New Freeman Dyson Book: Dreams of Earth and Sky

Freeman Dyson has upset the green movement again, by reminding them that one of the world’s most renowned physicists is a climate skeptic.

According to Dyson;

What I would like to emphasize is that human actions have very large effects on the ecology, which have nothing to do with the climate. Carbon dioxide is what we’re producing in big quantities and putting into the atmosphere. This happens to be a very good fertilizer for all kinds of vegetation, good for wildlife, good for agricultural production, so it has many benefits. And this is something you have together with the climate effects, which are much less certain, so it’s a question of drawing a balance. I’m just saying I don’t understand it and neither does anybody else. I’m skeptical because I don’t think the science is at all clear, and unfortunately a lot of the experts really believe they understand it, and maybe have the wrong answer.

Of course [the weather] concerns me, but of course, we don’t know much about the causes of those things. We don’t even know for sure whether it is more variable than it used to be. I mean the worst disasters were the Ice Ages, and nobody really understands for sure the causes of Ice Ages, so I’m not saying the climate disasters aren’t real, I’m merely saying we don’t know how to prevent them.

Read more:

Dreams of Earth and Sky - available on

Dreams of Earth and Sky – available on

The new book looks interesting. I haven’t read any Freeman Dyson books yet, but I’ve read some of Dyson’s blog posts. In my opinion he has a gift for explaining difficult concepts. The new book, Dreams of Earth and Sky, follows other popular Dyson books, The Scientist as a Rebel, and Disturbing the Universe.

George Dyson, Freeman Dyson’s son, is also an author – I enjoyed reading George’s book Project Orion.


newest oldest most voted
Notify of
The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley

Will the Guardian publish it? Will the BBC mention it?

Dyson like all highly credentials skeptics, is only to be ignored by the alarmist rabble. When pressed, they’ll resort to the usual attacks. In Dyson’s case of course, it’s the insinuation that he’s senile.
We should all be so senile.

Jonas N

… it’s the insinuation that he’s senile.

Most certainly the will. That’s even what they did with one of the ‘stars’ on their own side:
After Roger Revelle co-authored a Cosmos-article with Fred Singer (and C. Starr), they claimed that ‘the old man didn’t know what he was doing’ and that Singer had callously used Revelle’s failing heath to pressure him to accept this.
As a matter of fact, there were quite some substantial efforts made to (after his death) redact Revelle’s name from that article (see: Lancaster’s affidavit, bottom p 8), when it was re-published in the a more prestigeous CRC-volume

Well, that didn’t take long. From a usual source, I pretty much refuse to read anything at the Puffington Host.

Alan the Brit

The more enterprising amongst them will probably attempt something far more insidious to discredit him. Johnny Ball was a childrens’ tv presenter, who’s daughter is also a radio & tv presenter also. Ball is also a mathematician & had a gift for explaining it to youngsters & did so in national tours, helping making maths fun. When he tried to air his sceptical views on AGW many years ago now, the warmists tried to link his name to a few paedophile websites, & nearly made it stick. They will plumb the depths of vile conduct to silence the critics & or knowledgeable! Sadly he is now retired no longer wanted at the BBC!
Our colonial friends may not have heard of Sir Jimmy Saville, another tv presenter/talkshow-host/DJ. He was employed at the BBC for many years & ran a show called “Jim’ll Fix It! A little while ago it became public knowledge after his death, that he had raped, sexually assaulted, & interfered with dozens & dozens of young women from their teens to their twentys throughout his earlier career. It transpired that people within the BBC knew of his conduct, but because he was a huge star in the UK nothing was said. His cover was maintained. Jeremy Clarkeson, lead presenter of the World famous Top Gear prog/show, in a fit of pique & irritability, punched a producer, & was immediately sacked/fired. As someone pointedly said…..”Welcome to the BBC, you can rape, & sexually abuse/assault as many young women as you want, whenever you want, but don’t you dare assault a producer!”. The main reason later investigations failed was that many at the BBC had retired or died themselves, so evidence was difficult to get, although it was clear that people knew! Speaks volumes about the management of the World infamous BBC!


Also, don’t forget, he doesn’t have a “real” PHD!


What is the dirffence between Earth and Sky?????

Richard M

There was an article in Huffington Post. Of course, it attacked the views put forward in the book.
There are more and more comments showing up from skeptics.

I gave up posting at Huff years ago. When I posted arguments that were too cogent to be dismissed they would not see the light of day. My appeals that I had not violated any terms of use were ignored. Have things changed?

Ann Reid Become a fan
Executive Director, National Center for Science Education
“To make a long story short, not only do scientists know a lot about the causes of Ice Ages, they know that we should be entering one now, but human emissions of CO2 are overriding the natural cycles.”
so according to Ann Reid, without human co2 we would now be entering an ice age? most major cities of the world were buried under a mile of ice during the last ice age. it would seem like a benefit to prevent the next one.
Isn’t this similar to something Obama said in one of his speeches? That we are preventing the next Ice Age. Apparently it is OK to be buried under a mile of ice, as this is natural. By the same reasoning we should stop heating our houses or snow plowing roads in winter, as this is not natural.
Pol Pot was also big on getting people back to nature. He managed to plant 1/2 the population of Cambodia in the ground before the Vietnamese stepped in. The environmental movement has been hijacked by the Eugenics movement of the last century, all dressed up under the banner of “Sustainability”.

Crispin in Waterloo

ferd b
Re Pol Pot: He was (forcibly) getting people in touch with their roots. Planting them was the most energy efficient way he could think of. That is one proof he didn’t think all that much. Some of his large scale irrigation works required that water flow uphill. In his mind he would ‘make is so’. The parallels with CAGW are interesting. Imagine, project, force, over-rule, dominate, control. Yeah, some people will die but that is all part of the necessary sacrifices that must be made in order to transform the economy.


Obama’s beloved science czar John Holdren said the same thing not long ago, that AGW is probably preventing us entering the next Ice Age. Since it didn’t advance The Narrative, it was ignored by the MSM.


To sum up Dyson’s brilliant words
Benefits we know with certainty of CO2
– good good for all manner of vegetation
– good for wildlife
– good for agricultural production and feeding the world
Negatives we know with certainty of CO2
– None


Well, we know with certainty that it’s toxic at high doses.
Then again, so is water…

M Seward

You KNOW its makes sense!


Ban dihydrogen monoxide, hydric acid; hydrogen hydroxide.
This sort of thing says more about them than words could ever convey. Attacks on Dyson are beyond appaling, and unfortunately, within character.
*Trigger Warning: Truthfull Content*
The alarmists are part and parcel with a whole host of leftist agendas, the first of which is intolerance.


So’s Beer and whiskey… Ban all the co2 you want for it’s toxicity but leave me my beer.

David Sivyer Western Australia

Excessive concentration of CO2 does not cause death by biochemical action. Death results by lack of oxygen i.e. asphyxiation. CO2 is not “toxic” as such. CO, on the other hand, is an entirely different kettle of fish!


If YOU don’t support the water tax then you are in pay of BIG WATER!

