Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) a Premeditated Crime Against Science Justified with Artificial Certainty.

Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball

I dedicate this column to the memory and work of Vincent Gray, one of the earliest and most effective critics of the deliberate deception that human CO2 is causing global warming. He knew what was wrong because he was an expert reviewer of the Science Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He was among the first to identify the failure to validate any climate models. Here is how he explained the problem in his 2002 The Greenhouse Delusion.

“The whole point is, that a computer-based mathematical model of any process or system is useless unless it has been validated. Validation of such a model involves the testing of each equation and the study of each parameter, to discover its statistically based accuracy using a range of numerically based probability distributions, standard deviations, correlation coefficients, and confidence limits. The final stage is a thorough test of the model’s ability to predict the result of changes in the model parameters over the entire desired range.


As a response to my comment that no model has ever been validated, they changed the title in Climate Models – Evaluation” no less than fifty times. There is not even a procedure in any IPCC publication describing what might need to be done in order to validate a model.”

“Instead of validation, and the traditional use of mathematical statistics, the models are “evaluated” purely from the opinion of those who devised them.”

In the early days, a test of a model was called ‘hindsight’ forecasting. You ran the model back to a previously known situation to determine if it recreated that situation. If so, then it was more likely to forecast looking forward. As I understand, this became known as validation, and the modelers claimed success because they tweaked variables until the model recreated past conditions. The problem is it became a hindsight correlation with no proof of cause and effect.

These ‘validation’ stories illustrate how the IPCC do not even carry out basic procedures, but when caught, tweak the result or use different terminology. To my knowledge, the lack of validation continues. Vincent’s work provides an opportunity to respond to comments about my last article. He pointed out that the IPCC errors were more than just insignificant minor ones. They were profound and underscore that there is no level of certainty involved. Critics of my article argued that there was sufficient certainty to consider the models valid tools. I reject that claim completely because certainty is inadequate at every phase of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) claim.

The legal system considers, and punishes differently, crimes of passion and premeditation. They are viewed as two separate crimes because of the intent. The global climate campaign was intent on proving to the world that human production of CO2 was causing AGW. This means it was premeditated. It became a crime of passion after the crime was committed because the perpetrators allowed their passion to override and resist anything that revealed the truth. The people involved knew from the start that what they were doing was less than pseudoscience, so it is premeditated. Sadly, if they didn’t know, and there were far too many who didn’t, then they were incompetent.

There is another extremely large group of scientists from any discipline, who ever read the IPCC Reports. Those that do experience what meteorologist and physicist Klaus-Eckart Pol described.

I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements.

Physicist the late Hal Lewis described the IPCC work as follows.

It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.

No uncertainty there.

I pointed out in the early 1980s when use of climate for a political agenda began that there are two distinct obligations required for those involved in the AGW deception. The first requires scientific responsibility for what is produced. The second requires socio-economic obligations for policy based on that science. Neither scientific nor social and political obligations were met. Worse, they were deliberately avoided.

The dangers crystallized when the deception entered the public arena with Hansen’s staged appearance before the Senate Committee in 1988. I make no apologies for being so repetitive and outspoken on these issues because still too many try to rationalize what went on.

In a comment about my recent article, Richard Tol wrote,

This is all rather exaggerated. Tim’s main point appears to be that, since we do not know things precisely, we do not know anything at all. Few things in life are known with great precision and accuracy, particularly those things that matter.

Humans are pretty good at dealing with imperfect information. We would have long gone extinct if we were not.

Climate policy is just another case of decision making under uncertainty. We know how to do that.

This fatuous statement provides the basis for explaining everything that is wrong with the ‘science’ for a political agenda that is the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The first point is it represents the standard environmental fall back when the data and science are inadequate – the Precautionary Principle; the idea that it is better to act anyway, just in case. No, it isn’t, for the reasons I gave when I appeared before the Canadian Parliamentary Committee on the CFCs and ozone issue. Science advances by speculation, although they call it hypothesizing. Many scientists can and do create many speculations based on a few facts and assumptions every day. Nowadays, media and others scour academic publications looking for sensational global or life-threatening speculations. They never report on the failures after research.

My challenge to the politicians was which ones were they going to deal with? They can’t deal with them all and almost all of them if left to the scientific method of skepticism they will prove unjustified. Ironically, development success provides the money to create a distorted list of priorities. We can afford to be stupid.

The IPCC was formed under the auspices of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). That agency was under the umbrella of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) Agenda 21, a global environment strategy for the 21st century. It was the brainchild of Maurice Strong who presented it for ratification for the world in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. Like all final products, it is based on a series of assumptions. With Agenda 21 these are set out as Principles that set the parameters for action and activities. Principle 15 says,

In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.

Let’s parse what they say. First, it is discriminatory and anti-success. It only applies to countries that can afford it (capabilities). Who decides that? They do. We act when there are threats of serious irreversible damage. Who decides that? They do. Lack of full scientific certainty is not required to act, but who decides what is adequate certainty? They do. They gave themselves the authority to dismiss the certainty that Tol referenced.

Now we know that the models fail to meet any ‘certainty’ requirements at even the most basic level. However, the certainty is inadequate for everything they said and did and, sadly, still do. The computer models are mathematical constructs with the Earth’s atmosphere represented by arbitrary cubes (Figure 1).


Figure 1

There is no weather data for approximately 85% of the surface rectangles. The temperature data is taken at between 1 and 1.25 m above ground, so it is not representative of the temperature above or below that level. There is virtually no data above the surface. The database used to build the mathematical models does not even approximate the average temperature in any cube. The data that exists does not meet any acceptable level of scientific certainty. For example, the US has, arguably, the best and certainly the most expensive temperature measuring devices. Anthony Watts found only 7.9% of USHCN weather stations achieved accuracy better than 1°C. To put that in context, the IPCC 2001 Report said a 0.6°C increase in approximately 120 years was not natural.

There is not a single variable used by the IPCC that comes even close to what is considered a statistically significant sample. As I understand it, that is a sample needs to be 30% of the population for significance. The IPCC people should know this. As members of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), they work with 30-year normals all the time. The problem is even that is meaningless when applied to a climate record. A thirty-year sample of a 100-year record may be statistically significant, but it is not for a longer record.

The IPCC and its originators knew that certainty was critical, so they set out to fake it. Working Group I (WGI) produces the ‘scientific’ proof that human CO2 is causing warming. They represent only a small portion of the people working on the science, and very few of them have any climatology training. They are mostly specialists in one small piece of the climate puzzle. Their findings are taken without question and form the basis of the work of Working Groups II and III. This means they only look at the impact and mitigation necessary for the certainty that warming will occur.

People in WGI are aware of the limitations of the data. At the very start of Assessment report 5, there is a section titled, “Treatment of Uncertainties.” These are the now familiar, “likelihoods” that smear and spread already inadequate precision.


Figure 2

Figure 2 is the ‘Forcings’ table from AR5. These are the variables they consider important in human causes of climate change. On the right is a column marked “Level of Confidence.” Who determines that and how is it measured? It is by default a subjective measure, but the IPCC prefer that. Only one marked Very High (VH) is for CO2, a self-serving assessment that is easily debunked. Only three of the eleven are listed as High. Just consider one, Aerosols. Could somebody give me the data on the number and nature of aerosols in the atmosphere as well as the volume and how it varies over any time period?

The ‘forcing’ table in Figure 2 was modified from the one used in AR3 (Figure 3.)


Figure 3

Then, the column was labeled LOSU for “Level of Scientific Understanding.” What on earth is that except another subjective measure. I am not convinced “confidence’ was an improvement. There was a marginal statistical improvement because the number of “High” ratings went from 2 of 11 to 3 of 11 and the number of “Low” went from 4 to 2. However, when you read the Report in almost every category of natural variables the LOSU or Confidence level is Low to non-existent.

Most of the public, including almost all the media and most scientists, have never read the WG I Report. Its only possible purpose is to say if they were later challenged, that we knew there were serious data and methodology problems. A major reason it is not read is because deliberate policy directed its release after the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) Synthesis Report. These Reports are deliberately created to reduce doubt and exaggerate certainty. In order to achieve even the minimal level of certainty that a politician or leader requires they bypassed, underplayed, or distracted from the complete lack of certainty in the science. Consider the figure Jones produced of global temperature increase in 120 years of 0.6°C. The actual number published was 0.6°C ±0.2°C. If that was reported in terms a politician or the public understood it would say 0.6°C ±33.3%. There is no person or group, even a politician, who would base policy of any sort on such percentages. There are strict limits of tolerable certainty in all other scientific research, why not in climate science? The question is what percentage of certainty is reasonable? This question crosses the line in climatology between science and socio-economic policy.

In 1989 I witnessed a good example at a conference in Edmonton on Prairie Climate predictions and the implications for agriculture and forestry. Climate modeler Michael Schlesinger made a presentation comparing climate predictions made by the top five models of the day. He argued they were valid because they all showed warming. This was 100 percent predictable because they were all programmed to show temperature increase with a CO2 increase. When you examined the results on even a continental scale, they disagreed. One showed North America cooling, and another showed warming. The audience comprised of people making planning decisions needed more certainty. One asked Schlesinger about the accuracy of his warmer and drier prediction for Alberta. The answer was 50%. The person replied that is useless, my Minister is planning reforestation in the area and needs 95% certainty.

There is another way of testing the political reaction to uncertainty. Many US Senators knew the problems with the climate science of the IPCC from the work of Senator James Inhofe. When asked to ratify the Kyoto Protocol in 1995 they took a different approach. They did not want to vote directly because it might require they appear less than green. Instead, they looked at the socio-economic costs of implementation by voting on the Byrd/Hagel Resolution. They concluded that the costs far outweighed the benefits and voted 95-0 not to vote on Kyoto. The Senators were 100% certain of the impact, regardless of the science.

Vincent Gray notes an important conclusion in Climate Change 95 which says:

“Nevertheless, the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate.”

This comment is a direct quote from the infamous Chapter 8 contribution of lead author Benjamin Santer. The Chapter 8 committee agreed on comments including this one.

“While some of the pattern-base discussed here have claimed detection of a significant climate change, no study to date has positively attributed all or part of climate change observed to man-made causes.”

In the Report Santer, changed this to,

“The body of statistical evidence in chapter 8, when examined in the context of our physical understanding of the climate system, now points to a discernible human influence on the global climate.”

Avery and Singer noted in 2006,

“Santer single-handedly reversed the ‘climate science’ of the whole IPCC report and with it the global warming political process! The ‘discernible human influence’ supposedly revealed by the IPCC has been cited thousands of times since in media around the world and has been the ‘stopper’ in millions of debates among nonscientists.”

This was the first egregious example of the corruption and deception used to establish a certainty that did not exist at any phase of the entire IPCC exercise. If you want to play with your models and science in the laboratory fine, but you must meet the obligations and certainties of science. The IPCC did not. However, if you take the findings of that ‘science’ and present it as public policy, then another set of obligations and certainties are required. The IPCC did not meet those either.

