomable. That's where I began looking. Right away it was skeptics providing the most interesting discussion of this greenhouse effect. Skeptics actually discussing, rather than closing down conversations with accusations of: shill, denier, and flat-earther.

Renewable Energy. It doesn't take one long to discover that renewable energy is a load of crap. Who are the people most supporting renewables? Those most alarmed by the climate. Who most opposes nuclear power. The same people! The single most important non-CO2 emitting tool we have - nuclear fission power - is ruled too dangerous. One or two climate alarmists told me they've rather see the 'planet burn' than support nuclear power.

After that, I realized the climate debate, and energy debate were not about climate or energy. They were proxies for something else. Then I began actually studying the climate system.

Friday, 12 April 2019

One to try.

Reblog: Guan

One of the most significant findings related to human development is the discovery of neuro-plasticity by brain scientists. Whenever we receive new information the brain makes new connections to process that information. If the information is useful or provides a better way of doing things it will become the dominant pathway and old patterns will fade away due to non-use.

“A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest” is the biggest impediment to using the unlimited growth the brain is capable of. Confirmation bias is a natural function of the primitive brain which seeks understanding of the world through it’s infinitesimal range of personal experience. The correlations it makes to create this understanding become the foundation for circular reasoning . Reality then becomes a projection based on limited experience rather than an objective witnessing of how cause and effect brings everything into being. Most people accept what they hear without critical thought so can have their realities programmed by others easily. Alarmists scientists don’t understand that they are stuck in a closed loop of circular reasoning.

Byron Katie has developed a methodology for questioning assumptions and getting past the projections of mind to clearer states of consciousness. A key component of “The Work” is the turnaround. After questioning beliefs to see if they can be proven true you try believing the opposite to get a different perspective.

Most commenter’s here already posses critical thinking skills and have trained their brains to question assumptions. That is what separates fantasy from reality.

Sunday, 31 March 2019

Overdetermination - whatever you want it to be!

"Overdetermination" : means there are multiple causes affecting each other so it's hard to attribute precise cause. The Left use overdetermination in Marxism, and Psychoanalysis to keep their metatheories by saying -

"we must know everything to understand, but we can't, so we can rely on metatheory to fill in the gaps. Because our metatheories drive history, economy, the relationship between men and women, the relationship between the individual and state"
But how exactly do you know that? Show me your proof. -
"I can't explain right now; it's all too complex. It's overdetermined. Here: read these books, then you will understand the essence: the metatheories."

Yes. thankyou. But how do I know the metatheories are true, when you cannot conclusively prove them because it's all overdetermined?

The "heartbeat" of the Sun

Yet when it suits them they completely ignore overdetermination. For example in climate - everything is blamed on man, on greenhouse gases like CO2. No dearies. It's the Sun, and the relationship between the Sun and Earth which, drives almost everything in climate.

Now we're finally discovering deep engines driving effects in the Sun:

Pseudoscience, myth and Skepticism. Firsthand snapshots.

I've experienced, believed, disbelieved a lot of pseudoscience in my time. My journey is similar to many others. We're all taken in by tall stories. We sometimes react quite forcefully when we find we've been lied to.