John W. Garrett

The “true believers” who have hijacked NPR had an absolute meltdown that the heretic Dyson was given access to their propaganda broadcasting platform.
It has been quite interesting (and somewhat gratifying) to follow the comments on climate-related stories at NPR over the last decade. Ten years ago, it was rare to see any comment that had the temerity to question the predicted imminent doom faced by humanity from that demon gas, CO2.
There are signs of progress. Today, as seen by the comments on the Freeman Dyson interview, the CAGW conjecture is hotly debated. It has also been reported that NPR has reduced its climate reporting staff. It appears that there has been a slight reduction in what is still a daily barrage of Thermageddon™ doomcasts.
Have a look at the Freeman Dyson interview on NPR:

Joe Crawford

I think NPR started seeing the light after the Republicans gained control of congress and they stupidly fired Juan Williams for appearing on FOX news. They started seeing their gravy train of government funding in real danger of being terminated.


I’ll be more generous. I suspect there are actually some thinking, reasonable folks working at NPR who are getting an inkling something ain’t quite right about the so-called settled science and the IPPC. Not a sea change, but a ripple on the pond. Hope springs eternal.

NPR science reporters may not know enough about science to question the consensus, even if their ideology allowed them to do so.
Robert Krulwich, for instance, has no scientific education beyond high school. He’s a history major and a law school grad.

more soylent green!

Joe, when was the last time Republicans cut funding for anything? I don’t see the money from the federal government in danger of being terminated. Maybe with a change of party leadership and strong majorities of fiscal conservatives in each house, but I don’t see much hope of that happening, either.

Good Lord … NPR … what a joke. I can’t take even five minutes of it.
I call NPR ‘the Nipper’, because that’s what they do to our you-know-whats.
By the way, just for a laugh, here’s Alex Jones making fun of that ubiquitous ‘NPR voice’.

I just started reading the comments there, what a nasty lot of ideologues inhabit that space. Not worth the time to keep going.


Yet – the politicians all want us to ‘limit’ CO2 emissions (and they’ll be taxed anyway) – ‘just in case’ they have any effect whatsoever on the climate….

Robert of Ottawa

Ontario is going to implement a carbon tax of some form because the provincial government is broke and it needs an excuse to take even more money from people.
My question of any such tax is how much colder will it make Ontario? As if we want it colder!

Crispin in Waterloo

You are sadly correct, Robert. Having skated up the Rideau from residence to downtown, I can attest that Ottawa is quite cold enough without limiting anyone’s ability to stave off the winter chill.
The Ontario government is going to bring in the tax because they don’t want to be out-lib’d by California West, Cali-five-nia with inflation and taxes. Soon we will change the name of the province from Onetario to Twotario because the taxes will be steeper (more is better, as all governments know).


Yes, but according to a former Prime Minister of Australia, all the world’s most respected scientists tell us that this is the critical decade to act on climate change.


I thought that was LAST decade. No wait, Hanson said back in 88 that it was the 90’s. Oh well, it doesn’t really matter. I have it on good authority from Ehrlich that we’ve all been dead for nearly half a century now. >¿<


Ha ha, good comment!

Bob Boder

I hate being dead


It certainly cuts down on your sex life.

Bob Boder

Mark W
Not as much as getting married

M Seward

It was the GREAT MORAL CHALLENGE OF OUR TIME! said KRudd. Until the Chinese “ratf$%ked” him in Copenhagen. LOL.
Said scientist’s had a fleeting period of some respect I suppose until they started hiding behind the “denier” slur.

Robert of Ottawa

What does a two-bit politician know? Rudd and Gillard couldn’t even see the knives in their backs.

Crispin in Waterloo

>What does a two-bit politician know?
About twice as much as a one-bit politician, I suspect. One bit is 12½ cents. That and 2 Dollars will get you a cup of coffee at Timmy’s.


We are 20 years away from achieving fusion power, and have been for 60 years.


“”””””and nobody really understands for sure the causes of Ice Ages””””””
really ?


Yes, really.
Unless, of course, God has whispered in your ear to give you the knowledge of ice age causalities which nobody has found.

Alan the Brit

Ah but Richard, are we about to find out in the next 20+ years with the Sun in shut-down mode?


Alan the Brit
I don’t know. Has the Almighty told you?

It’s CO2 dummy. CO2 caused warming which then led to the ice ages. When earth gets too hot, Uranus begins to act on the Earths atmosphere… Sorry.

Crispin in Waterloo

Dahlquist: Did you just write that Uranus is venting CO2? And that it is enough to start an Ice Age?

the 100k problem speaks loud and clear that “nobody really understands for sure the causes of Ice Ages’. there are problems, such as warming preceding solar cycles by 10k years (the effect happens before the cause). .
The consensus at the time (before 1970’s) was that Milankovitch was wrong. The ocean cores from the 1970’s showed that the ice ages aligned with the orbital cycles, which is why Milankovitch came back into vogue.
Milankovitch is yet another warning that consensus in science has no meaning.

Yes, really.
Science knows what some of the contributory factors are in the initiation of ice sheet formation and advance, but far from all of them. Many proposed factors are still controversial and we may not even have an inkling of others.
Timing is clearly correlated with various orbital and rotational parameters, but that’s not the whole story. Lately “climate scientists” have lamely even tried to implicate CO2 as a causative agent rather than effect both of glacial intervals and their end.
While Milankovitch Cycles may be a necessary precursor in producing colder conditions, they are not sufficient on their own to cause the formation of vast, continental ice sheets, which depends on other factors. Prominent among these are oceanic circulation patterns and the position of the continents. I would add cosmic ray flux, but this is among the controversial considerations.


While Milankovitch Cycles may be a necessary precursor in producing colder conditions, they are not sufficient on their own to cause the formation of vast, continental ice sheets, which depends on other factors. Prominent among these are oceanic circulation patterns and the position of the continents. I would add cosmic ray flux, but this is among the controversial considerations.

A specific claim, to be sure.
But, what caused the sudden change between Ice Age conditions 11,000 years ago to today’s “interglacial warmth” 10,000 years ago?
Continents have not moved the past 100,000 years – the Antarctic apparently began freezing over 2-3 million yars ago, and the currents through the Panama isthmus stopped at controversial times, but they have been stopped for longer than 3 million years. If ocean currents changed – other than the obvious single massive flood caused BY the breakup of the large central US glacial lake that suddenly flooded out – what tripped them over to “Warm Grasses” from “Icebergs and Ice Fields” 11 – 11,500 years ago?
There are a series of 100,000 year cycles, and within them the 20,000 and 40,000 year cycles that Milankovitch cycles predict. But the change is greater than the slow change in summer and winter insolation and snow melt at 60-65 degrees latitude.