It is impossible to correct what the IPCC did partly because each Report built on the deceptions of earlier Reports. The IPCC must be shut down completely, and all national weather bureaus must be directed to data collection including reconstruction of past climates. It is the only way to establish even a minimal level of certainty of knowledge as the base for understanding mechanisms and thereby more accurate forecasting.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
June 18, 2018 4:14 pm

Based on this article, I would call IPCC computer models “thin-earth” models, that is, not quite flat, but the next worst thing.

QUESTION: How do the elephants and tortoises fit into those models? (^_^)

Reply to  Robert Kernodle
June 19, 2018 5:29 am

Elephants are in Africa and Asia and tortoises live in Galapagos. (That’s the shortened version.)

Holding up both ends, as it were.

Reply to  Robert Kernodle
June 19, 2018 7:25 am

Actually, they are worse than flat-earth. They are composed of very far away from each other… points. Flat means a surface, not a collection of very few points.

Reply to  Adrian Roman
June 19, 2018 10:30 am

In other words, as tenuous as CO2 gas.

Hence, all arguments based on such models are gas-bag arguments.

June 18, 2018 4:19 pm

“Instead of validation, and the traditional use of mathematical statistics, the models are “evaluated” purely from the opinion of those who devised them.”


Even I know that’s wrong!

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  HotScot
June 18, 2018 6:11 pm

The models are validated via the Climate Model Intercomparison Project. That is the 2 dozen or so GCMs are verifed with each other. Not to observation. They all tune to past (some period like 1975 to 2005, or so) then claim by matching the past, they are validated against each other for the future. Circular.

Imagine an Archipelago of Climate Model Cultists, each living on their own island.
Each island has its own “model” of how to get those Cargo Planes of yor’ to land again and offload all those wonderous goods for the natives to barter for with their labor to the white men. Cargo Cultism is born by each island’s lead shaman/witch doctor. Build the proper runway, equip it with a control tower and some guy babbling into a bamboo and palm frond headset, and those wonderful planes will appear with their cargo.

Every 5-6 years each island in the Archipelago of the Climate Model Cult sends its head cargo cult shamans to big pow-wow to compare runway layouts, control tower designs, proper bamboo headsets for the control tower guy to wear. Arguments and discussions about whose design or lay-out is more fiarhful go on through long nights (usually involving fermented fruit juices). At the end of it all, all the shaman agree that wveryone’s design is satisfactory. Everyone gets a participation trophy and heads home.

The Archipelago of Cargo Cargo Cult Models lives on, waiting for those planes to appear anyday now.

Brad Tittle
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
June 20, 2018 8:42 am

They do not “match” the past. They statistically “match” the past. The average of all values over the planet matches the average of all values we had data for. Take any subset (say the North East Region of the United States [whatever region you deem appropriate]) and compare the model values to the actual values. But the averages of averages of averages (I may need to ad another layer) matches, WOOT WOOT.. We have a match.

I spent a week attempting to make a boiler model work. We could calculate the efficiency of the boiler from the data we had. When we tried to model a change of 1 parameter, the model would blow up. The reason was pretty simple. Calculating the heat transfer coefficient involves recursion. Heat transfer coefficients are not perfectly empirically derived. DIVIDE BY ZERO always snuck in its head.

What drives me nuts is that modelers can wave such things away. The boundary layer problem does not apply to them. My expertise is not in their area.

That may be true. When they don’t demonstrate that they don’t understand how unstable the modeling problem, I wonder if they have ever actually stepped through the boundary layer analysis.

June 18, 2018 4:41 pm

My argument would be as follows:

The jig is up this year for AGW, as I have been saying. AGW has hi jacked natural variations within a climatic regime to attribute the recent warming to mankind. That being ENSO,( look at the MEI index over the past 3 or 4 years), lack of explosive major volcanic activity and the sun itself which I say had a warming effect on the climate up until the end of year 2005. Thereafter a cooling effect but lag times have to be taken into consideration.

Year 2018 is a key year because this is the first year my two solar conditions are present in order for solar to have a significant cooling impact on the climate.

They are 10+ years of sub solar activity in general (post 2005-present) and following that a period of very low average solar parameters (which commenced in year 2018) which are equal to or greater in magnitude change and duration of time of that associated with typical solar minimums within sunspot cycles.

All solar influence moderated by the geo magnetic field. Sometimes in concert ,sometimes in opposition.

Overall sea surface temperatures one of the keys and the trend is down. It has been down for a year.
Albedo being the other ,which I say are both tied to very low prolonged solar conditions.

I have talked about this so much but to get to the chase I see year 2018 as a transitional year to a climatic shift as occurred in 1977 if not perhaps a different climatic regime ,one similar to what was present during the Dalton.

What is prevalent is more often then not when the climate transitions to another regime it usually does it at the top of the previous climatic regime.

Post 1850-2017 the climate has been in the same climatic regime with variations +/- 1C due to ENSO and volcanic activity, which is in no way unique.

The test is on and I like what I see but this is the top of the 1st inning(cooling has scored) but we have many innings to go.

honest liberty
Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
June 19, 2018 6:47 am

I appreciate your observation and theory, and while I think we are all hoping for a cooling to shut up the warmists, we also all realize that is the absolute worst scenario. I for one, would rather see a few degrees of additional warming. I think most would agree humans don’t fare too well during phases of pronounced global cooling. Plus, these psycho’s are already moving the goal post. Alan Tomalty has been noting that for weeks now with citations to back it up.

Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
June 22, 2018 6:52 am

Given that they have already predicted that global-climate-warming-change will predicate a new LIA (read that here a few years ago), cooling won’t convince anyone of anything.

Nick Schroeder, BSME, PE
June 18, 2018 4:44 pm

288 K pulled out of WMO’s butt.
255 K S-B BB calculation for 240 W/m2 ToA.
288 – 255 = meaningless.
396 W/m2 upwelling S-B BB calculation for 289 K.
Not real!
No 33 C + no GHG energy loop = no RGHE = no CAGW.

Reply to  Nick Schroeder, BSME, PE
June 19, 2018 3:14 pm

World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, Switzerland


Select any item.

Programs and activities list.



Countries database. Select any country on the map for country activity information.

Maybe seeing is believing?

Reply to  Nick Schroeder, BSME, PE
June 19, 2018 5:13 pm

United Nations System

WMO: HQ, Geneva

History: Est. 1950


June 18, 2018 4:47 pm

Humans are pretty good at dealing with imperfect information. We would have long gone extinct if we were not.

You could use that ‘logic’ to defend literally anything. It’s meaningless.

History is replete with folly. We’re not extinct because we learn from the mistakes of our less fortunate brethren.

What example of historical hubris compares with CAGW? General Custer comes to mind. How about the Athenians in the Peloponnesian War? How about Herbert Hoover? link

June 18, 2018 4:50 pm

I love that billboard

Malcolm Carter
June 18, 2018 4:52 pm

Tim Thanks for the repetition, I for one don’t find it redundant, it is necessary to remind us all of the depth of this ruinous farce.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Malcolm Carter
June 19, 2018 4:44 pm

Repetition is good. Veterans of the climate wars need reminding sometimes, and newcomers learn something.

June 18, 2018 4:55 pm

Ac very good summary Tin Ball. Thank you.
I have argued with Nick on WUWT about Ben Santers fraud and how he has got away with it .
Nick will not accept that what Ssanter did was dishonest .
Santer completely reversed the findings in chapter 8 and that fraud has almost been set in stone .
In any other business or profession this would be straight out FRAUD.

Tom Halla
Reply to  Gwan
June 18, 2018 5:08 pm

I agree. The change Santer made totally reversed the conclusion of the others.

Reply to  Gwan
June 19, 2018 1:44 am


does Nick accept anything a sceptic says?

Reply to  Gwan
June 19, 2018 6:38 am

I’ve heard of having brass balls, but tin ones are new to me.

honest liberty
Reply to  Gwan
June 19, 2018 6:56 am

Nick is a typical disingenuous warmist. Point blank. The guy doesn’t have an honest bone in his body. He suffers from the new religion. They can’t be saved…from themselves.

sadly they are responsible, like most religions (and all governments) of imposing hell on earth upon the non-believers (in both counts)

Reply to  honest liberty
June 19, 2018 7:46 am

Actually they wish to imposed “Hell on Earth” for everyone, themselves included. It’s just that they think its necessary and we deserve it. Beware the loons who wish to impose their view of eternity on the rest of us.

Reply to  rocketscientist
June 19, 2018 12:28 pm

“Aestheticism and radicalism must lead us to jettison reason, and to replace it by a desperate hope for political miracles. This irrational attitude which springs from intoxication with dreams of a beautiful world is what I call Romanticism. It may seek its heavenly city in the past or in the future; it may preach ‘back to nature’ or ‘forward to a world of love and beauty’; but its appeal is always to our emotions rather than to reason. Even with the best intentions of making heaven on earth it only succeeds in making it a hell – that hell which man alone prepares for his fellow-men.”
― Karl Popper, The Open Society and its Enemies

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  honest liberty
June 19, 2018 11:43 pm

Nick is careful with his expressions of disagreement. If you read his words carefully, you will find he is often correct. It is not hard to find wrong words on WUWT partly because bloggers get too enthusiastic, quote opinion rather than science and often fail to check past research results carefully.
WUWT needs more bloggers like Nick to keep it on the straight and narrow. Sure, I have disagreements with him from time to time, but hope I do not descend to unwarranted criticism for its own sake. Geoff

brad tittle
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
June 20, 2018 8:49 am

I agree with Geoff . Nick’s words have all been carefully considered. I don’t agree with what appears to be his intent. But I am not sure that his intent is different than mine when I try to temper anti-vax discussions by pointing at the other side. In the anti-vax discussion the other side is the progressive decrease in the efficacy of pertussis vaccinations. I can’t change the minds of the anti-vaxxers. I might be able to get parents and adults to get themselves boosted. The scary vector is not the unvaccinated challenged folks, it is the parents who are dutiful about getting their children vaccinated but think they are safe because they were vaccinated when they were young.

Sometimes we go overboard a little here on WUWT. That happens. Having Nick around is a good thing. I am most terrified when everyone in a place agrees with one another.

Reply to  Gwan
June 19, 2018 12:24 pm

This quote in an e-mail from Santer to the other lead authors tells a lot about IPCC:

Santer: “Let me reiterate my own position on this issue of “Climate Changes”. Changes made to Chapter 8 after Oct. 9th were in response to comments that we received from governments, individual scientists, and non-governmental organizations. They were also made in response to plenary discussions that took place in Madrid. They were made for scientific reasons, not political reasons. The IPCC had nothing to do with these changes. They were under my full scientific control as Convening Lead Author of Chapter 8. They did not violate IPCC rules of procedure.” Ref.:

(The e-mail is a response to an article by Fredrick Seitz; shown below the e-mail.)

June 18, 2018 5:00 pm

“the deliberate deception that human CO2 is causing global warming.”

Meantime, one click over, Richard Lindzen is saying:

“In point of fact, increasing CO2 should cause some warming, but increasing temperature can also increase CO2 (for example CO2 follows temperature during the cycles of glaciation). That said, it is not unreasonable to claim that the observed increases in CO2 over the past two centuries are mostly due to fossil fuel emissions, cement production, and land use changes (i.e., man’s activities).”