  • Chariots of the Gods. Seriously: I took it out of the library and read it. What a pile of cobblers. I never took any of it seriously but,..
  • Hippy nonsense. Macrobiotics, and other gibberish. I believed some of this junk. So I understand how and why, people believe things which are clearly not happening. You take it on trust from people you have faith in. Because none of us have the time to research everything for ourselves.
  • Linear No-threshold dose-response, LNT. Was explained to me in biology or physics class as an undergraduate. I sat at the front of the class and questioned the lecturer immediately (I remember he had red hair, a beard, and gentle Scottish accent; but only my general argument and his response. Not the actual words exchanged). Because a linear dose-response is not something I expect from biological organisms! He said "We know this. We're certain". I took that to mean - we've done the experiments and can show it. No. They never did low dose experiments to show LNT.
  • Tomatoes cause cancer?!%$. A conversation with my eldest sister about tomatoes. She asked me whether I though "tomatoes cause cancer"? Right through my entire life I've been told X, or Y cause cancer. For example: coffee causes cancer (Don't worry. It really does not).
  • Cancer. At sometime, or other, almost everything under the sun, especially man-made things have been accused of causing cancer. By scientists - not by eco-loonies.
  • New Scientist, Scientific American and sensationalist science. Popular science was taken over by sensationalism, novelty, and speculation. Round about the early 1970s. Magazines which used to publish actual science (some of which you could do for yourself!) became mouth-pieces for sensation, novelty, and speculative stories with some tendentious scientific connection.
  • I studied continental philosophy (French and German, part-time) for 3 years in the early 1980s under Peter Dews. He really was an excellent teacher. Once you believe any philosophical system you can believe any old nonsense. This taught me that even people who see through the nonsense of everyday thinking, and common sense can be easy victims to a system of thought, like:
  • Marxism, Psychoanalysis and Postmodernism. At first glance none of these are science. But Marxism did claim to be Scientific Socialism, and Psychoanalysis said it was a science.
  • Skepticism. I can't remember which Michael Shermer book I read, he's written so many. But I remember being disappointed by it because he took on lots of easy targets.
  • Drugs. So much nonsense is written about illegal drugs. The one I remember most was the Ricaurte 1986 study on MDMA published in leading journal Science showing fried brains caused by MDMA. Published just as new anti-MDMA legislation went through. The study (not the law) was later retracted because they accidentally, used methamphetamine in the study instead of MDMA!!.
  • Russian science. Talking to chemists (I have a chemistry education), about published Russian research. A lot of which is apparently junk.
  • Looked into Scientific racism a bit. Read Stephen Jay Gould's "Mismeasure of Man" and Elazar Barkan's excellent: "Retreat of Scientific Racism".
  • Biofuels. First noticed a big discussion of this in chemistry forums in mid-1990s. Conservative chemists convinced me it was junk science with a few back-of-the-envelope calculations. Even though it is junk, many scientists made their careers from it.
  • Ozone and CFCs. I actually taught this pseudoscience: The ozone layer is destroyed by CFCs to high school students in the late 1980s; to illustrate free-radical chain reactions by example. It's nonsense. CFCs have no great effect. E.g. read: Holes in the Ozone
  • String Theory. Anyone who hasn't read "Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, ..." by Lee Smolin really should read it. For about 10 years every 2nd physics doctorate candidate was funneled into studying string theory because the world's leading physicists got it into their head that it held the secret of Grand Unification Theory In a sense string theory is not even wrong. I can neither be shown nor refuted because there is not test one can make for it's validity. This taught me the importance of the null hypothesis, and the falsifiable hypothesis
  • At first, I believed the AGW radiative forcing argument against carbon dioxide without even looking into it in detail. Like the anti-CFC and many cancer arguments it seemed plausible.
  • Anti-fossil fuels. This stretches back a long way. Fossil fuels are running out, they pollute, cause global warming, ... Anti-fossil fuel thinking was insinuated into my bones by a lifetime of anti-fossil fuel propaganda, taken in unconsciously. Initially I accepted the fossil fuel kills upto 5 million people argument. This is based on assumption made against PM2.5 EPA spent over ½ $billion funding PM2.5 toxicology research. They got nothing conclusive against it and their main hypothesis was never even close to being proved. That did not stop them believing in the hypothesis! Steve Milloy explains this pseudoscience in Scare Pollution,
  • The blank slate argument in education. This has been viciously fought throughout my entire lifetime, as well. From genes largely determine to development and education largely determine to the present time: where it's slightly biased in favour of genes. Left Scientists always wore their heart (and anti-capitalism) on their selves. But the politics was always far better then any science they did.
  • My time promoting nuclear power on the internet. Taught me that nuclear power is safe (relatively, when well-regulated, as it is, in fact: over-regulated), anti-nukes have 1001-arguments. I discovered that experts believe junk. Here is a junk 2016 study I helped retract.
  • LNT. Return. I discovered that LNT was junk science about 2014.
  • Statistics, damned lies, and statistics. Statisticians became a lot more responsible in the last 10 years. The kind of hoodoo which once sailed through science publication with a couple of statistical tricks in no longer as acceptable. Andrew Gelman | Matt Briggs | Philip B. Stark and Andrea Saltelli

There's more pseudoscience around today than at any time in history. Nearly all of it is written by scientists. This the the big change I've seen during my life. Back when I was young, the pseudoscience was written by pseudoscientists with little science education. Now it's written by pseudoscientists with doctorates! And there's a lot more of them, they publish far more frequently. The one saving grace is today's pseudoscience is more sciency. Not so outrageously nutty. But this is making it far harder to detect. It easily slips under the radar of most scientists.