The same causes as in all the other “sudden” transitions. From the depths of the Last Glacial Maximum c. 20,000 BP to the onset of the Holocene Climatic Optimum after the last sudden cooling event 8200 BP occurred a series of ups and downs, as in all prior such transitions. These appear caused largely by surges of cold, fresh water from ice sheet melting. They are akin to the Heinrich Events (iceberg armadas) which occur during glacial phases and are associated with onset of the coldest intervals therein.
Antarctica began freezing over 34 million years ago, not two to three. This appears to have resulted from the formation of deep oceanic channels between Antarctica and South America and Australia, creating the Southern Ocean. (This occurred at a time when the planet was entering an “Ice House” anyway, based upon its passage through a galactic spiral arm, but for obvious reasons cosmoclimatology is not popular in academia.) Since then, ice sheets have waxed and waned on Antarctica, but never gone away totally.
Perhaps you have in mind the closure of the Inter-American Seaway about three million years ago. This has been implicated in the initiation of the Pleistocene ice ages, ie the initial advance of Northern Hemisphere ice sheets, by changing oceanic circulation patterns. The NH ice sheets first advanced and retreated on a roughly 40,000 year cycle, but around a million years ago switched to 100,000 years, with the 40,000 year cycle preserved within these longer phases. The cycles are clearly driven by Milankovitch mechanics, but obviously other factors are in play as well.
Please let me know if this reply doesn’t adequately respond to your questions.

PS: There wasn’t a single big meltwater discharge, but many of various sizes.

Bruce Cobb

Don’t tell Mike H; he might have another meltdown.


I believe we are in an inter-glacial, between meltdowns.

Think you mean between melt up and freeze down.
The Holocene, like all interglacials, starts with a meltdown and ends with a freeze up.


With Mike H, it’s hard to tell the difference.

As in not knowing up from down?


Refreshing honesty.

Bill Illis

“CO2 happens to be a very good fertilizer for all kinds of vegetation,”
Funny that the third biggest GHG, N20, is increasing in the atmosphere almost exclusively from the application of nitrogen fertilizer.
The greens are against greening up the planet?


I thought most N2O came from car exhaust?

Crispin in Waterloo

That’s NO2, which is created by NO reacting with O3. In a car exhaust both are present so it happens within the engine. NO emitted into the air is converted to NO2 by free-ranging O3, if it can locate some.


What’s an O between friends?

Paul Westhaver

Lead in the exhaust of cars… yeah, that is a problem.
Chromates in the water supply, a definite problem.
Estrogen in our drinking water, a big problem.
DDT… I’m not so sure about DDT…. A lot of people died because of DDT’s restriction. This is a risk/reward problem.
PCBs is total BS… dioxin is very nasty however.
Nuke power is awesome.
Littering… ok… don’t litter.
People can impact their local ecosystems. True.
BUT CO2…. this whole issue is total Bullsh1t
Human beings cannot affect the planetary climate.
It is the sun stupid.

@Paul Westhaver
Actually its not the sun:
Law of Conservation of Energy: energy flow into the planet must = energy flow out of the planet
Stefan-Boltzmann relationship:
Radiant energy given off by the Earth = constant x [(Temp of Earth)^4 – (Temp of space)^4]. Or, since Temp space = abs zero, radiant energy given off by Earth = constant x Temp of Earth^4.
Since earth has warmed since 1900, radiant energy given off by Earth has increased, per Stefan-Boltzmann.
But energy flow out of the planet has not increased, by the Law of conservation of energy. (In fact, its slightly decreased, since energy into the planet from the sun (sun’s rays) has slightly declined over the period).
How can energy flow out of the planet remain constant (or slightly decrease) since 1900, whereas the planet’s surface has warmed?
The planetary atmosphere is absorbing outgoing Infrared radiant energy, re-radiating it in all directions, sending some back to Earth (“back radiation”), so that the planet warms, while the suns energy isn’t increasing and the net outflow from the planet hasn’t increased.
Without the effect of this ‘back radiation’, the planet would be at its natural thermal equilibrium as if there were no atmosphere — 0 F. Instead, its 60F avg, approx.. So the Greenhouse Effect is responsible for making life on Earth more comfortable.
And a portion of this effect –the portion driven by CO2, nitrous oxides, methane, HFCs, and SF6– is increasing. All these gases have increased since 1750 — most up about 40%.
Might this have something to do with the warming?


Is all I can say to this…

But I know why he’s laughing…


And what caused the increase before 1750????? i.e., the increase from 1700 to 1750.
Why did the little ice age end??
And what caused the increase before 900??? i.e. before the Medieval Warm Period
What caused the Medieval Warm Period ?
Or are you one of those that accepts Mann’s opinion that they did not exist and only data from 1750 forward can be discussed?


Are you talking about the pre 1950 warming or the post 1970 warming? Same warming rate, zero carbon dioxide causality for the former, heaps of that for the latter though (well enough for alarmists to jump up and down). But what about the post 2000 warming, or rather lack of it. The miraculous gas keeps on increasing, yet temperature anomalies post 2000 are mostly flat, if not decreasing. And don’t say that the missing heat is in the ocean depths – LWIR absolutely cannot warm the oceans as all but the top few microns of the oceans is opaque to that radiation. Any heat applied to the topmost layer of the oceans would likely cause more evaporation, consequently lowering the temperature due to loss of latent heat. So, yes, the backradiation effect is true, but is limited to warming the atmosphere, plus, of course, space, where the excess heat eventually resides (albeit at much lower temperatures).

Bruce Cobb

Earth to Warren, the warming stopped over 18 years ago. The reason for that is simple; CO2’s warming effect is logarithmic. Whatever warming effect man’s CO2 has had, if any, is vanishingly small. It can’t be detected, and therefore is of no importance.


Might water vapor have something to do with it? Just a little?
“Actually its not the sun:”
Can I quote you on that? Most people think the sun has something to do with the temperature of the Earth.
But not to be too harsh, the primary greenhouse gas is water vapor, all the others are bit players, if they have any effect at all.

So you’re one of those who laughs at Science. Fits.


May 15, 2015 at 6:01 am
“Without the effect of this ‘back radiation’, the planet would be at its natural thermal equilibrium as if there were no atmosphere — 0 F.”
Warrenlb this statement demonstrates why you know nothing. You are not to be read or listened to at all on this subject. 0 F really?

Paul Westhaver

Diesn’t the Stephan Boltzman law apply to black bodies? As such…with the earth being far from a black body, shiny white and silvery water, on half the planet at a time, this model don’t xactly woik!
So if the sun increased its radiative output, then the earth won’t warm? Huh?

Brad Rich

We need an understanding of the cold period (Little Ice Age) previous to 1750, and subsequent natural warming, to put cause/effect in true perspective. Much of the increase in GHG since 1750 is the direct effect of warming, not the cause. The manmade component of GHG increases are about 3.3 Watts per square meter (see CDIAC link), most of which has been introduced in the last few decades. Its effect is not fully understood nor directly causal, evident in the decade-long plateau in temperatures.


Paul Westhaver May 15, 2015 at 8:25 am
“Doesn’t the Stephan Boltzman law apply to black bodies? As such…with the earth being far from a black body, shiny white and silvery water, on half the planet at a time, this model don’t xactly work! ”
I have had these thoughts/questions for years. Look no farther than that famous picture taken of Saturn (?) with the earth shining brightly in the background. That does not look like a 0.85 (or whatever) blackbody to me. It looks like a mirror, or at least an object that reflects a very large amount of the light striking it. Why else would it look so blue from the moon?