More bollocks from Ball.

Reply to  zazove
June 18, 2018 5:14 pm

More CO2 “should” cause some warming, except that it hasn’t.

The late 20th century warming under rising CO2 is indistinguishable from the early 20th century warming under lower CO2. For 32 years after WWII, Earth cooled dramatically under rising CO2. Then the PDO flipped in 1977, and the planet warmed slightly for about two decades, culminating in the 1998-99 super El Nino. Despite continued CO2 increases, average global temperature stayed flat in this century, but for the blip caused by the super El Nino of 2015-16 and its lead-up. Now, again in spite of still rising CO2, Earth has cooled for two years.

Temperature has remained the same at the South Pole for as long as records have been kept there, yet that’s the place on Earth where any GHE from more CO2 should be most evident, due to the low water vapor content of the cold, dry air.

Clearly, natural “forcings” cancel out whatever pitiful warming effect might result from a fourth molecule of CO2 per 10,000 dry air molecules. Net feedback effects must be negative, rather than highly positive, as imagined and assumed by the GIGO GCMs.

Reply to  Felix
June 18, 2018 5:47 pm

“Earth cooled dramatically” then “warmed slightly”, but still somehow ended up higher.
Arm-waving bollocks.

And you disagree with Lindzen?

No, my theory is: where its rising its natural forcing and where its falling, thats a sign of insufficient CO2. It is my theory, all mine.

Reply to  zazove
June 18, 2018 6:02 pm

Your theory is falsified by reality.

No arm-waving at all. The fact is that the corrupt gatekeepers have “adjusted” the warmth of the 1930s and early ’40s out of existence. Without that book cooking, this century would be, as it is in reality, no warmer than in the early 20th century.

Phil Jones admitted as much. Why do you believe blatant scoundrels like Hansen and Schmidt?

Reply to  zazove
June 19, 2018 6:40 am

Z, reality isn’t your strong suit, is it?

honest liberty
Reply to  MarkW
June 19, 2018 6:59 am

edit. cancelled comment. my apologies.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Ulaanbaatar
Reply to  zazove
June 18, 2018 6:40 pm


“More bollocks from Ball.”

I presume you are saying over on the other thread, “More bollocks from Linzden” citing Tim as proof.

Trolling is so easy! I should try it.

It will go something like, for want of a quote a shoe was lost, for want of a shoe an expert was lost, for want of an expert a funding source was lost, for want of funding an income was lost, and for want of an income a pension was lost, all for the want of a quote.

So quotes CAGW were provided pre-emptively to ensure the expert would be provided with a much needed income and pension.

The best quote this morning will be “More bollocks from zazove.” Better keep in mind, reputations are earned, not given.

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Ulaanbaatar
June 18, 2018 11:12 pm

I presume…

Um, no, for the reasons above.

I’ll ask you, do you disagree with the Lindzen statement above?

Reply to  zazove
June 19, 2018 1:51 am


Sceptics aren’t forced to toe the party line like alarmists.

They are quite willing and able to form different opinions but reach the same conclusion.

More bollocks from zazove indeed.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  zazove
June 19, 2018 2:26 am

Zazove you cherrypicked only part of what Lindzen said.

“I’m not sure what you are saying. In point of fact, increasing CO2 should cause some warming, but increasing temperature can also increase CO2 (for example CO2 follows temperature during the cycles of glaciation). That said, it is not unreasonable to claim that the observed increases in CO2 over the past two centuries are mostly due to fossil fuel emissions, cement production, and land use changes (i.e., man’s activities).

The question is can this increase in CO2 produce much in the way of climate change. Increases in CO2 have produced about a 1% perturbation in the earth’s energy budget. This impact was so much smaller before around 1960, that almost no one (including the IPCC) claims the impact was significant before that date. Even a 1% change is no greater than what is normally produced by relatively small changes in cloud cover or ocean circulations which are always carrying heat to and from the surface.

Observationally, one would have to see changes since 1960 that could not otherwise be expected. According to the IPCC, models find that there is nothing competitive with man-made climate change, but observations contradict this. The warming from 1919-1939 was almost identical to the warming from 1978-1998. Moreover, there was an almost total slowdown of warming since 1998. Both imply that there is something at least as strong as man-made warming going on.”

So Lindzen is saying no one knows how much mankind caused and how much is natural. Until we know it is ludicrous to spend trillions of dollars on a problem that may not exist. CAGW is impossible because Dr. Modest and Dr. Pierre Robitaille have shown that CO2 emits less as temperature goes up. Therefore given the slow rate of growth of CO2 in the atmosphere and the slow rate of temperature increase only a fool would spend trillions of dollars trying to counteract this. We have plenty of time to get this right.

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 19, 2018 6:42 am

Funny how trolls spend so much time accusing others of cherry picking their data.

Reply to  zazove
June 19, 2018 6:41 am

He said that CO2 should cause some warming. Nothing controversial about that.
And nothing to panic over either.

honest liberty
Reply to  zazove
June 19, 2018 7:10 am


“I don’t want to talk to you no more, you empty-headed animal-food-trough wiper. I fart in your general direction. Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberries. Now, go away or I shall taunt you a second time!”

that is for you because you are a seely purrsonnn, who cherry peeks!

Reply to  zazove
June 19, 2018 7:45 am


Indeed, the quote provided by Alan is instructive, and a reasonable example of why I don’t engage with you. You appear to be deliberately, willfully, ignorant. There is clearly no conflict between the extended quote and Dr. Ball’s position. Furthermore, no serious skeptic claims that the addition of CO2, ceteris paribus, causes NO warming. In point of fact, as has been repeated ad nauseum, our claim is usually that any warming is insignificant, benign, and largely indistinguishable from natural causes.

Your strawman position of skeptics, like that of so many other alarmists, is annoying and fails to pass even the most basic of tests for intellectual rigor. It’s not clear to me why you persist. If your goal is simply to rile up the WUWT community, well, then I’d suggest you abandon such childishness and seek maturity. If, on the other hand, you truly believe your own silliness, then I’d earnestly request you open up your closed mind and seek to understand the very valid points that are constantly raised by skeptics.

In the event that you’re simply a troll, like many have suggested, please understand that trolling has a fairly short half-life here. A continued failure to contribute to the conversation will eventually land you in permanent moderation.



Reply to  ripshin
June 19, 2018 9:51 am

There are many true believers who believe that any change, no matter how small, if it is caused by man, is bad.

On the other hand there are the leftists who couldn’t care less whether global warming was true, they just want government to get bigger and have access to more taxes so that it can give more free stuff to them.

honest liberty
Reply to  MarkW
June 19, 2018 1:05 pm

how can I upvote your recognition but downvote what the left desires?

Reply to  zazove
June 19, 2018 6:39 am

He said should cause. He didn’t say did cause.
Your quote doesn’t support the point you are trying to make.

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  zazove
June 19, 2018 12:31 pm

Lindzen should have stated that in history CO2 followed the temperature.

Reply to  zazove
June 19, 2018 4:35 pm

I am no fan of Lindzen’s but his position is diametrically opposed to Ball’s. Yet not one of you pack of gatehounds have the bollocks to try and reconcile that in your tiny canine cortices.

One, is calling it a “deliberate deception” by greenies who are secretly meeting with everyone and the other has an entirely different, plausibly position, based on the latest scientific evidence.

Ball’s scriblings are deluded bollocks, but they seem to have a receptive audience here so keep it up.

honest liberty
Reply to  zazove
June 19, 2018 7:26 pm

aaaaaaaaand boom goes the dynamite.
how old are you zazove?

Reply to  zazove
June 20, 2018 1:31 am

So old I can’t understand a thing you write.

honest liberty
Reply to  zazove
June 20, 2018 6:45 am

I’m certainly skeptical, considering the level of emotional immaturity you display. I’d wager you must be 19 or 20.

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
June 18, 2018 5:03 pm

The following text is taken from my keynote article presented at a conference on 5th June 2018 [Proceedings of 5th National Conference on Water, Environment & Society, published in BS Publication , pp.29-42 “Water Availability in Indian Rivers: Myths & Realities”]

To understand this important issue, it is appropriate to look in to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) of United Nations reports. Let us see some of these:

Climate Normal

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and its predecessor, the International Meteorological Organization (IMO), have been coordinating the publication of global climate normal at monthly interval. Member nations of the IMO/WMO were first mandated to compute climate normal for their respective countries for the period of 1901–30 and are required to update these climate normal every 30 years, resulting in the 1931–60 normal and the 1961–90 normal.
Climatological Normal has long filled two major purposes: (1) they form a benchmark or reference against which conditions (especially current or recent conditions) can be assessed, and (2) they are widely used (implicitly or explicitly) as an indicator of the conditions likely to be experienced in a given location. Averages of climatological data computed for the following consecutive periods of 30 years: 1 January 1901 to 31 December 1930, 1 January 1931 to 31 December 1960, etc, WMO publishes the climatological standard normal which are computed by the WMO Members for their observing stations.

The role of Climatological Normal in Changing Climate Scenario

The standard WMO climate normal is a useful, albeit imperfect, metric. Indeed, no metric can be perfect by definition. Climate change, and in particular significant nonzero trends in climate time series, renders the standard WMO climate normal “less useful”. For use as a reference period average for computing climate anomalies, climate normal retain their usefulness despite climate change. Clearly, the standard WMO climate normal is not ideal in an era of observed climate change.
In climatology, we are concerned with identifying as clearly and as unambiguously as possible the precise nature and extent of “non-randomness” in time series of meteorological observations. Indeed, statistical evidence of non-randomness in such time series is equated with evidence of bona fide climatic fluctuations: verify as carefully as possible the “homogeneity” of the series; and establish probable form of frequency distribution – Gaussian/Normal form or Skewed (positively or negatively).

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

ferd berple
Reply to  Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
June 19, 2018 6:31 am

The meander of a river. Is it random or not? Statistically assuming a process is Gaussian/normal is the first step in finding the wrong answer.

J Mac
June 18, 2018 5:05 pm

Excellent summation, Dr. Ball!

June 18, 2018 5:05 pm

My take on the models…
The models are proof that adjustments to past temperatures are wrong.

They adjusted past temps to show more warming than there is….and the models reproduce that slope with uncanny accuracy.
If they hadn’t “erased” the travesty….there’s a chance the models would have caught some of the pause

As it is, the models will never be right…they are tuned to a past history that’s fake…and to temperatures that are constantly being matter what temp you tune a model to today…that temp will change by the time you run the model

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Latitude
June 19, 2018 2:31 am

If only we could have a climate model that didnt have any direct forcing of temperature by CO2 code. It would be interesting to see if the models would be any better.

Leo Smith
June 18, 2018 5:34 pm

IPCC never was intended to question climate change. Only to assess its effects.

When did you stop beating your wife?

June 18, 2018 5:53 pm

Here is another interesting article about Climate Models:

Impact of Physics Parameterization Ordering in a Global Atmosphere Model

If I understand what they are saying correctly, the climate models are so sensitive to the order that sub-grid parameterizations are applied that just changing that order can create spreads in the projections as large as the current spread in the intermodel projections.