Climate change is a myth

I think the best argument, distilled to its essence, explaining the myth of climate change, caused by small changes in carbon dioxide, is this:

The self-styled “climate consensus” define themselves as the only legitimate voice in climate science. They say:

  • Climate change means man-made change, because 90% of modern climate change is man-made.
  • This climate change is overwhelmingly due to increasing emissions of greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide. Made by burning fossil fuel.
  • This greenhouse gas warms earth because it causes less outgoing longwave radiation, OLR, to be emitted to space, so warming earth due to the consequent energy imbalance; because incoming solar warming is near constant.
  • There is only one basic model used by them to calculate radiative forcing due to greenhouse gases. This model defines them as the climate consensus.

In the real world, satellites show:

  • More OLR (outgoing longwave radiation) leaving our planet, over time, in the last 33 years. By a big margin too, an extra 2W/m² compared to 1985.
  • Satellite data diametrically contradicts the “climate consensus” greenhouse gas model; which explains how greenhouse gases warm the climate.

It follows that either the satellites are wrong, or the self-styled “climate consensus” are wrong.

References (both open access):

1. The basic greenhouse gas warming explanation: Hansen, J., M. Sato, P. Kharecha, and K. von Schuckmann, 2011: Earth’s energy imbalance and implications. Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 13421-13449, doi:10.5194/acp-11-13421-2011.

2. Satellite data: Steven Dewitte and Nicolas Clerbaux, Decadal Changes of Earth’s Outgoing Longwave Radiation; Remote Sens. 2018, 10(10), 1539;

Thursday, 7 March 2019

When 'the data doesn’t matter', what can you 'believe in'?

Steve O :
I’m trying to get my arms around what this group believes regarding the MWP.
Chris Folland:
“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”

They 'believe in' their GHGE models.

I'm interested in why they 'believe in' GHGE equations/models, derived from Arrhenius' 19th century model[1]. Why is so little in their models is verified against the real world?[5] Why do they scorn modern work done on carbon dioxide absorption and emittance spectra (studies: 1985, 2005, 2013, 2014)[2,3,6,7]? Why has no one done an experiment since 1900 (Knut Angstrom, who failed to show it) to verify this GHGE 'warming the surface'? Why they think downwelling LWIR (due to more CO2 warms oceans, when, they otherwise agree, that such D-LWIR penetrates mere micrometres into the ocean to have a tiny effect warming the surface skin?

When I tell them their GHGE hypothesis says earth warms because less OLR is emitted to space, they rationalize away real world data showing a 2W/m² increase (4 complete data sets) in OLR emitted to space since 1985[4]. Real world doing the opposite of their models.

It's nearly always the same pattern with bad science: cherry pick, model, twist statistics. Actual data fraud is rare. The driving mechanism is groupthink, not conscious fraud. They even think changing past temperatures to delete 1910 - 1940 warming is 'science'. Much like they think Mann-derived MWP-elimination studies are science. Alarmists are just hacks doing the UN's bidding; not good scientists. If politicians want anti-scientist alarmists in charge of climate science; all we can do is change the politicians.