Brad Rich May 15, 2015 at 8:49 am
We need an understanding of the cold period (Little Ice Age) previous to 1750, and subsequent natural warming, to put cause/effect in true perspective. Much of the increase in GHG since 1750 is the direct effect of warming, not the cause.
Having grownup on a farm I can attest to the fact that the manure does not stink in the winter. On the first warm day it starts, the warmer it gets the worse it gets. A neighbor hog farmer collected all of the waste, put it in a septic tank arrangement and collected all of the methane given off. He powered his entire farm from this gas by running a gas-diesel generator, and used the waste heat of the generator to heat the barn in the winter. And it is not just this waste. all of the decay of vegetation slows and then stops when it is cold than enough. This is shown in the zig-zag graph of global CO2. as there is more land area in the NH than the SH. One should be able to take the slope of these zig-zags, the land area of the NH and SH and figure out the actual release of CO2 from decay.

Paul Westhaver

usurbrain…re shiny earth… That’s what I thought.

lemiere jacques

since earth has warn since 1900… globall temperature of lower troposphere is higher…since 1900…it is quite different.
earth has warmed ? you mean climatic system ( ocean+ atmosphere) really and how much? do you know it… did you notice that right now…we have to assume that it goes deep in the ocean to keep the hypothesis plausible…
do you really think dyson is not able to understand that?
dyson says…how come some climate scientists can be sure of whatever about climate???


This alleged energy imbalance? Please read Section 13.6.1 of the following paper by James Hansen:
Hansen states:
“The notion that a single satellite at this point could measure Earth’s energy imbalance to 0.1 W/m2 is prima facie preposterous. Earth emits and scatters radiation in all directions, i.e., into 4π steradians. How can measurement of radiation in a single direction provide a proxy for radiation in all directions.”>/i>
The satellites can not only
not>/i> measure the imbalance, what they are measuring in a single direction is essentially meaningless.
Science usually requires measurement to confirm a hypothesis. How did you measure this alleged “O F” of the earth without an atmosphere? Does this hypothetical earth have oceans too? Or is that “0 F” without oceans?
Where are the measurements confirming that backradiation actually “warms” anything?


Heavy sigh….. last three paragraphs should have no italics.
Wish there was a preview button for html clowns like me.

Why is the Earth considered a blackbody?

P R Belanger

You assert “Actually its not the sun:”
OK lets do a little thought experiment. A.E. liked to do that.
Imagine there is no Sun, what would our planet look like then. A bit cool perhaps?
Now one might conclude that the Sun does have some kind of warming effect then? Enough to raise the temperature of the Earth some 286K. So if the sun were able to cause this great an effect under normal conditions then even the smallest perturbation of the Sun’s output should be able to alter the Temp by a degree or 2 independent of any other variables added on. For example a 1% increase in TSR could represent a “linear” earth tempurature change of 2.83K, that being 1% of the present temp.
I will concede of course that the process is non linear in that sense, but it is still reasonable to consider that the energy source Sun will have considerably more impact on temperature than an energy passive 0.04% CO2.
This would be my starting point for a rational scientific inquiry.


Which satellite were we using to measure the energy flow out of the planet back in 1900?


@warren: What exactly did your post have to do with science?

Crispin in Waterloo

Please reconcile in your piece above:

Since earth has warmed since 1900, radiant energy given off by Earth has increased, per Stefan-Boltzmann.”


But energy flow out of the planet has not increased, by the Law of conservation of energy.”

All energy leaving this planet does so by radiation at one wavelength or another. Has it increased or not? How can you tell?
The Law of the Conservation of Energy does not require that the energy leaving or remaining on this planet be constant at any time. Energy absorbed by biomass and stored (coal) is not radiated for millions of years. Energy converted to CACO3 is not radiated for eons.

(In fact, its slightly decreased, since energy into the planet from the sun (sun’s rays) has slightly declined over the period).

It may not have at all! Energy may have been stored within the system or it may have been lost, on a net basis. The fact is we don’t know. All we know is a little bit about the temperature.

How can energy flow out of the planet remain constant (or slightly decrease) since 1900, whereas the planet’s surface has warmed?

Easily! Good heavens. Clouds, biomass, ocean temperature, ice (or lack of). That’s a good start.

The planetary atmosphere is absorbing outgoing Infrared radiant energy, re-radiating it in all directions, sending some back to Earth (“back radiation”), so that the planet warms, while the suns energy isn’t increasing and the net outflow from the planet hasn’t increased.

The effect you describe is strongly determined (mostly determined) by the water vapour level and cloud cover. The outgoing radiation can increase or decrease as solar input decreases – just not forever.
Think of the energy stored in the gasoline tank of a car. The energy released by the engine is not, in the short term, influence at all by whether or not there is a constant input of new fuel into the tank. Gasoline can enter episodically and leave continuously at different rates. It depends on the driver.

Bob Boder

When was the last time you saw a doctor. Your incomprehensible gobbledygook gets worse with each passing day, I fear there is something seriously wrong with you.

Bob Boder

So you’re one of those who laughs at Science. Fits”
Funny, I thought what you wrote was a joke too. Your saying it was serious?


May 15, 2015 at 7:49 am”
I agree with others that your posts, and I have been reading them for some months now, seem to be simple cut and pastes from a SkS liike website with articles, including comments, references and links, to debunk the scpetical side in the AGW (non-)debate.
We could almost say you are a broken record, unable to break out of a rut, continuously repeating yourself.

warrenlb says:
The planetary atmosphere is absorbing outgoing Infrared radiant energy, re-radiating it in all directions, sending some back to Earth (“back radiation”), so that the planet warms… Might this have something to do with the warming?
Fly in the ointment: THERE IS NO WARMING!
Get it? Global warming stopped many years ago.
warrenlb’s argument is debunked and falsified. Again.


Meanwhile it has not been warming this century at all:
There is a cooling trend for the last THREE months, all in face of CO2 level still going up.
2015 1 +0.261
2015 2 +0.157
2015 3 +0.139
2015 4 +0.065
Why no warming for many years now, Warren?