June 18, 2018 6:14 pm

“It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. ”

It’s a scientific malfeasance enabling a financial fraud against humanity that makes Bernie Madoff look like a petty thief.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  co2isnotevil
June 19, 2018 2:41 am

I will see your $7 billion and raise you $7 trillion. Cards please!!!!! Oh!!!! No more cards. Sorry Sir, The House of Cards is falling

June 18, 2018 6:22 pm

I have studied just barely enough math to know people trying to reduce a horrendously coupled system into one single variable (CO2, which is only 0.04% of atmospheric gas by volume) are frauds. I like how the Fox/NG’s One Strange Rock points out that Venus is so hot because of CO2, but failing to mention it’s over 96% of the atmospheric gas by volume. 0.04% to 96% is quite a significant number of decimal places.

But, if there was to only be ONE variable that affected the Earth’s climate, then it would have to be the output of the Sun. In order for any climate model to accurately predict anything, you first need an accurate, predictive model of the Sun. Good luck.

If there was going to be just a second variable that affected the climate of the Earth, it would have to be the kinematics of the Earth about the Sun.

The climate alarmists conveniently assume both the output of the Sun and the kinematics of the Earth are constant. Again, I’ve studied enough math to know you cannot solve a coupled system that way.

Ultimately, climate change is a political problem, an euphemism for more command&control of the populace. Both the alarmists and deniers believe climate is constant and predictable. The alarmists also believe it’s controllable.

Our best hope is to adapt to a changing and unpredictable climate.

Reply to  js290
June 18, 2018 6:29 pm

Venus isn’t hot because of its CO2-rich atmosphere. Were that the case, then Mars would be balmy, too.

Reply to  Felix
June 19, 2018 6:44 am

Venus is hot because it’s closer to the sun and because it never cooled enough for all the water vapor to condense out of it’s atmosphere.

Reply to  js290
June 18, 2018 6:38 pm

“Both the alarmists and deniers believe climate is constant and predictable.”

You are wrong. Neither alarmist nor skeptics think it is constant (see Climate Change) and only alarmists think that their Climate Models predict how the climate will change.

Reply to  RicDre
June 18, 2018 6:43 pm

a laugh…

18 Jun: AP: James Hansen wishes he wasn’t so right about global warming
The hotter world that Hansen envisioned in 1988 has pretty much come true so far, more or less. Three decades later, most climate scientists interviewed rave about the accuracy of Hansen’s predictions given the technology of the time.
Hansen won’t say, “I told you so.”…
“I don’t want to be right in that sense,” Hansen told The Associated Press, in an interview is his New York penthouse apartment. That’s because being right means the world is warming at an unprecedented pace and ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland are melting.
Hansen said what he really wishes happened is “that the warning be heeded and actions be taken.”
They weren’t. Hansen, now 77, regrets not being “able to make this story clear enough for the public.”…

Hansen projected that by 2017, the globe’s five-year average temperature would be about 1.85 degrees (1.03 degree Celsius) higher than the 1950 to 1980 NASA-calculated average. NASA’s five-year average global temperature ending in 2017 was 1.48 degrees above the 30-year average. (He did not take into account that the sun would be cooling a tad, which would reduce warming nearly two-tenths of a degree Fahrenheit, said the Scripps Institution of Oceanography’s Jeff Severinghaus.)…
Berkeley Earth’s Zeke Hausfather gives Hansen’s predictions a 7 or 8 for accuracy, out of 10; he said Hansen calculated that the climate would respond a bit more to carbon dioxide than scientists now think…

University of Alabama Huntsville’s John Christy, a favorite of those who downplay climate change, disagreed. Using mathematical formulas to examine Hansen’s projections, he concluded: “Hansen’s predictions were wrong as demonstrated by hypothesis testing.”…ETC

Reply to  pat
June 18, 2018 7:02 pm

What is the correct amount of change in average temperature? How did Hansen use his ability to “predict” to help human adaptation and survival?

Reply to  js290
June 18, 2018 8:03 pm

Two excellent questions. The answer to the first question is “nobody knows”. The answer to the second is “he didn’t”.

Reply to  pat
June 19, 2018 12:53 pm

Real world trace gas growth has been as in Hansen´s ´business as usual scenario´ A.

«Scenario A assumes continued growth rates of trace gas emissions typical of the past 20 years, i.e., about 1.5 %/yr emission growth; scenario B has emission rates approximately fixed at current rates; Scenario C drastically reduces trace gas emissions between 1990 and 2000.»

While temperature has increased as in Hansen´s scenario C, that required “draconian emission cuts which would totally eliminate net trace gas growth by year 2000”

Hansen´s predictions in the testimony for the Congress in 1988 was dead wrong.

(Hansen was Director for NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies at that time.)

Tom Abbott
Reply to  pat
June 19, 2018 5:47 pm

“The hotter world that Hansen envisioned in 1988 has pretty much come true so far, more or less.”

Not if you go by Hansen’s 1999 U.S.chart which shows 1934 as being 0.5C hotter than 1998, which makes 1934, 0.4C hotter than 2016, so for the United States, it has not gotten hotter, it is actually cooling off from 1934. Maybe Hansen just meant it would be hotter than 1988. In that case, he is correct. But that’s not what he meant.

Most other unmodified temperature charts from around the world look very similar to Hansen’s 1999 U.S. chart with the 1930’s/40’s being hotter than subsequent years. So one could make a good case that the Hansen 1999 U.S. temperature chart profile represents the entire world much better than the bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick charts that Alarmists use to try to fool people into thinking the climate is getting hotter and hotter and hotter.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
June 19, 2018 6:02 pm

Here’s a link to Hansen’s 1999 U.S. chart.

The U.S. chart is on the left and the bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick global chart is on the right. See how they have cooled the 1930’s/40’s on the Hockey Stick chart.

The Hansen 1999 chart on the left has the proper temperature profile.

The Hockey Stick chart on the right is a lie meant to fool people into thinking the temperatures are going up just like CO2 is going up.

The fact is the temperatures go up for about 30 years and then they go down for about 30 years and then they go up again. And it’s not any hotter today than it was in the 1930’s. In fact, we don’t have anything like the weather extremes today that they had back in the 1930’s. Not even close.

CAGW is the Big Lie. A big, expensive lie.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
June 19, 2018 7:52 pm

The “adjusted” global “record” not only cools the interval between the wars, but warms the following cooling from the ’40s to 1977, when the PDO flipped.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
June 20, 2018 10:03 am

I’m as skeptical as the next person, but why do you think global temperatures on the right should be a mirror of US temperatures, given that the US doesn’t cover the globe?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  jay
June 20, 2018 3:08 pm

I think the global temperature chart should mirror the Hansen 1999 US temperature chart because other, unmodified temperature charts from around the world resemble the Hansen 1999 US chart and look nothing like the bogus, bastardized global Hockey Stick charts.

Reply to  RicDre
June 18, 2018 7:04 pm

Why would alarmists need to call it “change”? Why not just call it “climate”? Deniers obviously deny that climate is changing.

Reply to  js290
June 18, 2018 7:36 pm

‘Why would alarmists need to call it “change”? Why not just call it “climate”? Deniers obviously deny that climate is changing.’

Alarmists created the term “Climate Change” as a replacement for “Global Warming”. Implicit in the term “Climate Change” is that the climate is changing. Skeptics believe that the climate is changing but that CO2 is a minor influence on that change. The term “Denier” was created by alarmists as a political weapon to link skeptics with Holocaust Deniers. It makes no sense in any other context since skeptics do not deny that the climate changes. In fact, alarmists who believe Dr. Mann’s “Hockey Stick” is an accurate depiction of past climate believe that the climate changed very little until until humans started adding CO2 to the atmosphere, so they are the real climate change “Deniers”

Reply to  RicDre
June 19, 2018 12:22 am

“Alarmists created the term “Climate Change” as a replacement for “Global Warming”.”

Are you sure about that?

Reply to  zazove
June 19, 2018 2:02 am

Zazove where did the term climate change come?

Reply to  zazove
June 19, 2018 2:19 am


Go on, point out the term IPCC, how predictable.

The fact is, Global Warming was the brand. No one from the IPCC objected to it and said “no, no, it must be called climate change which accurately reflects its variable nature over millions of years”, until, of course, the world stopped warming.

It suited their purposes to promote Global Warming as a concept of an out of control global temperature rise.

Reply to  zazove
June 19, 2018 6:31 am

“Are you sure about that?”

Yes I am. When alarmists realized how silly they sounded when they said “Global Warming means it could get hotter or it could get colder or it could get wetter or it could get drier” they switched from calling it Global Warming to calling it Climate Change because this new term covered all possibilities without pinning them down to a specific outcome.

honest liberty
Reply to  RicDre
June 19, 2018 7:20 am

yet they still speak of it in the context of warming. Talk to just about any layman. listen to any major media outlet. They aren’t saying warming, but it is still the main thrust of their claim, with some preliminary goal post moving being laid out to cover themselves for the future cooling.

Reply to  honest liberty
June 19, 2018 8:14 am

“yet they still speak of it in the context of warming.”

True, they just no longer call it Global Warming.

Reply to  RicDre
June 19, 2018 4:41 pm

But you can’t point me to a link or a quote or any names? Or is is actually just something you’ve read and it gelled with you and now you repeat it as true even though your not actually like…sure.

I suggest the latter is the case unless you can show any evidence. Go on, google it.

Reply to  zazove
June 19, 2018 5:04 pm

NASA’s site on “Climate Change” shows global warming as the cause:

But since Earth is not warming as predicted by alarmists, they’re now reduced to such stopgap scare tactics as “global weirding”, “extreme weather” and even imagined direct bad effects of CO2, without reference to the GHE.

Reply to  Felix
June 19, 2018 5:12 pm

“They”? NASA?

Stop making up stuff that can get affect susceptible people like RicDre.

Reply to  zazove
June 19, 2018 5:55 pm

I made up nothing. Alarmists have done exactly as I stated.

See also Katherine Hayhoe re. global weirding.

Kristi Silber
Reply to  RicDre
June 19, 2018 6:07 pm

It is more likely they started calling it climate change to encompass all the climatic changes that accompany global warming (and they didn’t want to confuse people who thought a few cooler years in their area were proof that there was no warming). It is still global warming, even if it is manifested different ways in different regions. There is nothing silly about that, it’s expected.

Kristi Silber
Reply to  RicDre
June 19, 2018 6:32 pm

” The term “Denier” was created by alarmists as a political weapon to link skeptics with Holocaust Deniers. It makes no sense in any other context since skeptics do not deny that the climate changes.”

Baloney. Some “skeptics” deny the evidence and the theory that AGW is a reality. Some “skeptics” deny that there is any cause for concern. It has nothing to do with the Holocaust (I’ve heard someone said something about that, but that doesn’t mean it’s a general idea.) The problem with “skeptic” is that it’s not skepticism that is being practiced. Scientists are skeptics. They question. But good scientists (and there are plenty of those) don’t deny the theory and evidence once it is well-supported, and they don’t AUTOMATICALLY deny whatever doesn’t fit their way of thinking. They don’t ridicule research based on a stupid press release or try to disprove multivariate statistical analyses (much less GCMs) based on a couple lines on a graph, or what the climate was 35 mya. They don’t assume they know what others are thinking or their motivations (like “global redistribution of wealth”).