  1. Arrhenius, S 1896, ‘On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground’, Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 237-276.
  2. Barrett, J 1985, ‘Paper on Spectra of Carbon Dioxide’, Villach Conference, Austria, October 6-19.
  3. Barrett, J 2005, ‘Greenhouse molecules, their spectra and function in the atmosphere’, Energy & Environment, vol. 16, no. 6. DOI: 10.1260/095830505775221542
  4. Dewitte, S. & Clerbaux, N. Decadal Changes of Earth’s Outgoing Longwave Radiation, 25 Sept 2018. Remote Sensing 2018, 10(10), 1539; DOI: 10.3390/rs10101539
  5. Kawamura, Y 2016, ‘Measurement system for the radiative forcing of greenhouse gases in a laboratory scale’, Review of Scientific Instruments, vol. 87, no. 1. DOI: 10.1063/1.4939483
  6. Laubereau, A & Iglev H 2013, ‘On the direct impact of the CO2 concentration rise to the global warming’, EPL, vol. 104, no. 2. DOI: 10.1209/0295-5075/104/29001
  7. Lightfoot, HD & Mamer, OA 2014, ‘Calculation of Atmospheric Radiative Forcing (Warming Effect) Of Carbon Dioxide at any Concentration Energy & Environment’, Energy & Environment, vol. 25, no. 8, pp. 1439-1454. DOI: 10.1260/0958-305X.25.8.1439

Wednesday, 27 February 2019

The Massive flaw in the Greenhouse Gas Effect Theory

AKA: Why the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is not refuted by the greenhouse gas hypothesis

Climate consensus scientists tell us that carbon dioxide (CO2) warms the surface significantly. Their theory derives directly from a hypothesis first proposed by Svante Arrhenius in 1896. 123 years ago. That is the Greenhouse Gas Effect Theory, GHGE. Modern 'climate consensus' scientists have done no real-world, quantitative, studies on this in 31 years of promoting their GHGE as "settled science". More surprisingly, it seems there have been no studies on this since 1900; 119 years ago. In 1900, Knut Ångström, found no surface warming from CO2 when he tried to verify Svante Arrhenius's hypothesis that doubling CO2 in the atmosphere will warm the surface by about 4.8K. I think climate consensus scientists must be very incurious people for 'scientists', and very ignorant to talk about CO2 warming the surface without good proof. What is their issue, never doing basic science to validate their hypothesis?

  • Do they lack skill? Easy, just commision an experimental physicist whom they trust.
  • Is it an impossible experiment? No. Knut Ångström did it 119 years ago, and modern physicists have proposed how best to do it today.
  • Do they lack funds? Unlikely, given the billions in annual funding that climate science has been getting for decades.

What do they do with the money, and why are they so incurious for scientists?

Why the conventional, climate consensys, GHGE hypothesis is wrong:

  • Molecular electrons have different energy levels.
  • These energy levels are quantized. That is to say, exist at distinct, precise, energy levels. Much like photons have a distinct energy packet.
  • Cold molecules have electrons at low energy levels.
  • IR (& EMR) is absorbed by molecules to promote electrons to higher levels
  • Conversely: when a molecule cools, its electrons will demote from higher to lower levels. Often by emitting an IR photon
  • But cold IR (low energy) is only absorbed by electrons at low energy levels
  • Electrons are 'promoted' in order. First the low energy levels are used, then the higher levels.
  • Electrons don't absorb IR associated with lower energy levels when they are already at a higher level.
  • Because an electron needs an, ever higher, quantum of energy to gain the next level.
  • The electron needs that energy all-at-once. Hence the term 'quantum'; meaning a single IR photon delivers the energy.
  • The electron does not get its energy, to gain promotion, from many photons of low energy IR. It does not store this energy associated with an IR photon while remaining at the energy level it's at.
  • Warm molecules do not have electrons at low energy levels
  • CO2 IR emissions emit IR at a modal temperature = 253K, -62K significantly below average earth surface temperature. [awaiting precise correction]

    (modal = blue mode line)
  • So IR emitted by CO2 can only promote electrons from low energy levels to slightly higher levels.
  • But a warm surface has very few electrons at those low energy levels. They've already been promoted. That's why it's warmer!
  • So, in general, IR from CO2 'does not warm the surface'. Nearly all the cold LWIR from CO2 can't find surface electrons 'cold' enough to be promoted.
  • A few CO2 IR photons may be absorbed by the surface. Generally the higher energy photons from the left side of the mode.
  • But the vast majority IR photons from CO2 can't find a suitable electron (in surface molecules) at a low enough energy level
  • Warmer air can still warm the surface by conduction. But that is very slow. In general, air is only warmer than the surface at night. So only warms the surface by a little at night
  • CO2 still 'traps heat'. It absorbs some IR leaving the ground to warm the air.
  • But ~99% of that energy absorbed by the air is never coming back to warm the surface.