Perhaps you missed this part of high school & Introductory University Science:
“If an ideal thermally conductive blackbody were the same distance from the Sun as the Earth is, it would have a temperature of about 5.3 °C. However, since the Earth reflects about 30%[5][6] of the incoming sunlight, this idealized planet’s effective temperature (the temperature of a blackbody that would emit the same amount of radiation) would be about −18 °C.[7][8] The surface temperature of this hypothetical planet is 33 °C below Earth’s actual surface temperature of approximately 14 °C.[9] The mechanism that produces this difference between the actual surface temperature and the effective temperature is due to the atmosphere and is known as the greenhouse effect.[10]
Earth’s natural greenhouse effect makes life as we know it possible. However, human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels and clearing of forests, have intensified the natural greenhouse effect, causing global warming.[11]
5. “NASA Earth Fact Sheet”. Retrieved 2010-10-15.
6. “Introduction to Atmospheric Chemistry, by Daniel J. Jacob, Princeton University Press, 1999. Chapter 7, “The Greenhouse Effect””. Retrieved 2010-10-15.
7. “Solar Radiation and the Earth’s Energy Balance”. Retrieved 2010-10-15.
8. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report. Chapter 1: Historical overview of climate change science page 97
9. The elusive “absolute surface air temperature,” see GISS discussion
10. Vaclav Smil (2003). The Earth’s Biosphere: Evolution, Dynamics, and Change. MIT Press. p. 107. ISBN 978-0-262-69298-4.
11. IPCC AR4 WG1 (2007), Solomon, S.; Qin, D.; Manning, M.; Chen, Z.; Marquis, M.; Averyt, K.B.; Tignor, M.; and Miller, H.L., ed., Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-88009-1 (pb: 978-0-521-70596-7)

The albedo of a hypothetical earth without an atmosphere would be higher, since it would be an ice ball.
The issue is not whether the atmosphere warms the surface, but to what the effect might be of going from around three CO2 molecules per 10,000 molecules of dry air 150 years ago to four CO2 molecules now or even six at some possible future time.
The correct answer is, very little warming effect and a benefit for plants and the microbes, animals and fungi which rely upon them.

@Sturgis Hooper.
Not according to the sources I listed. Do you have University or Science journal paper references for your claim?


At issue is what effect increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere would have on existing conditions. And the mis-named ‘pause’ indicates that any such effect would be too small for it to be identified from natural climate variation.
Nobody disputes that the radiative greenhouse effect (GE) is the major cause of the Earth having a surface temperature higher than the Earth would have in the absence of an atmosphere. But, as mkelly said, your assumption that the GE is responsible for ALL of that higher surface temperature demonstrates that

you know nothing. You are not to be read or listened to at all on this subject.

Importantly, you are presenting a red-herring by addressing hypothetical Earth surface temperatures for the Earth without its atmosphere. That says NOTHING about what effect increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere would have on existing conditions.

You have misunderstood your sources, and in any case anything from NASA’s climate trough feeders is sure to be wrong, except for actual data gatherers like the UAH team.
If you bothered to try to think instead of regurgitate you’d see that I am right. The assumption of earth with a surface as it is now but without an atmosphere is ridiculous on its face, even as a simplifying assumption or thought experiment.

>>>Perhaps you missed this part of high school & Introductory University Science<<<
Always with the insults. You are so tiresome.

In the replies to my post, there’s lots of rejection of the University and Journal Science sources I posted. And no University or Journal Science sourcing supporting the contradictory claims in the replies. I thought WUWT was a Science-based forum?


Please provide me with the theoretical/calculated temperature of the Earth with NO, ZERO, CO2, with the concentration of the atmosphere’s other components remaining at their present value. Now please explain the difference between that temperature and the value at 200, 300, 400 and 600 PPM CO2. A reference to ANY paper providing even part of this info is acceptable – as long as it contains the data for the temperature with NO CO2.
My point is the CO2 is being given far to much credit for the GHE. Even a dog knows this. An animal with hair over its body remains warm because the hair holds the air more or less motionless close to the body and INSULATES the animal AND shields the animal from the wind. The earth’s atmosphere, even with NO CO2, does the exact same thing. Even an empty shed in the middle of a desert feels warmer than standing out side the shed as it shields the occupant from the wind – and a thermometer would read exactly the same inside or outside.
Patiently waiting for your calculation.


Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya — 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period ).
Looking at the Earth’s temperature tells me that it is not just CO2, AND That CO2 is a VERY small part of GHE,

Bob Boder

Please see a doctor soon.


Since there are only personal attacks and hand waving, but no replies with supporting Unversity or Journal Science papers contradicting my post, it appears the scientific case for the greenhouse effect, well established since the early 20th century, remains intact. Case closed.

warrenlb says:
Since there are only personal attacks and hand waving,…
Poor warren, his cut ‘n’ paste-style arguing attempt failed, so he thinks he can declare victory and leave.
He can leave, nothing lost here. But as usual he’s lost the argument. warrenlb doesn’t seem capable of making rational, personal arguments. He only refers to those bought-and-paid-for chumps he presumes to be an authority, or he cuts and pastes their nonsense. Since warrenlb depends on the Appeal to authority logical fallacy to argue, here’s the ultimate Authority showing him the error of his ways:
Planet Earth is solidly debunking all the “dangerous man-made global warming” nonsense that warrenlb believes in. As usual, warrenlb is flat wrong, and all his cutting and pasting won’t change that fact. Global warming stopped a long time ago. And there is no sign whatever that it is going to start up again.
Bye bye, warren.


Dr. Solomon states: “Earth’s natural greenhouse effect makes life as we know it possible. However, human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels and clearing of forests, have intensified the natural greenhouse effect, causing global warming.”
But the reality is that it is NOT warming anymore.
There has been ZERO warming for over 18 years,as per RSS:

David A

Warren, this earth has a S.W. selective surface called the oceans. In affect the oceans are a GHL (Green House Liquid) As such, they can increase the residence time of energy far more then atmospheric GHGs. Up to about 1000 years.


Your claim contradicts the findings of Science, as summarized by the IPCC in its 5th Assessment review of 10,000 peer-reviewed science papers:
‘Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850. The period from 1983 to 2012 was likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years in the Northern Hemisphere’.
‘globally averaged combined land and ocean surface temperature data as calculated by a linear trend show a warming of 0.85 [0.65 to 1.06] °C 2 over the period 1880 to 2012, when multiple independently produced datasets exist. In addition to robust multi-decadal warming, the globally averaged surface temperature exhibits substantial decadal and interannual variability. Due to this natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade). Ocean warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting for more than 90% of the energy accumulated between 1971 and 2010 (high confidence), with only about 1% stored in the atmosphere. On a global scale, the ocean warming is largest near the surface, and the upper 75 m warmed by 0.11 [0.09 to 0.13] °C per decade over the period 1971 to 2010. It is virtually certain that the upper ocean (0−700 m) warmed from 1971 to 2010, and it likely warmed
between the 1870s and 1971.’
In other words:
1) Over 18 years, variability masks the clear longer term upward trend.
2) Even so, the climate warmed over the last 18 years, but at a slower rate
3) Oceans, responsible for absorbing 90% of the heat energy, are still doing so.
A prediction:
The 18 year variability, reduced atmospheric warming rate, and much larger heat uptake by oceans, will continue to be ignored by those rejecting peer-reviewed Science.