There is no reason to believe that contrarian scientists are more intelligent, less biased, or have more integrity than mainstream ones. Considering the role policy plays in their arguments, the affiliations many of the most vocal have with conservative, anti-AGW think tanks, and the way they undermine the public’s trust in science (see Dr. Ball’s article), it seems to me that they are more prone to prejudice than the mainstream. That’s just my perception, based on the proportion of contrarians I see doing so relative to the proportion of mainstream scientists.

honest liberty
Reply to  Kristi Silber
June 20, 2018 6:54 am

“it seems to me that they are more prone to prejudice than the mainstream. That’s just my perception,”

Well of course that is your perception. You have been trained in the Prussian model of “education”, a model charged with obedience to external authority and memorization. It rings loudly through the words you type. Critical thought, logic, reason…these have been forbidden to your generation because it doesn’t serve the status quo you so blindly trust. This isn’t a knock against you as a person, in fact, it should provide you comfort in your SJW world where your perception is your reality, because now you can genuinely claim to be a victim. And you certainly are a victim of indoctrination.
I was too. But I worked diligently for over a decade stripping away internal conflict, challenging what I held to be true, and along the way took off the blinders systematically built over 2 decades.

Even though I’m harsh on your faith in CAGW, I don’t actually think you are unintelligent. I think you are quite intelligent which is why I engage on occasion; I feel confident once you find one contradiction that snaps the spell (and there are tons, you just haven’t broken the cognitive dissonance yet), you will quickly see the sand this religion was built upon.

I can’t recall whether there was a specific moment, but I know it took over 5 years with CAGW specifically before I finally concluded this was a ruse. That was an arduous, laborious, anxiety ridden five years but in the end logic prevails, you just have to keep working at it.

honest liberty
Reply to  honest liberty
June 20, 2018 6:57 am

what may sound like blasphemy to you will actually, in hindsight, make you blush with embarrassment when that curtain is pulled back.
I’m serious too. These same excuses you make for bad models, data manipulation, faith in mainstream “scientists’ like Mann, etc, all the ridiculous claims…once the spell breaks and you can look at this from a different perspective, it actually hurts the ego to recognize how wrong you have been. It is almost laughable if it weren’t for our ego.

Kristi Silber
Reply to  honest liberty
June 22, 2018 4:45 pm

The fact that you make so many (erroneous) assumptions about me is evidence that your reasoning is unsound.

What generation do you think I’m from? How old do you think I am?

You deny that I can reason. That’s pretty funny, since my main quibble with much of skeptic commentary is the poor reasoning shown. Assumptions and generalizations are pervasive. Misinterpreting research and quotes is commonplace. Judging research by PRs is the norm. Assigning motive to broad groups of people, accusations based on ignorance, ridicule and disparagement of those who disagree, conspiracy theories …they are all part of the “skeptic” discussion of the debate. I’m not suggesting all skeptics suffer from these biases and errors, nor do I assert that the CAGW crowd is free of them. But asserting that my problem is a lack of ability to reason is pretty funny coming from you.

” I feel confident once you find one contradiction that snaps the spell”

I’m not sure what you mean by “contradiction,” but contradictions are very common in science, as they should be. Science is part debate. Knowledgeable, professional debate is essential to science. Errors are also a normal part of science.

Professional debate does not include spreading distrust of science among the general public. Nor does reasoned discussion begin with impugning someone’s ability to reason. I cannot have a conversation with you based on reason.

Percy Jackson
Reply to  js290
June 18, 2018 6:48 pm

While you are correct regarding the importance of the solar output and kinematics you are confused about the relevant timescales. The Earth’s kinematics result in ice-ages with a time period of 10s of thousands of years and the solar output changes significantly over a periods of 100 000 of years. Hence neither are responsible for current warming which is rapid and occurring over 10s of years, i.e. at least 1000 times faster than the processes you mention. The only climate driver that is currently changing as rapidly as the climate is CO2.

Reply to  Percy Jackson
June 18, 2018 6:59 pm

Your evidence-free assertion is easily shown false.

Earth warmed more and more rapidly in the LIA when coming out of the depths of the Maunder Minimum in the early 18th century than in the late 20th century.

The early 20th century warming under lower CO2 looks the same as late 20th century warming under higher CO2.

Earth cooled under rising CO2 from the 1940s to the 1970s.

Where is the CO2 signal?


Reply to  Percy Jackson
June 18, 2018 7:03 pm

Cum hoc fallacy? Is the rise in CO2 cause or effect of climate change?

Reply to  js290
June 18, 2018 7:13 pm

Definitely an effect, but perhaps at best a negligible positive feedback.

Oceans have warmed a bit since the end of the LIA, thereby releasing more CO2. But most of the gain in beneficial plant food since the mid-19th century has been due to human activity. While our added CO2 has greened the planet, the effect on temperature has been insignificant, if any.

Reply to  js290
June 18, 2018 7:42 pm

The post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy is demonstrated by blaming man-made CO2 for the warming from 1978 to 1998, while ignoring the cooling from the 1940s to 1977, when CO2 was also increasing. Not to mention the lack of warming after 1998, despite accelerated production of vital plant food in the air.

Reply to  Percy Jackson
June 18, 2018 10:39 pm

“Percy Jackson

The only climate driver that is currently changing as rapidly as the climate is CO2.”

Utter nonsense.

A) There is currently zero proof that CO₂ is a climate driver.

B) There are not any reliable high frequency records for CO₂ levels.

C) CO₂ at 0.030% to 0.041% range of values, relegates miniscule changes to irrelevance.

D) Climate drivers and knowledge regarding climate drivers are the realm of guesses and assumptions, not science.

Percy Jackson
Reply to  ATheoK
June 18, 2018 11:07 pm

Hi ATheK,
If you don’t believe that CO2 is a climate driver what do you think the temperature would be if there was zero CO2 in the atmosphere? All sensible climate models suggest that if you suddenly removed all CO2 from the atmosphere then within a few years all of the water vapour would have condensed out of the atmosphere and the earth would relatively rapidly reach a temperature well below freezing. Suggesting that CO2 is a large and important climate driver.

And while it is true that there is only one Earth and so you cannot do a controlled experiment with the climate all available theoretical and experimental evidence shows that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and therefore drives the climate. People can argue about the strength but denying it outright is a completely ridiculous.

Reply to  Percy Jackson
June 19, 2018 2:15 am


Perhaps you have not noticed; but in a parcel of atmosphere containing 1666 molecules there is only 1 CO2 molecule at 600ppm. That’s double pre-industrial levels. I can’t quite think why you should consider that this 1 CO2 molecule should drive the rest.

Reply to  Percy Jackson
June 19, 2018 2:33 am

Percy Jackson

“All sensible climate models suggest…….”

Is there such a thing? And by that statement you condemn models other than those considered sensible to rubbish.

“People can argue about the strength”

“He [Tyndall] concluded that water vapour is the strongest absorber of radiant heat in the atmosphere and is the principal gas controlling air temperature. Absorption by the other gases is not negligible but relatively small.”

Not really.

Reply to  Percy Jackson
June 19, 2018 6:49 am

Once again, the troll uses models to prove that the models are correct.
There are many things that can affect the climate on a decadal scale, and more are being discovered all the time.
Your desperate belief that only CO2 is capable of acting in the near term is so darn cute.

PS: Most of the affect of CO2 occurs in the first 50ppm.
So theorizing what might happen if CO2 levels went to zero isn’t relevant to the discussion of what might happen when we go from 400ppm to 450ppm.

honest liberty
Reply to  Percy Jackson
June 19, 2018 7:24 am

“All sensible climate models suggest”
I literally just spit out my coffee! Thanks for that Percy. You made my day.

I haven’t laughed that hard since….Sunday, when I saw the clip of Phil hitting the rolling ball. Congrats, you are on par with that epic Phil moment!

Martin Mayer
Reply to  Percy Jackson
June 19, 2018 11:11 am

All sensible climate models suggest that if you suddenly removed all CO2 from the atmosphere then within a few years all of the water vapour would have condensed out of the atmosphere and the earth would relatively rapidly reach a temperature well below freezing.

That is silly nonsense. You are saying that the oceans would stop evaporating without CO2.

The only effect removing all of the CO2 from the atmosphere would have, is the death of all life on Earth (except for some forms of bacteria.)

Reply to  Martin Mayer
June 19, 2018 1:20 pm

There would still be CO2 in the oceans, so photosynthesis and the food chain it allows would still exist. If Earth were colder due to lack of CO2 in the air, then the oceans would also retain more of the gas.

Tom Dayton
Reply to  Martin Mayer
June 19, 2018 1:26 pm

No, Martin, that is not “silly nonsense.” You can find links to peer reviewed papers on exactly that topic in the Skeptical Science post What Would a CO2-Free Atmosphere Look Like?”

Reply to  Percy Jackson
June 19, 2018 12:04 pm


And while it is true that there is only one Earth and so you cannot do a controlled experiment with the climate all available theoretical and experimental evidence shows that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and therefore drives the climate.

On the contrary, the atmosphere of Mars would be very suitable for controlled CO2 climate experiments because there are virtually no other GHG’s competing with (or assisting) CO2:
Carbon dioxide: 95.32%
Nitrogen: 2.7%
Argon:1.6 %
Oxygen:0.13 %
Carbon monoxide:0.08 %
Water Vapor:0.03%

Experiment #1: let’s compute the mass of a unit column of CO2 and compare it to the mass of the Terrestrial equivalent CO2 column, using a cross-section area of 1 sq km.

So we’ll need to know the total masses of CO2 on both planets:
mass_earth_co2_kg=3.0e15 # i.e 3 trillion tonnes
mass_mars_co2_kg=2.5e16 * 0.95 # 95% of 25 trillion tonnes

Perhaps surprising to some that the total mass of Mars’ CO2 is more than eight times the total amount of that gas in Earth’s atmosphere. But consider that the surface area of Mars is much smaller, so the CO2 mass shared per unit column must be even greater!
area_earth_km2=5.1e8 # 510 million sq km
area_mars_km2=1.4e8 # 140 million sq km

So, compute and print the ratio of a km2 CO2 column on Mars over a km2 CO2 column on Earth (these expressions are all written in Python 2 🙂
print co2_kg_per_mars_km2/co2_kg_per_earth_km2

The answer is 28.8! So, that means mass of a unit column (km2) of CO2 extending from the surface to the top of the atmosphere (TOA) is almost thirty times more massive than a unit column (km2) of the CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere.

Experiment #2: How much warming does this “x30 enhanced” CO2 cause on Mars? We can determine this the same way it is done on Earth: compare the measured average temperature to the computed black-body temperature:

Earth: Black-body: 255K Avg: 288K
Mars: Black-body: 210K Avg: 210K

Conclusion: Under rather stringent experimental control, CO2 (at 950,000 ppm!) has no measurable effect on the temperature of Mars, compared to its black-body temperature, even though it is almost 30 times more abundant per unit column mass than on Earth.

PS: I got the mass and area statistics from the googling the Internet. Please feel free to point out any errors in my numbers or my math.