In general, the Greenhouse gas effect theory of CO2 causing dangerous man-made warming is false. Many scientists concluded the GHGE due to more CO2 is about 10% of the warming claimed by the IPCC climate consensus. The consensus is wrong.

PS: By the term 'molecules', I'm not just referring to covalent molecules but all 3 kinds of bonding: covalent, ionic and metallic.

Monday, 4 February 2019

Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past

From the Independent. Almost 20 years ago. Their famous and now censored article. It seems they got tired of people taking the piss out of them. They pulled it off their website. The wayback machine still has it.

Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past

By Charles Onians
Monday, 20 March 2000

Britain's winter ends tomorrow with further indications of a striking environmental change: snow is starting to disappear from our lives.

Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and the excitement of waking to find that the stuff has settled outside are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britain's culture, as warmer winters - which scientists are attributing to global climate change - produce not only fewer white Christmases, but fewer white Januaries and Februaries.

The first two months of 2000 were virtually free of significant snowfall in much of lowland Britain, and December brought only moderate snowfall in the South-east. It is the continuation of a trend that has been increasingly visible in the past 15 years: in the south of England, for instance, from 1970 to 1995 snow and sleet fell for an average of 3.7 days, while from 1988 to 1995 the average was 0.7 days. London's last substantial snowfall was in February 1991.

Global warming, the heating of the atmosphere by increased amounts of industrial gases, is now accepted as a reality by the international community. Average temperatures in Britain were nearly 0.6°C higher in the Nineties than in 1960-90, and it is estimated that they will increase by 0.2C every decade over the coming century. Eight of the 10 hottest years on record occurred in the Nineties.

However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".

"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.

The effects of snow-free winter in Britain are already becoming apparent. This year, for the first time ever, Hamleys, Britain's biggest toyshop, had no sledges on display in its Regent Street store. "It was a bit of a first," a spokesperson said.

Fen skating, once a popular sport on the fields of East Anglia, now takes place on indoor artificial rinks. Malcolm Robinson, of the Fenland Indoor Speed Skating Club in Peterborough, says they have not skated outside since 1997. "As a boy, I can remember being on ice most winters. Now it's few and far between," he said.

Michael Jeacock, a Cambridgeshire local historian, added that a generation was growing up "without experiencing one of the greatest joys and privileges of living in this part of the world - open-air skating".

Warmer winters have significant environmental and economic implications, and a wide range of research indicates that pests and plant diseases, usually killed back by sharp frosts, are likely to flourish. But very little research has been done on the cultural implications of climate change - into the possibility, for example, that our notion of Christmas might have to shift.

Professor Jarich Oosten, an anthropologist at the University of Leiden in the Netherlands, says that even if we no longer see snow, it will remain culturally important.

"We don't really have wolves in Europe any more, but they are still an important part of our culture and everyone knows what they look like," he said.

David Parker, at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Berkshire, says ultimately, British children could have only virtual experience of snow. Via the internet, they might wonder at polar scenes - or eventually "feel" virtual cold.

Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. "We're really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time," he said.

The chances are certainly now stacked against the sortof heavy snowfall in cities that inspired Impressionist painters, such as Sisley, and the 19th century poet laureate Robert Bridges, who wrote in "London Snow" of it, "stealthily and perpetually settling and loosely lying".

Not any more, it seems.

Saturday, 26 January 2019

Man-Made Climate Change Refuted.

The, so-called, climate consensus say people cause climate change. This self-styled consensus say that 90% of modern climate change is caused by humanity. Mainly by burning, carbon-based, fossil fuels to make carbon dioxide gas which remains in the atmosphere for centuries (according to them). That this carbon dioxide, a so-called greenhouse gas, warms the atmosphere by 'trapping heat', slowing the release of infrared energy to space; which they call the greenhouse gas effect, GHGE. According to their theory and model, an imbalance in radiation in and out of the earth causes climate change. The climate consensus say earth absorbs more radiation than it emits.