Having failed to disrupt this thread with one ‘red herring’ you attempt to disrupt it with another by claiming the IPCC AR5 denies global warming has stopped; i.e. the misnamed ‘pause’.
As usual, you are plain wrong.
Box 9.2 on page 769 of Chapter 9 of IPCC the AR5 Working Group 1 (i.e. the most recent IPCC so-called science report) is here and says

Figure 9.8 demonstrates that 15-year-long hiatus periods are common in both the observed and CMIP5 historical GMST time series (see also Section 2.4.3, Figure 2.20; Easterling and Wehner, 2009; Liebmann et al., 2010). However, an analysis of the full suite of CMIP5 historical simulations (augmented for the period 2006–2012 by RCP4.5 simulations, Section 9.3.2) reveals that 111 out of 114 realizations show a GMST trend over 1998–2012 that is higher than the entire HadCRUT4 trend ensemble (Box 9.2 Figure 1a; CMIP5 ensemble mean trend is 0.21ºC per decade). This difference between simulated and observed trends could be caused by some combination of (a) internal climate variability, (b) missing or incorrect radiative forcing and (c) model response error. These potential sources of the difference, which are not mutually exclusive, are assessed below, as is the cause of the observed GMST trend hiatus.

GMST trend is global mean surface temperature trend.
A “hiatus” is a stop.
And this from the IPCC that is tasked to provide information supportive of the AGW hypothesis.

There are many definitions of ‘hiatus’, including several consistent with the data reported by the IPCC: “intermission, interlude, lull” .
None of these mean ‘stop’, nor does the IPCC data show a ‘stop’. Per my earlier post from the IPCC 5th Assessment, the data shows a SLOWER rate of warming, or a “lull’ in the higher rate of warming seen 18 years ago.
And neither you, nor anyone else on this thread, has yet posted any University or Science journal sources contradicting my earlier post with referenced sources. The Greenhouse Effect remains as established by Science since the early 20th century.

The best label IMO is “plateau”, since the next move could be either up or down, but again IMO, down is more likely.
Indeed, rather than flat, in the more reliable RSS observations (as against totally unreliable surface cooked books) the current trend is already down.

@Sturgis Hooper:
That not what the data shows. From my earlier post quoting the 5th Assessment:
“Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850. The period from 1983 to 2012 was likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years in the Northern Hemisphere.”

HadCRU and GISS are not “data”. They are packs of lies, and easily shown so. HadCRU has “lost” its data, so is totally unverifiable, hence not just unscientific, but anti-scientific.


@Sturgis Hooper
Still not seeing any University or Science journal sources for your contradictory claims.

warrenlb says:
Still not seeing any University or Science journal sources…
Oh, hey! Another warrenlb appeal to authority fallacy.
All warrenlb has got are logical fallacies. Planet Earth continues to debunk his religion-based ‘dangerous man-made global warming’ nonsense. His typical response is to point at bought-and-paid-for shills, as if that’s proof of anything.

What contradictory claims?
Do you mean that I contradict the paid liars at Hadley and GISS?
Why would you need a “university” paper to show what is plainly obvious upon visual inspection, comparing the actual data from past decades with the hash which the gatekeepers have made of them through totally unwarranted “adjustments”?
Besides which are the revelations of their formerly secret adjustment algorithms and such admitted shenanigans as raising SSTs to match the artificially boosted land station “records”.
Never trust the government, except to lie.

warrenlb has been buried in peer reviewed papers that falsify his ‘dangerous man-made glonbal warming’ (MMGW) beliefs. He ignores them all.
There are far more skeptical scientists than there are alarmist rent-seekers. For example, I have regularly challenged warrenlb and others to post the number and names of climate alarmist scientists that match the 30,000+ named scientists and engineers (including more than 9,000 PhD’s) who co-signed a statement that CO2 is harmless and beneficial to the biosphere. No one has ever even tried to accept my challenge.
So then I regularly challenged warrenlb and others to produce even 10% of the number of OISM names, from alarmist scientists contradicting the OISM statement. I get arguments, or silence — but no names.
So then I ask them to produce just ONE-PERCENT of the OISM’s numbers, naming the alarmist scientists who dispute the OISM statement. Again: *crickets*
They can’t even come up with the names of 300 alarmist scientists who contradict the OISM statement. Currently, the OISM statement has been co-signed by more than 31,000 scientists.
Conclusion: climate alarmist scientists are in reality a small clique, who are feathering their nests by using the MMGW scare. They have managed to get control of the climate peer review system, and they use it to keep unwanted views out. That was made crystal clear in the Climategate email dump.
warrenlb always falls back his logical ‘appeal to authority’ fallacy, but his ‘authorities’ have been corrupted by the system. Therefore, they are not legitimate. They are bought and paid for climate scare propagandists.
warrenlb is like a robot, doing as he was programmed. He doesn’t think for himself. If he did, he would see that after almost twenty years without any of the endlessly predicted global warming, and while CO2 continues to steadily rise, there must be something majorly wrong with their MMGW premise. An honest scientist would admit it by now, and try to understand why he was so wrong.
But since the MMGW scare is not science, but rather, a mixture of politics and religion, they will never admit to being wrong. The public is coming around, though. Mainstream articles about MMGW are routinely ridiculed by the public now. A few years ago there was still some concern. No more. Now, very few commenters are still buying the dangerous MMGW scare.


@Sturgis Hooper
So you present unsupported accusations of ‘lying’ by NASA/GISS and Hadley as justification for your cherry-picking of data that peer-reviewed science sources don’t use for determining the trajectory of warming?
You’re still not providing University or science journal sources for your contradictory claims.

It’s not unsupported. Had you any interest at all in reality, you could look at the glaring differences in temperatures as actually reported since 1850 and compare them with what the lying gatekeepers have done to them. But you obviously have no such interest.
Science doesn’t consist of peer-reviewed papers. It consists of the scientific method, which is manifestly not practiced by those whom you so wrongly imagine to be authorities.

Yes, Warren does indeed show all the signs of being a stuck record trollbot.
No amount of actual evidence will dissuade the bot, not that IMO it actually has an opinion of its own.


You say:
“Science doesn’t consist of peer-reviewed papers.” I disagree: Peer-reviewed science papers by active researchers trump amateur musings.
Then you say:
“It [Science] consists of the scientific method”
I agree. But published science requires other experts to judge that the scientific method was followed, and that errors are weaned out so that the results can be relied upon by others. Expecting that self- appointed non-credentialed ‘experts’ can consistently produce reliable science on their own, in fields of considerable complexity, is patently absurd.
“Which is manifestly not practiced by those whom you so wrongly imagine to be authorities.”
If you use ‘authorities ‘ in the sense of those who are ‘in authority over us’, I didn’t imagine that at all. If you mean ‘authorities’ in the sense of ‘experts’, your claim that peer-reviewed Science doesn’t practice the scientific method, while presumably non-peer reviewed amateurs do, is beyond preposterous.
I presume you send your kids to the local barber to have an appendectomy, or to the drunk on the street to be taught math? I expect not. Yet you simply declare yourself to be enough of an expert so you can now claim you ‘know” that the GISS data from NASA PhD Climate Scientists is ‘known to be’ fraudulent?
I await your University or science journal papers contradicting my posts on the Greenhouse Effect. So far, you’ve offered nothing but claims of fraud and incompetency among scientists. To say the least, that’s hardly convincing.