Percy Jackson
Reply to  Johanus
June 19, 2018 1:11 pm

Hi Johanus,
You need to do a proper radiative calculation to work out the size of the greenhouse effect on mars. When that is done people find a greenhouse effect of about 5 degrees. See
“Estimating the power of Mars’ greenhouse effect” by Robert M.Haberle (Icarus Volume 223, Issue 1, March 2013, Pages 619-62) for example.

Reply to  Percy Jackson
June 19, 2018 1:34 pm

That’s based upon an at best dubious model.

In fact, the mean surface temperature of Mars is six K LESS than its effective black body T. So CO2 there is a reverse greenhouse gas. An icehouse gas?

Percy Jackson
Reply to  Felix
June 19, 2018 1:45 pm

That point is discussed in the article. I would suggest you read it.

Reply to  Percy Jackson
June 19, 2018 1:58 pm

I did. The excuse is as lame as the GCM used to derive their guess at the effect on surface T of a 96% CO2 atmosphere. The model is based upon unphysical assumptions, same as for terrestrial GCMs, which model Planet GIGO, not Earth.

Reply to  Johanus
June 19, 2018 1:58 pm

The Haberle paper you cited is behind a paywall, but the abstract seems to say that somebody did some modeling and came up with an average temperature which 6K _cooler_ than the black-body, [which I think is consistent with the CO2 cooling observed in Earth’s stratosphere]. Haberle reports that a different model seems to produce results with the desired warming.

Extensive modeling of Mars in conjunction with in situ observations suggests that the annual average global mean surface temperature is Ts ~ 202K. Yet its effective temperature, i.e., the temperature at which a blackbody radiates away the energy it absorbs, is Te ∼ 208 K. How can a planet with a CO2 atmosphere have a mean annual surface temperature that is actually less than its effective temperature? We use the Ames General Circulation Model explain why this is the case and point out that the correct comparison of the effective temperature is with the effective surface temperature Tse, which is the fourth root of the annual and globally averaged value of Ts**4. This may seem obvious, but the distinction is often not recognized in the literature.

In any case, NASA has been observing and measuring Mars’ temperature for decades, from afar and near, and have reported that the average temperature of the planet and black-body temperature are essentially the same.

UPDATE: Used the new “edit” feature to redact some missing super-scripted values in the blockquoted abstract. Very nice feature.

Reply to  Johanus
June 19, 2018 2:04 pm

The density of Mars’ atmosphere is comparable to that of Earth’s stratosphere.

Reply to  Felix
June 19, 2018 2:29 pm

Correct. The pressure at Mars’ surface is about 5-7 mbar, IFIRC. The pressure of the Earth’s stratosphere varies from 1 to 100 mbar.

Dr. Strangelove
Reply to  Johanus
June 20, 2018 7:15 am

Mars doesn’t have oceans. It can’t retain heat. Temperature rises 20 C in the equator at daytime and drops to -73 C at night. Earth’s oceans retain heat for hundreds of years and they are warmer than the black body temperature (276 K vs. 254 K)

Kristi Silber
Reply to  Johanus
June 19, 2018 5:41 pm

That’s not an experiment, that’s a calculation. There are too many variables that are different on Mars, so it’s a terrible “control” anyway if you are only going to take CO2 into account (e.g. distance from sun, minute amount of water in the atmosphere, no liquid water at the surface).

Reply to  Kristi Silber
June 19, 2018 6:34 pm

Climate studies on Mars are a kind of “natural experiment” because we have very little direct control of such remote natural systems, where “experiments” can only consist of studies and characterizations of system variables (which I conducted in Experiment #1) and observations/deductions about these variables (which I conducted in Experiment #2).

Of course these are just “toy experiments”. But I think this is often how serious research is started (i.e. the “hand-waving” phase).

But I think it shows that Mars, as a greenhouse gas testbed, does provide a very useful, natural experimental control precisely because it _only_ takes CO2 gas into account, such that observed warming (if any) can be unambiguously attributed to CO2 alone, not water vapor, other GHG’s, oceans etc. I.e. eliminates some of the guesswork.

Earth is a rather poor testbed, IMHO, for such natural experiments because we see frequently warming and cooling anomalies which are difficult or impossible to attribute to specific causes, GHG’s or otherwise.

Reply to  Johanus
June 20, 2018 12:09 am

The earth atmosphere becomes transparent for the 15 µm CO₂ band in the tropopause, ~15 km height, temperature 220 K, density ~0.1 kg/m³.
Above that height the CO₂ band resolves in its distinct spectral lines, there is no pressure broadening.
Possibly that explains why there is no CO₂ effect in the Mars atmosphere.

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  Percy Jackson
June 20, 2018 12:10 am

But greenhouse theory says that without CO2, there would be a drop in radiation emitted to space, consequence being temperature rises.
How do you explain these competing hypotheses?
I do it by assuming that one, or both, of these hypotheses is wrong. Geoff.

Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
June 20, 2018 3:29 am

The warmist propaganda demonizes CO2 the most because they believe they can blame its presence on evil human activity. Water vapor, by far the most powerful GHG, is given a pass because water vapor and clouds seem to be immune to legislation.

The partial pressure of CO2 at Earth’s surface is about 1/2 millibar. On Mars’ surface it is about 5 millibars!

In the Martian testbed we see that CO2, in isolation, does not warm Mars’ atmosphere, even when the partial pressure of CO2 at the surface is increased by a factor of 10!

So, other molecules (e.g. H2O) are evidently most responsible for warming our planet above its black-body effective temperature and making it hospitable for human life.

Reply to  Percy Jackson
June 19, 2018 6:47 am

The sun can change dramatically in just a few decades.
The gradual warming of the sun caused by it’s aging is something else altogether.

R. Shearer
Reply to  js290
June 18, 2018 8:21 pm

In addition, the atmospheric pressure on Venus is very much higher than on Earth as well as it being closer to the sun.

Reply to  js290
June 18, 2018 11:28 pm


The idea that the climate system is chaotic, nonlinear, coupled system that’s too complex for mere mortals to comprehend is a red herring. The chaos is just chaotic variability around a mean whose only influence is to make trends in short term anomalies meaningless. Once you can quantify the mean, the chaos becomes irrelevant. The only relevant nonlinearity is between power and temperature which is given exactly by the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, thus is completely quantifiable. The relationship between the AVERAGE input power from the Sun (after reflection) and the BB emissions of the surface at its AVERAGE temperature is nearly perfectly linear and this linearity is repeatably testable. AVERAGE being relevant as this is independent of the chaos. The coupled nature is between the surface and the atmosphere which is mostly the impact of the water cycle, however; this too is independent of the average, as the average surface temperature and its corresponding BB emissions already accounts for all influences of the coupling, including clouds, weather, GHG effects and reflection. Once you look past the chaotic, nonlinear, coupling and consider only the mean as the linear response of surface emissions to solar input, the analysis becomes trivial and the ECS is deterministically given by 1/(4eoT^3), where T is the average surface temperature, o is the SB constant and e is (Te/T)^4, where Te is the emission temperature of the planet (255K). At 288K, the ECS is about 0.3C per W/m^2 and is below the IPCC’s claimed lower limit of about 0.4C per W/m^2. This too is repeatably testable by correlating the BB emissions corresponding to the average surface temperature against the average emissions into space across a surface divided into grid cells.

I know that I say this a lot, but I can’t say it enough, the horribly broken ECS is just so damn fundamental to the debate which is all about the ECS and nothing more. There’s so much excess complexity, misdirection and obfuscation that even most skeptics, including many scientists, are completely bamboozled and the fog of war is preventing them from seeing the answer to solving this stupid debate once and for all.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
June 19, 2018 4:09 am

Interesting comments js290; but with a couple of queries or perhaps anomalies.
First is the concept of mean or average in a chaotic system which is somewhat meaningless as the mean is transient and I believe the nearest equivalent is the concept of Strange Attractors, where the system can flip from one to another and go into a different stable state; but I am no expert here.
The second point is that the Stephan- Boltzmann equation has constraints, particularly where water is concerned for during evaporation the temperature remains constant irrespective of the energy input. ie: A climate sensitivity of zero.
Try boiling your kettle above 100C.
Apart from that I tend to go along with the gist of your comments.
My regards.

Reply to  Alasdair
June 19, 2018 7:59 am


The mean is defined as the long term average and while this average varies slowly, what it is and how it changes is absolutely deterministic without considering the chaos, the coupling or the noise. The chaos is simply a manifestation of the path to a new mean and is a consequence of overshooting and undershooting it along the way. The ebb and flow of ice exhibits some hysteresis as it modulates albedo and this is often confused with chaos, but it’s not. Ice ages come and go as a causal response to varying orbital and axial characteristics and are not the result of chaotic bouncing between quasi-stable states. The only attractor driving the system is COE which is why the consensus has deprecated this law in favor of conformance to a narrative.

The one invariant with the SB Law is the T^4 dependence. All other factors can be rolled in to an equivalent emissivity and it’s this T^4 dependence that’s crucial for understanding the ECS, its temperature dependence and why a linear approximation leads to so many errors. There’s no way for nature to change the relationship between equivalent temperature and emissions in any way that’s different than a change to the EQUIVALENT emissivity.

The effects of latent heat and other non radiative transports relative to perturbing the laws of physics are widely overstated. When you subtract their return to the surface from the bogus ‘back radiation’ term, all that’s left is the power replacing the BB emissions of the surface. Now, the question becomes what possible effect do these non radiative transports of energy into the atmosphere, plus their return to the surface, have on the temperature, its BB emissions and the replenishment of those emissions other than the effects already manifested by the average temperature?

Reply to  co2isnotevil
June 19, 2018 9:20 am

No, not a red herring. Models of complex systems are likely to be inaccurate. Climate models and precautionary measures

with respect to anthropogenic
climate-change typically revolves around the accu-
racy of models. Those who contend that models make
accurate predictions argue for specific policies to stem
the foreseen damaging effects; those who doubt their
accuracy cite a lack of reliable evidence of harm to
warrant policy action.
These two alternatives are not exhaustive. One can
sidestep the “skepticism” of those who question existing
climate-models, by framing risk in the most straight-
forward possible terms, at the global scale. That is, we
should ask “what would the correct policy be if we had
no reliable models?”
We have
only one
planet. This fact radically constrains
the kinds of risks that are appropriate to take at a large
scale. Even a risk with a very low probability becomes
unacceptable when it affects all of us – there is no
reversing mistakes of that magnitude.

Reply to  js290
June 19, 2018 10:56 am

You are propounding the Precautionary Principle.

The problem with this approach is that if you don’t understand the problem then you don’t know the magnitude of the problem so there is no basis for saying “there is no reversing mistakes of that magnitude” and you could easily create a “cure” for the problem that is worse than the problem itself.