There is a universal consensus on the main mechanism for earth's warming (it is the sun); and the main mechanism for earth's cooling (loss of outgoing longwave radiation, OLR, to space). When the balance is in favour of the sun (more sun in than OLR out) earth warms. When the balance is the other way - more OLR out than sun in - earth cools. There is no balance, as such, earth is always warming or cooling; but so slowly it's fooled people into thinking the climate is in balance; AKA in equilibrium.

Recent research shows since 1985 there has, indeed, been a radiative imbalance; but the imbalance is in exactly the wrong direction for the climate consensus. Research shows earth cooling, not warming. There is an imbalance between earth's energy in (due to solar warming) and energy out, due to OLR. OLR has increased in the last 33 years. This means earth is cooling.

I suppose I haven't actually refuted 'man-made climate change'. I refuted climate warming due to more CO2 in the atmosphere.


  1. Decadal Changes of Earth’s Outgoing Longwave Radiation, by Steven Dewitte and Nicolas Clerbaux. 25 Sept 2018. Remote Sensing 2018, 10(10), 1539;
  2. The residence time of carbon dioxide in earth's atmosphere is no greater than 9 years. Not centuries as the climate consensus tell us.
  3. OLR: outgoing longwave radiation

Monday, 21 January 2019

Why we love Entropy, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

-- Scientific Laws, Theories, Models and Hypotheses.

This is a comment on Bruce Parker's chapter in 'This Idea Must Die', entitled 'Entropy'. When Bruce Parker says that the Second Law of Thermodynamics "seemed to be an assumption rather than a law", he is being either ignorant or disingenuous. It's a Law because it is always observed.

A Scientific Law is different, in quality, from all 3 others (Theories, Models and Hypotheses) in my subtitle. A Law is a codification of what is observed in the real world. Often expressed as a simple relationship between entities. As such we do not relegate Laws because they are 'not useful', or prevent the development of meta theories such as 'Theory of Everything', or 'Theory of The Universe'. Even a useless law is still a law. If we can formulate an experiment, we may disprove a law by showing a counter example. Such a counter example must be observable and reproducible. If Parker has an experiment which can disprove the 2nd Law, then let him do it. I await his proposal and results; probably until the end of time. It's not the case that experiments can't be devised. More the case that the results of such always confirm the 2nd Law! That's how it became a Law. It was induced from real world observations. How very inconvenient for those with a grudge against reality. Parker's explanation of how the 2nd Law came about is disingenuous. It's wasn't just a finding in Physics. It's universal in Chemistry too. His essay weaves a web of prejudice and innuendo. Is the 2nd Law holding physics back? I don't think so. Scientific Laws ground physics in the real world; a very necessary counter to the speculation which often dominates the formulation of scientific Models and Hypotheses; hence what people believe should be Theories.

So why do we love it? Because it's how the world works. That's the only world we have. It's the one we love.


  1. Book: 'This Idea Must Die', 2015, edited by John Brockman
  2. I can't generally recommend the book above. It has too many weak essays. Recommended for critical thinkers. Not recommended for naive thinkers.

Thursday, 3 January 2019

Book review: The Dynamic Greenhouse Effect and the Climate Averaging Paradox

Dr Roy Clark explains earth's energy fluxes and climate from first principles. He concludes that the fundamental climate consensus model/equations of Manabe & Wetherall, 1968, which are behind the global warming and climate change scares, are both wrong and too simplistic. Clark entirely rejects the idea of a climate in equilibrium, and/or an earth energy balance. This book concentrates on atmospheric effects (warming and cooling) and the greenhouse gas effect. It is not a complete climate book. For example: it doesn't touch on Paleoclimatology, Milankovitch cycles, Little Ice Age, Solar cycles, etc. Clark goes into detail for the climate science he touches on. He uses maths extensively to reach his conclusions but does not give a mathematical approach in the book. Rather a description of what the climate physics implies. So one gets a very readable, comprehensive book; with an outline of a sophisticated alternative to "climate consensus" models. He includes 52 references and 89 diagrams.

In addition to the book, there are two more long articles freely available by Roy Clark