As I’ve pointed out ad naseum, no degree at all is needed to see that the gatekeepers have cooled the past and warmed the present, just the ability to see that numbers are different. All you need is an almanac, or nowadays the Internet. The gatekeepers, as I also showed you, don’t d*ny that they do this, but instead, now that they’re been found out, claim the “adjustments” are justified. But they aren’t.
Have you really never seen these graphs, for instance:


Which makes my point exactly. Peer-reviewed science vs amateur musings. Anyone who falls for the latter isn’t asking enough questions.

There are no “experts” in “climate science”. There are only paid goons and genuine scientists trying to find things out. There is no peer review, only pal review. The “consensus” is among a small clique who try to keep up the scare to maintain funding, as revealed by Climategate emails but already well known to workers in relevant fields.
Obviously you can’t reply to “Steven Goddard’s” facts. All you can do is call him an “amateur”. As if that’s a bad thing. His presentation of the reality of rigging in the “record” has stood up to criticism much more robust than any peer review.
You’ve got nothing but appeal to alleged authority, the last resort of anti-scientific scoundrels. In science the facts rule, which is why “climate science” as now perpetrated is not science.

Amateurs are especially needed in the case of a corrupted enterprise like “climate science”.
But they’ve been necessary throughout the history of science, from Copernicus on down, in order to challenge the consensuses of their times. Pros often defend their orthodoxies rather than trying to shoot them down, as they ought.
Every scientific discipline has been advanced by amateurs and lone wolf outsiders, but perhaps none more so than my own, geology. So, thank God for amateurs.

Exchange with Freeman Dyson
E-mail 4/7/15
Dr Norman Page
Professor Dyson
Saw your Vancouver Sun interview.
I agree that CO2 is beneficial. This will be even more so in future because it is more likely than not that the earth has already entered a long term cooling trend following the recent temperature peak in the quasi-millennial solar driven periodicity .
The climate models on which the entire Catastrophic Global Warming delusion rests are built without regard to the natural 60 and more importantly 1000 year periodicities so obvious in the temperature record. The modelers approach is simply a scientific disaster and lacks even average commonsense .It is exactly like taking the temperature trend from say Feb – July and projecting it ahead linearly for 20 years or so. They back tune their models for less than 100 years when the relevant time scale is millennial. This is scientific malfeasance on a grand scale. The temperature projections of the IPCC – UK Met office models and all the impact studies which derive from them have no solid foundation in empirical science being derived from inherently useless and specifically structurally flawed models. They provide no basis for the discussion of future climate trends and represent an enormous waste of time and money. As a foundation for Governmental climate and energy policy their forecasts are already seen to be grossly in error and are therefore worse than useless. A new forecasting paradigm needs to be adopted. For forecasts of the timing and extent of the coming cooling based on the natural solar activity cycles – most importantly the millennial cycle – and using the neutron count and 10Be record as the most useful proxy for solar activity check my blog-post at
The most important factor in climate forecasting is where earth is in regard to the quasi- millennial natural solar activity cycle which has a period in the 960 – 1020 year range. For evidence of this cycle see Figs 5-9. From Fig 9 it is obvious that the earth is just approaching ,just at or just past a peak in the millennial cycle. I suggest that more likely than not the general trends from 1000- 2000 seen in Fig 9 will likely generally repeat from 2000-3000 with the depths of the next LIA at about 2650. The best proxy for solar activity is the neutron monitor count and 10 Be data. My view ,based on the Oulu neutron count – Fig 14 is that the solar activity millennial maximum peaked in Cycle 22 in about 1991. There is a varying lag between the change in the in solar activity and the change in the different temperature metrics. There is a 12 year delay between the neutron peak and the probable millennial cyclic temperature peak seen in the RSS data in 2003.
There has been a cooling temperature trend since then (Usually interpreted as a “pause”) There is likely to be a steepening of the cooling trend in 2017- 2018 corresponding to the very important Ap index break below all recent base values in 2005-6. Fig 13.
The Polar excursions of the last few winters in North America are harbingers of even more extreme winters to come more frequently in the near future.
I would be very happy to discuss this with you by E-mail or phone .It is important that you use your position and visibility to influence United States government policy and also change the perceptions of the MSM and U.S public in this matter. If my forecast cooling actually occurs the policy of CO2 emission reduction will add to the increasing stress on global food production caused by a cooling and generally more arid climate.
Best Regards
Norman Page
E-Mail 4/9/15
Dear Norman Page,
Thank you for your message and for the blog. That all makes sense.
I wish I knew how to get important people to listen to you. But there is
not much that I can do. I have zero credibility as an expert on climate.
I am just a theoretical physicist, 91 years old and obviously out of touch
with the real world. I do what I can, writing reviews and giving talks,
but important people are not listening to me. They will listen when the
glaciers start growing in Kentucky, but I will not be around then. With
all good wishes, yours ever, Freeman Dyson.
Email 4/9/15
Professor Dyson Would you have any objection to my posting our email exchange on my blog?
> Best Regards Norman Page
E-Mail 4/9/15
Yes, you are welcome to post this exchange any way you like. Thank you
for asking. Yours, Freeman Dyson.

Sturgis Hooper

If the next US president is named Walker, Rubio, Paul, Cruz or a number of others not named Clinton or Bush, people whose opinions matter will pay attention.

Another Scott

There’s an interesting study, “The Effects of the Political Party in Power on the Reported State of the Climate”. 50 or 60 years from now it should be undertaken…

Crispin in Waterloo

Thank you Dr Dyson for your sensibility. In future, when people live to be 125 instead of 75 thinkers of your vintage will be taken much more seriously.
Your long time fan
Crispin in Waterloo

According to the numbers accumulated by Hans Rosling (see his YouTube videos), something like 20 countries already have life expectancies of 80 years or above, so 125 years may not be unattainable within a century or two – and perhaps less. (The USA is NOT one of those 20 or so, but close, at 79.) After all, life expectancy in the USA in 1900 was only 49, and by about 1960 had increased to 70 – a 21-year increase, in only 60 years. (Much of that increase – but not all – was due to advances in medicine and the great improvement in infancy death rates.)
Add in the work on aging that is being done, plus stem cell advances to come, and who knows what breakthroughs might occur – at almost any time?

David Wells

The truth is that even if we did know what causes ice ages or warming or cooling or anything to do with our climate it is idiotic to believe that humanity could do anything about it especially if we wanted to continue living in the real world.

James Strom

S. Fred Singer has been suggesting looking into technology to prevent another glaciation. He doesn’t expect glaciation soon, but he figures that it would be nice to know how to intervene. Here’s his latest.


I suspect there are things that could be done.
Spreading soot on the ice to help speed melting.
Mirrors in orbit to reflect sunlight onto the ice to also speed melting.

Nuclear fusion-powered, gigantic blow-driers aimed at snowfields around Hudson’s Bay?

John W. Garrett

I haven’t the slightest doubt that the mere fact that an interview of Freeman Dyson was aired on NPR is, in large or small portion, attributable to the incredible (EFFECTIVE) efforts of Anthony Watts and WUWT.
All of us owe a large debt of gratitude to people like Anthony and Judy Curry and Richard Lindzen and Steve McIntyre and Andrew Montford and Jo Nova and Will Happer and Willis Eschenbach and Monckton (and others) who had the GUTS and INTEGRITY to speak truth in the face of a rabid mob.

lemiere jacques

and jacques duran for french people


Dang… I sure wish I could have that super BIG paycheck Dyson must have gotten from the Koch brothers. It has to be ginormous!