Reply to  RicDre
June 19, 2018 12:02 pm

“Ecology… Nature is only model we have that has survived climate change with sheer, total, utter neglect…” @RestorationAgD

Joel Salatin at Wanderlust Festival’s Speakeasy – Vermont 2012 “Nature’s P&L statement day of reckoning…”

Kristi Silber
Reply to  RicDre
June 19, 2018 5:26 pm

But the problem is understood. There is no real “magnitude” of the problem because there is no particular endpoint. There is only change, and it could be fast or slow. It could be halted at some point, but that seems unlikely without new (expensive) technology. If we are going to avert future problems, it will take investment and probably economic sacrifice. The choice is whether to pay now, when we have the wealth to do so, or pay and keep paying to adapt as the problems grow worse. It like the decision whether to construct levees to keep New Orleans safe from the next hurricane vs. pay for the aftermath of every new hurricane (or move the city to safer ground, which would also be an economic hardship).

But hey – it’s not today’s retirees that will have to pay for the problems they’ve helped create, so why not pass the buck? And wealthy nations have the resources to adapt, so who cares about the developing world? I have no kids, why should I care what happens? This is a perfectly rational way to think of it. Maybe I’m becoming a skeptic.

Reply to  Kristi Silber
June 19, 2018 5:34 pm

Increasing CO2 isn’t a problem. It’s a benefit to plants and other living things.

The problem, which has cost humanity so dearly, is attempting to fix a problem which doesn’t exist.

Reply to  Felix
June 20, 2018 7:52 am

Not just doesn’t exist, but is precluded from existing by the known laws of physics.

Reply to  Kristi Silber
June 19, 2018 7:57 pm

Kristi Silber, re: Sacrifice… people can start by trying to use less energy and resources. But, that may not appease the climate alarmists. I sat in on a climate lecture a few years ago where the lecturer in the same breath said developing countries biggest energy consumption will be from air conditioning, but don’t worry the rise will be made up in efficiency gains from new AC technology. He was essentially preaching technological salvation, another faith based proposition. I suspect climate alarmists will use the coercion of the state to crack down on people who try to live more simply because it will not have been “green” washed.

“Annual agriculture is all about living through our concepts… our idea we’ve imposed on reality & when reality doesn’t behave according to our idea, what do we do? We input… we can never input enough to make our false concept correct.” @RestorationAgD

Kristi Silber
Reply to  js290
June 22, 2018 5:06 pm

“Sacrifice… people can start by trying to use less energy and resources.”

I agree completely. That and land use changes are very important. For instance, rice farming can be done in a way that minimizes methane output.

“But, that may not appease the climate alarmists.”

Who cares? Appeasing them is far less important than making changes that are economically and environmentally sound and that make a real difference.

The trouble is, using less energy and resources often means lifestyle changes, and people are slow to make them. For Americans to eat less meat or limit urban sprawl (or use their A/C less) for the sake of the environment is a very tough sell.

“I suspect climate alarmists will use the coercion of the state to crack down on people who try to live more simply because it will not have been “green” washed.”

I don’t know why you would think that.

Reply to  Kristi Silber
June 20, 2018 7:58 am

Sure there’s an endpoint. It’s when we run out of fossil fuels. Based on the actual ECS, there’s not enough left to make a difference to the climate, but more than enough to make a difference in our lives, at least until we have embraced viable alternatives (nuclear is the only source capable of replacing them).

Precaution is fine if there’s actual risk. The problem here is that the risk is non existent, yet the alarmists can’t accept this inevitable truth.

Reply to  Kristi Silber
June 22, 2018 5:03 pm

kristi- you are brooding. you are borrowing trouble on credit.
there is no problem with warm weather.
it’s nothing like new orleans’ flooding problem- that’s an actual problem- and it’s for new orleans. nobody else is responsible for living there.
kristi- much as you would like to, you can’t lick everybody’s wounds and stop trying to inflict wounds so you can. not nice.
this unborn dead baby fallacy has been named. we call it ‘the precautionary principle’
sam kinison can help you sort it out:

Reply to  js290
June 19, 2018 8:08 pm

“Models of complex systems are likely to be inaccurate. ”

What’s even more inaccurate is hoping that the relatively simple and deterministic aggregate behavior of a complex system emerges by attempting to model all of the many complexities and unknowns.

Donald Meaker
Reply to  co2isnotevil
June 20, 2018 2:59 pm

I refer you to the Cauchy distribution for which the mean is not defined. There is no chaotic variability about a mean because there is no mean. Larger sample sizes are more likely to have a result from the fat ‘tails’ and because of that there is no converging trend with larger sample sizes. Of course you can pick a sample, and connect the dots, but you will have selected an incorrect equation to solve for your system. That the incorrect equation is easy to solve doesn’t really add to your confidence.

Reply to  js290
June 18, 2018 11:50 pm

The sun and the earth are NOT coupled in the traditional sense.

Earth is some distance from the sun and by default absorbs solar irradiation. After that it’s on it’s own.

Earths protection mechanisms vary in success over a timescale, and there are delays in ejecting excess heat in a search for equilibrium. That equilibrium point varies over a longer timescale.

Looking back over the past one million years Earth’s mean temperature equilibrium point is considerably lower than present.


Reply to  Ozonebust
June 19, 2018 6:53 am

Radiation, corrected.

Reply to  Ozonebust
June 19, 2018 7:50 pm

“…NOT coupled in the traditional sense.” lol… sleight of hand… trying to magically decouple coupled systems. To paraphrase Jon Lovitz playing Tommy Lasorda yelling at Dana Carvey playing George Will, “Solve the eigenvalue problem, George!” Accurate model of the climate first requires accurate model of the Sun. You cannot magically decouple coupled systems.

Reply to  js290
June 19, 2018 6:13 am

Venus is so hot because of CO2


The most profound planetary difference between Venus and Mars is the daily rotation rate. Venus is a slow rotating planet its equatorial rotation velocity is 6.52 km/h (1.81 m/s) and its day lasts longer than its year. Mars however, like the Earth, is a fast rotating planet its solar day of 24 h 39 m 35.244147 s is slightly longer than the Earth’s.

The speed of daily rotation has fundamental implications for planetary climate. (see Hunt, B.G. 1979 and also Del Genio, A.D. & R. J. Suozzo 1987)
On a fast rotating planet such as on Earth where the speed of equatorial rotation is approximately 1,000 miles per hour, this means that (for an external frame of reference) the ground is effectively moving faster that the speed of sound in air. This is a dramatic way of pointing out that the rocks and water of the daytime heated surface are rapidly transported round to the unlit side of our planet. By contrast on Venus the equatorial velocity is so slow that the mobile atmosphere, with its low heat capacity, is the only material capable of providing a mechanism that can effectively transport heat to the unlit side of that planet.

Consider this example (which I fully expect to be contentious). If you wish to cook a joint of meat over a fire then it is necessary to rotate the spit to avoid the side facing the fire from being charred. Turning the spit stops the meat from burning too much because the heated surface is continually being moved away from the fire to the side where it can most effectively cool. Slowly rotating Venus is the charred planet. The presence of a dense atmosphere on Venus with its high carbon dioxide content is a consequence of (and not a cause of) the surface heating of this slowly rotating planet. Unlike the Earth, without any geochemical mechanism early in its history capable of converting gaseous carbon dioxide into solid calcium carbonate rock, the only place left for the carbon dioxide of Venus to go is for the gas to be stored for ever in its atmosphere.

Reply to  Philip Mulholland
June 19, 2018 8:04 am

The most important difference is the nature of the virtual surface in DIRECT equilibrium with the Sun, relative to the solid surface. On Earth, this is the top of the oceans and bits of solid surface that pokes through. On Venus, this surface is the cloud tops. The Venusian solid surface is more like Earth’s solid surface beneath the deep ocean, whose temperature is dependent on the PVT profile of the matter between the surface in equilibrium with the Sun and the solid surface below.

Kristi Silber
Reply to  co2isnotevil
June 19, 2018 4:53 pm

I disagree. It’s the Earth including that atmosphere that is more or less in equilibrium, emitting as much energy as it receives from the sun. This is why climate models include the energy of the sun at the top of the atmosphere, and not at its surface. Why would you remove the whole atmosphere from the equation? (Of course, it’s not quite in equilibrium: more solar energy is absorbed than is emitted as a result of the increased GHG.)

Reply to  Kristi Silber
June 19, 2018 8:43 pm


Only radiant emissions by the atmosphere are relevant to the emissions of the planet. These originate from 2 sources in the atmosphere. One source is energized GHG molecules whose emissions make it out into space. The other is BB emissions by the water in clouds that makes it past the GHG’s between cloud tops and space. For cloud water to be LTE, it must be absorbing the same as it’s emitting and it’s absorbing primarily from surface emissions. Latent heat arrives as water vapor and upon condensation on an atmospheric water droplet, warms it, ultimately returning the latent heat to the surface as rain. The net difference in temperature between evaporating water and rain is the primary source of the energy driving weather.

The basic difference between GHG’s and clouds are that GHG’s are narrow band absorbers and emitters of photons, while clouds are broad band absorbers and emitters. Additionally, the water in clouds is tightly thermodynamically coupled to the water in the oceans by the hydro cycle and for all intents and purposes, the steady state solar energy absorbed and emitted by the water in clouds can be considered a proxy for solar energy absorbed and emitted by the oceans. This allows an accurate EQUIVALENT model by considering the surface as absorbing all of the post albedo solar energy arriving to the planet, including any solar energy absorbed by clouds. Any deviations from this can then be rolled in to the effective emissivity of the surface in direct equilibrium with the Sun, relative to space.

The Venusian clouds and surface are completely independent thermodynamic systems. On Earth, the Sun heats the surface that heats the clouds while on Venus, the Sun heats the clouds which heats the surface. The direction of causality as a consequence of the two independent thermodynamic systems is what’s important here.

BTW, the atmosphere is not ignored, but its transfer function quantifying the relationship between surface emissions and emissions at TOA can be encapsulated into something as simple as an emissivity relative to the surface temperature. The atmosphere must also be in equilibrium or else whatever is not would heat or cool without bound.

Kristi Silber
Reply to  co2isnotevil
June 22, 2018 5:20 pm

“The net difference in temperature between evaporating water and rain is the primary source of the energy driving weather.”

But we are not talking weather, we are talking about climate change. Or at least I am.

You are better versed in the physics of the system than I. Perhaps you can explain why there would be any change energy flux associated with water vapor in the absence of some other change in the system. Put another way, why would water vapor be driving an increase in global temperature? There must be some other change in the system. Solar variation can’t account for it. Land use changes might be a factor, but there is no evidence that I’m aware of to suggest that this is the main influence.

Reply to  js290
June 19, 2018 7:03 am

How about this: CO2 should cause NO warming, because its ability to absorb AND emit … causes cooling and energy distribution.

Kristi Silber
Reply to  Robert Kernodle
June 19, 2018 4:34 pm

CO2 absorbs energy. The molecules are excited, move and vibrate, and pass that energy onto other molecules in the atmosphere. I may be wrong, but I don’t think this is the same as emitting energy, which is why it doesn’t just radiate back into space.

The theory that CO2 causes atmospheric warming has been around for over one hundred years, and has never been disproved. Your “How about this…” scenario would need substantial theoretical and experimental evidence to gain credibility. Good luck.

Alan Tomalty
June 18, 2018 8:05 pm

This mess is going to get a lot worse before it gets better. The corruption of all science is at stake. And if that happens the universities will be little more than fantasyland. Read below.

