Review: Rex Fleming: Rise and Fall of the CO2 theory of Climate Change

Dr Rex Fleming, an ex- Climate modeller (now retired), with qualifications in physics and maths, renounces IPCC and establishment to look at what really causes climate change. He says that climate models fail and

"CO₂ does not contribute any net heating to the atmosphere column - though both CO₂ and H₂O contribute to the thermal blanket at the earth's surface.

His motive: Fleming breaks ranks with the climate establishment on humanitarian grounds because of the deliberate attempt to obstruct fossil fuel use. Many regions in Africa have grossly inefficient energy systems or no energy systems. Leaving: inadequate clean water and food, landscape denuded of trees, women forced to cook with dried animal dung.

• 30,000 people die of diseases due to poverty each day
• ⅓ of earth's population lack electricity
• 1 billion people have no clean water
• ½ billion people go to bed hungry each night

Far from global warming being a worry - the opposite - a return to cold conditions of the Little Ice Age is a huge concern.

IPCC climate change: IPCC / establishment definition of climate change is wrong. IPCC definite climate change as a change in earth's surface temperature over a 30-year period; with humans overwhelming the cause. Let's call the IPCC version of climate change: anthropogenic global warming, AGW - as there's no scope there for humans to cool the climate. In fact: recent research shows that more CO₂ in the atmosphere promotes plant growth and more vegetation does, indeed, cool the climate! by about ⅓C in vegetated areas. In addition the 30 year period over which climate is decided has always been wrong because there are clear ocean cycles lasting longer than 30 years! (65 to 70 years!) - such as the AMO

They have ulterior political motives to promote renewables and abolish fossil fuel use.

IPCC tactics are to scare the public over extreme weather - supposedly caused by people: Hurricanes, bush fires, heat waves are all blamed on humanity. They acieve their objectives by replacing the temperature record with anomalies and adjusting to make the anomalies look big. Justifying 90% AGW with bad models. Mass media is ruthless controlled to censor reason and dissenting views.

The global temperature anomally relates to nothing but itself.

Bad models: vastly exaggerate the role of carbon dioxide in climate. In particular: climate models misattribute warming to CO₂ which is really due to H₂O. For example, at the surface, water vapour (up to 40000ppm) is up to 100 times more concentrated than CO₂ (400ppm). Although CO₂(g) is a more powerful GHG than H₂O(g), by 5.5, H₂O(g) causes 18 times more warming. The ratio of CO₂:H₂O GHGE, at the surface is 5.5 : 100. Only 5.5% of it can be due to CO₂.

Oceans and atmosphere are turbulent, interacting, fluids. Atmospheric winds drive ocean currents and oceans exchange heat and chemicals with the atmosphere. The atmosphere is chaotic and oceans have chaotic elements too.

There are 3 dynamic atmospheric processes transferring heat from earth's surface:

1. Radiation
2. Sensible heat transfer (Convection and conduction)
3. Latent heat transfer - due to the vapourization of water at the surface, and condensation as water droplets (AKA clouds) in the upper troposphere

Radiation also works to transfer heat to space. But due to changing amounts of water vapour with altitude it works differently according to altitude. The relative role of radiation has been bother exaggerated and misrepresented. The effect of the sun on climate is much greater than media and establishment say; amounting to fraudulent misrepresentation.

Note:

Temperature adjustments IPCC measure temperature changes since 1880; claiming human fossil fuel use increased climate warming by 1C. Their trick is to manipulate temperature records and always talk in terms of temperature anomalies (never actual terran surface averages). This enables them to set the starting position of global temperature (in 1880) at anything they want. In practice: they set it at about 14C, or less. In fact a book written in 1889 stated the average global surface temperature was 14.6C. Many metrological institutes today still measure the global surface temperature at below 15C - indicating a real rise of only about 0.4C over 110 years; when they claim temperature rises of at least 1C due to man-made changes over the last century! PS: Fleming does not state this]

Summary

Dr Fleming, very much agrees with Henrik Svensmark's cosmic ray theory of climate change which explains shorter term climate change in terms of solar cycles. I too, believe solar cycles dominate climate changes. We know that changes in clouds over the past 4 decades (net global changes of at least 7% in cloud cover) ara the dominant cause of earth's warming. I don't go as far as attributing all those changes to cosmic ray variation. The evidence for cosmic rays as a sole cause is not yet here. The evidence for the sun dominating climate change (99% of it) is here.