I guess it isn’t a surprise that warmists (statists that they are) use the same methods that the Soviet Union used to use to defend their cause: insinuate that their opponents are legally mentally incapacitated (i.e., dementia).
We should be happy that, for now, they can’t enforce their politics with a literal gulag, only a metaphorical one. The eliminationist rhetoric is getting louder, though, as we are hearing more that we need a “war” on climate change.
I guess that means some of us are the Vietnam War equivalent of street protestors.

Theo Goodwin

May 15, 2015 at 6:01 am
“Law of Conservation of Energy: energy flow into the planet must = energy flow out of the planet
Stefan-Boltzmann relationship:
Radiant energy given off by the Earth = constant x [(Temp of Earth)^4 – (Temp of space)^4]. Or, since Temp space = abs zero, radiant energy given off by Earth = constant x Temp of Earth^4.”
Typical climate science. You pull an equation out of a textbook and you think it is science. No law, no hypothesis, is actually being used until it is rigorously formulated. When so formulated, the law is found in a context rich enough to permit deduction of future events. If the events occur then the law has been used to make successful predictions. If they do not occur then something in the rigorously formulated context must be rejected, maybe the law itself.
Climate science is the poster child for scientific undertakings that lack rigorously formulated hypotheses. On a scale of 1 to 10, publications by climate scientists that contain rigorously formulated hypotheses come in at about 0.3.

@theo Godwin
“Come in at 0.3..” By the judgement of….? Another PhD scientist?

What happens when you place a black tarp over a swimming pool in summer? Compare that to having no tarp…And then compare that to a black surface at bottom of pool. Three different scenarios. Where would the temperatures of the three stand given equal exposure to sunlight, everything equal?

Crispin in Waterloo

Having recently been working together with a physicist on a similar question, the answer may surprise most people.
The tarp prevents a great deal of evaporation which is a significant source of cooling of the water. Placing the tarp over the pool will heat the air underneath which will slightly warm the water (because the air is a good insulator and hot air rises). Placing the tarp onto the water surface will enhance warming greatly and still limit evaporation (mostly). That gives the highest available heat gain. The black tarp and water surface have the same emissivity.
Placing the tarp at the bottom of the pool increases energy capture turning it into heat. But being uncovered, it allows evaporation so the effect is not as great as one might (simplistically) think. Of the extra heat gained, some is lost to additional evaporation.

Thanks for the answer. I used to visit my girlfriend in Southern California and her pool was covered in black tarp, to keep leaves, etc. out and stop evaporation (they had to have their water delivered to a storage tank). In summertime it amazed me how hot the first meter, or so, of the pool water got… Almost too hot to get in until stirred.
In regard to this, I was curious if the darkness of the Oceans, dark blue in general, would contribute to its warming potential by the sun, ref. the black bottom of a swimming pool.

Crispin in Waterloo

Actually, thinking about this, the tarp-over-pool is a good parallel of a greenhouse, whereas CO2 in the atmosphere is not. When the air is hot and trapped, it can warm the water,
The hot top of the pool, as you experienced it, is ‘normal’ and inverting it by adding salt to make solar ponds, first shouted about 30 years ago, is a really cool idea. Maybe the salt water can be made ‘selective’ by adding the right things.

Berényi Péter

Yep, to boldly go.


comment on NPRs site (powered by disqus)… watch it vanish

Daniel Kuhn

“I’m just saying I don’t understand it”
indeed, but others do. and lucky the world listens to them.

STOP feeding trolls!

“The weather we’ve had over the past couple of years seems much more volatile… polar bears having to swim for their lives… ice floes melting… this must concern you.” – NPR interviewer. “Climate effects are much less certain… you have to draw a balance… I don’t understand it and neither does anyone else… the worst disasters were the ice ages, and no-one really knows the causes of ice ages…” Freeman Dyson, fellow of Trinity with Wittgenstein, at the Institute of Advanced Study with Einstein, author of a demonstration of the equivalence of two formulations of of quantum electrodynamics, and winner of the Max Planck medal.


warrenlb to Sturgis Hooper: “your claim that peer-reviewed Science doesn’t practice the scientific method, while presumably non-peer reviewed amateurs do, is beyond preposterous”. warrenlb, you misunderstand why “argument from authority” is a logical fallacy. Your contrast between “amateurs” and “experts” is another fallacy – a circular argument. How do you decide who is an “expert”? They work at a climate research lab? “Peer-reviewed” is argument from authority, pure and simple. You cannot defend a scientific theory at all by saying how many people agree with it, even if one of them is a winner of the Max Planck medal.

The number of actual climatologists rather than computer gamers in “climate science” who agree that man-made climate whatever is dangerous is actually remarkably small.
The cabal which writes the summary sections of IPCC reports is tiny, self-perpetuating and self-serving.

Boy are you misinformed!
Go here: for a few pertinent facts:
1) Total number of peer-reviewed climate science papers reviewed through 2013: 25,182
2) Number rejecting AGW: 24, or slightly less than 0.1%
3) Number of peer-reviewed climate science papers in 2013: 10,585
4) Number rejecting AGW: 2, or less than 0.02%
You’re living in your own world, and it isn’t the world of Science!

Shows you how worthless “papers” are.
Complete, total, meaningless garbage.
If you want to respond meaningfully to my comment, look up how many people wrote the summary for the last IPCC report.


The IPCC doesn’t do research, as you seem to think. Rather, the IPCC reports summarize about 10,000 peer-reviewed journal papers written by independent researchers from around the world. So looking at the number of IPCC report writers tells you nothing about how many climate scientists are doing research, or how any papers are published annually. For that, see my prior post.

In cancer research a recent reproducibility study found that 47 out of 53 studies could not be replicated.
Can you give us an objective reason why we should expect better from climate science?
Are you capable of understanding that number of papers may not always mean reliability?
Are you capable of curiosity into whether the fanatical politicization of a field of science, such as climate, could just possibly distort some of its “findings”?
Note – the financial incentives leading to cancer drug research distortions are jut as much present in climate research. Not to mention the added self-aggrandizing element of political power.

“Can you give us an objective reason why we should expect better from climate science?”
I say: Can you give me an objective reason why we can expect better from the sciene of 1) DNA, 2) Evolution, 3) Solid State physics, 3) Biochemistry, 4) Plate Tectonics, or…..fill in the blanks

sturgishooper tells warrenlb:
Shows you how worthless “papers” are. Complete, total, meaningless garbage. If you want to respond meaningfully to my comment, look up how many people wrote the summary for the last IPCC report.
Repeated for effect; warrenlb’s incessant appeal to authority logical fallacy is all he’s got. He certainly doesn’t have the support of Planet Earth, which is showing his alarmist crowd to be flat wrong about the false narrative they are trying to sell to the public.
warrenlb’s ‘authorities’ are bought and paid for climate propagandists, and the truth is not in them.