This is a valuable book on technical aspects of climate change. It's a must read. I also recommend Don Easterbrook's new book to complement it.

14.6 degrees Celsius = average surface temperature in 1889!

Reblog: Original by Eric Negron

---

Facebook Fact Check

This time I check out the facts on Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Dr James Croll published a book in 1889. It was a reply to critics of a book he wrote in 1885 or before. From page 60 in “Discussions on Climate and Cosmology,” => See photo. His Distribution of Heat on the Surface of the Globe, according to “Dove” was seen in the photo below. From that data, I calculated a GLOBAL AIR TEMPERATURE of 58.225 degrees Fahrenheit. Or about 14.6 degrees Celsius.

Now turning to this website, “They depict how much various regions of the world have warmed or cooled when compared with a base period of 1951-1980. (The global mean surface air temperature for that period was estimated to be 14°C (57°F), with an uncertainty of several tenths of a degree.) In other words, the maps show how much warmer or colder a region is compared to the norm for that region from 1951-1980.” https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/wor.../global-temperatures

For agreements sake, let us agree that the 2020 GAT is 15 degrees Celsius or 59.0 degrees Fahrenheit. What we cannot agree on is the adjusted temperature in the past. Skeptics maintain that Climate Scientists have cooled the past global temperatures. But let’s not bicker about that here, nor there.

What we can agree on is that a NORMAL GAT distribution between 14.6 and 15 degrees Celsius is possible. We can agree that the Earth Observatory’s GAT is NOT a normal temperature distribution. Therefore we can make no conclusion about the current Trend of warming/cooling temperature because it may fall well within a given NORMAL distribution of GAT. In other words, global warming has been concocted to reflect warming ocean temperatures er the last 150 years. That land based temperatures are heavily influenced by changes in increasing ocean temperatures surprises no one here. The fact that Global Warming is much more than much ado about nothing surprises us Skeptics.

1. Alarmist do not have global data.
2. Alarmist do not have quality data over the period.
3. Data aggregation methods are questionable, at best.
4. Conclusions based on questionable data are questionable.

---

Now let us throw out my opinion and return to Dr Croll’s Distribution of Heat on the Surface of the Globe. Why do I get the feeling that his measurement of 14.6 degrees Celsius made prior to 1890’s and average global air temperatures of 14.6 degrees Celsius as late as 2010 perfectly match?

---

Distribution of Heat upon the Surface of the Globe was written in 1853. Boys, would I love to see the data.
The distribution of heat over the surface of the globe : illustrated by isothermal thermic isabnormal and other curves of temperature
Author: Heinrich Wilhelm Dove
Publisher: London : Taylor and Francis for the British Association for the Advancement of Science, 1853.
Series: Landmarks of science.
Edition/Format: Book Microform : Micro-opaque : EnglishView all editions and formats

Reasons to reject climate alarmism, and fake science

1. it destroys free speech on the climate issue. In UK, the BBC is now an intellectual desert on the climate issue. Killed by censorship, suicided - if you like.
2. misinforms the public about the scientific status of climate models, which I'm told are: "simple physics" and "settled science"
3. misallocates research spending to pseudoscience - such as invalid climate models
4. refuses to allocate sufficient funds to what matters - the study of the sun - so we know less than we should during GSM. This can kill people
5. it attacks science and the scientific method.
6. activists try to cancel those who support rigorous science: it destroys good science careers.
7. it allows charlatans, incompetents and fakers to prosper
8. it promotes the destruction of economies - as we replace reliable energy systems with weather, seasonal, and diurnal dependent systems. Evidenced by Germanys very expensive Energiewende having no effect in reducing greenhouse gas emissions
9. now Biden is mongering for economic warfare against countries which fail his standards: it potentially promotes hot and cold wars. Before you dismiss the idea of climate alarmism causing hot wars - I'd like to remind you the Second World War was due to Malthusian beliefs on the part of the top Nazis. They believed the only way to secure the prosperity of the Germany people was to expand the land area of Germany.
10. it promotes a nihilistic attitude to existence. When people blame humans for this, that and the other they become fatalistic, cynical, and sometimes suicidal in their personal lives and social attitudes. Instead of seeing human agency as the solution to problems they see people are the cause of problems.
11. 'white people cause climate change' is now an excuse for promoting racial antagonism
12. did I mention climatism concern is racist and anti-human?
13. Who is the real enemy of Humanity?. Part 2