The coming fight now is Earth System Sensitivity. It has its roots almost as long as AGW. Back in the 80’s was when it really got started. Almost 40 years later Michael Mann and his followers have decided that the IPCC is doomed and that they dont need it anymore anyway. They are losing control over its alarmist message and it is becoming more conservative as we skeptics are forcing it to tone down. Witness the IPCC RCP8.5 which doesnt really look scary as far as temperature is concerned.
The Earth System Science (ESS) Education Alliance was formed in 2000 and has ~50 institutions signed up with over 3000 teachers. Their plan is to take over the geology and paleontology departments of every university in the world just like have they done to the Atmospheric science faculties. In their minds they have to because then they can control the past. Eric Blair aka George Orwell has unwittingly written their manifesto. He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past. Orwell should have reversed those 2 sentences. The recipe is simple. The thesis is that long term changes of the earth caused by short term changes caused by CO2 will dwarf the measly temperature changes of CO2. To do that they need to control the past with different climate models because only with the past can they control ( model) the slow processes needed so that they will project far into the future 500 years if necessary. To do that they have to take over the 2 faculties that are standing in their way.

For a vision of the future if we let this happen listen to Orwell’s Final Warning only 2 minutes long

honest liberty
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 19, 2018 8:44 am

hey Alan, I responded in another comment section on the “data thugs” article.
Would you be willing to collaborate on producing some content to distribute? A short 10 minute video with commentary, etc. I am going to then submit to James Corbett initially, then try to gain some traction with other independent media outlets.

your assistance would be greatly appreciated.

Tom Dayton
June 18, 2018 9:58 pm

A good place to start learning about V&V of climate models is at Steve Easterbrook’s blog Serendipity. He has a good recent video of a TED talk (you should read the text surrounding that video on his blog), a short but good description of V&V, a short description of massive and thorough comparisons of the outputs of 24 climate models, an explanation of why some formal methods cannot be applied to climate models but Agile-like methods can, and especially relevant for you is his post Do Climate Models Need Independent Verification and Validation? You would benefit from reading other posts of his that you can find by using his blog’s Search field to look for “verification” or “validation.”

honest liberty
Reply to  Tom Dayton
June 19, 2018 8:56 am

Interesting that you need to reference clear mental gymnastics to hide behind your false god. shameful, even more so that you submit a link to an antagonist that shuts down free debate on his comment section.

Credibility = zero Tom. Zero. Surely, you can attempt to do better.

honest liberty
Reply to  Tom Dayton
June 19, 2018 9:00 am

also, tinkering with toy models is a gamer’s paradise, but has no scientific value. This has been proven beyond doubt (minus the unshakable faith of the true beLIEveRS) through observational evidence and history.

Can’t hindcast accurately, can’t forecast accurately. can’t CAN’T accurately. They can’t even get being wrong, right.

Reply to  Tom Dayton
June 19, 2018 9:20 am

Easterbrook seems like a reasonably knowledgeable individual in his area of expertise. And he does make some very good points re: V&V. Additionally, his description of the boundary condition problem that GCMs (or ESMs) attempt to solve is quite useful for those unfamiliar with the topic.

What’s seems to be missing from his account, indeed, from his understanding, is that it’s this boundary condition, the system response, that “contrarians” contest. He spends a lot of time making arguments that, while sound in and of themselves, are completely irrelevant to the major point: what, if any, impact will CO2 levels have on the boundary conditions. His computer science expertise has, unfortunately, not provided him with the needed physical understanding to recognize the shortcomings of these models.

I like what CO2isnotevil had to say above (or in another thread…can’t remember). It’s all about ECS. We repeatedly observe, and can calculate, a much lower ECS than is derived from ESM outputs. THIS is the crucial validation that’s missing from all these reviews. This is why we protest so vigorously. All the explanations and justifications by Easterbrook, and those like him, amount to so much arm waving.

It’s truly unfortunate. I’m confident these are serious and sincere people, completely dedicated to their cause, yet seemingly so oblivious to that which is right in front of their noses. It’s the classic case of not seeing the forest for the trees, except in this case, the forest we’re talking about is the subtle error in their understanding, and the trees are the many thousands of lines of code making up the hundreds of modules of their ESMs.

But in general, Tom, I think you’ve provided a useful service by highlighting Easterbrook’s talks and blog posts and etc. These provide a very useful understanding for this contrarian into the nature of the error made by alarmists. Thanks for the contribution.



Reply to  Tom Dayton
June 19, 2018 12:55 pm

.. Scientific forecasting knowledge has been summarised in the form of principles by 40 leading forecasting researchers and 123 expert reviewers. The principles summarise the evidence on forecasting from 545 studies that in turn drew on many prior studies. Some of the forecasting principles, such as ‘provide full disclosure’ and ‘avoid biased data sources,’ are common to all scientific fields. The principles are readily available in the Principles of Forecasting handbook.

We used that knowledge to assess whether the procedures described in the ‘Climate Models and their Evaluation’ chapter of 2007 IPCC Assessment report amounted to scientific forecasting … Our audit found that the IPCC followed only 17 of the 89 relevant principles that we were able to code using the information provided in the 74-page IPCC chapter. Thus, the IPCC forecasting procedures violated 81% of relevant forecasting principles …

Kesten C. Green and J. Scott Armstrong, from “Climate Change: The Facts, 2015″, Ed. Alan Moran.

Martin Hovland
June 18, 2018 10:37 pm

All numerical models are in the fate of NUMERICAL INSTABILITY. Every time the computer makes a new iteration, it has to multiply a number numerous times over. Now try to multiply 0.000000002, with itself ten times over (this is the nature of iteration). What do you get? You get a tiny little number, much less than the one you started with. And now try to multiply the number 1.000000002, with itself ten times over, and you get a strongly growing number (after 10 times you get 1.000002048).

This means that you either get a growing number or one that diminishes as you iterate, hundreds and thousands of times. So, either the result rapidly grows out of proportion (exponentially) or it goes towards zero…

Most of the temperature predictions from IPCC shows a growing trend, which probably means that one of their parameters are wrong (too large). It’s probably as simple as that.

June 18, 2018 10:38 pm

Typo alert: “There is another extremely large group of scientists from any discipline, who ever read the IPCC Reports.” I believe you meant “never” not “ever”.

June 18, 2018 11:00 pm

Where’s Stokes when you need somebody willing to defend the indefensible?

Reply to  Phillip Bratby
June 19, 2018 2:40 am


It seems he carefully selects the arguments he loses.

June 19, 2018 3:19 am

Lastly, and possibly most damning, is that the “Hockey Stick” suffers from extreme heteroscedasticity. The distal variation is much higher than the proximal variation. In the year 1,000 temperature variation ranges from -0.8 to +0.4, in the year 1902 temperature variation ranges from -0.8 to -0.2, and then post 1902 the behavior totally changes with the introduction of instrumental data. Remember, there is nothing about the underlying physics of the CO2 molecule or GHG effect that would explain a temperature dog-leg of accelerating temperatures. (Click Here) Why this is so damning is that the extreme variation identified in the “Hockey Stick” occurred with extremely stable CO2 levels. CO2 levels between the year 1,000 and 1902 ranged between 275 and 285 ppm. CO2 simply can’t explain the extreme variation of the past 1,000 years. CO2 was essentially a constant, yet temperatures variations were much higher than today. Temperature variation around the year 1350 had a range between +0.5 to -1.0. If you substitute data that has been controlled for the Urban Heat Island Effect and H2O, temperatures post-1920 are stable, even though CO2 has increased over 30%. If Michael Mann understood his own chart he would understand that it does far more to rule out CO2 as the cause of warming, than it implicates CO2.

June 19, 2018 5:27 am

I’m only interested in weather forecasting. That is what affects all of us directly. When a meteorology group like Accuweather can’t even make a vaguely accurate forecast three days out, and change their forecasts sometimes by the hour, I have little to no faith in any of it any more.

So when this climate modeling nonsense becomes all the rage, and it is based on greed and egocentricity rather than science, and the popular “models” are consistently shown to be as wrong and off the mark as Accuweather’s meteo forecasts, why would I listen to them.?

I will pay attention because this is now encroaching into Lysenkoist politics, which is beyond dangerous. These bozos know nothing at all about agriculture and crop production. They seem to intentionally ignore the effects of heat islands like cities and how much concrete and asphalt affect overall temperatures for those areas. Anything that throws off their models is ignored.

It is necessary to be aware of these things, so that we don’t end up holding the short end of the stick.

Kristi Silber
Reply to  Sara
June 19, 2018 4:10 pm

“I will pay attention because this is now encroaching into Lysenkoist politics, which is beyond dangerous.”

Ludicrous statements like these encourage disrespect for the ideas of skeptics. It’s another type of alarmism, and a far more offensive one. When the government starts killing contrarian scientists, you might have reason to make such a claim.

June 19, 2018 6:13 am

The coming cooling: usefully accurate climate forecasting for policy makers.

DOI: 10.1177/0958305X16686488
Energy & Environment
0(0) 1–18
This paper argues that the methods used by the establishment climate science community are not fit for purpose and that a new forecasting paradigm should be adopted. Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between various quasi-cyclic processes of varying wavelengths. It is not possible to forecast the future unless we have a good understanding of where the earth is in time in relation to the current phases of those different interacting natural quasi periodicities. Evidence is presented specifying the timing and amplitude of the natural 60+/- year and, more importantly, 1,000 year periodicities (observed emergent behaviors) that are so obvious in the temperature record. Data related to the solar climate driver is discussed and the solar cycle 22 low in the neutron count (high solar activity) in 1991 is identified as a solar activity millennial peak and correlated with the millennial peak -inversion point – in the RSS temperature trend in about 2003. The cyclic trends are projected forward and predict a probable general temperature decline in the coming decades and centuries. Estimates of the timing and amplitude of the coming cooling are made. If the real climate outcomes follow a trend which approaches the near term forecasts of this working hypothesis, the divergence between the IPCC forecasts and those projected by this paper will be so large by 2021 as to make the current, supposedly actionable, level of confidence in the IPCC forecasts untenable.

Kristi Silber
Reply to  Dr Norman Page
June 19, 2018 3:57 pm

Ah, the old and tired “It’s the sun, stupid!” argument. Is this writer not aware that solar cycles have been thoroughly examined? Is the writer not aware that climate is not that simple? Yes, the sun certainly does have an effect, but it cannot completely explain observations. If a new, better paradigm can be supported, fine, but it should at least be plausible.

The journal Energy and Environment has a reputation for printing poor/unprofessional science.

June 19, 2018 7:32 am

One more way to analyze the Hockey Stick

Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick Rules out CO2 as Cause of Global Warming

Andy Pattullo
June 19, 2018 8:01 am

Dr. Ball’s writing never disappoints. Lucid, informed, objective and unforgiving for the disastrous misrepresentation of science that CAGW is. As a scientist I am embarrassed that the behavior, so well described in Dr. Ball’s article, has become common operating procedure in science. It seems no longer fashionable to seek truth, rather one is to invent some imposing bogey man that threatens civilization in ominous ways and then, through the gross manipulation of numbers, anecdotes, statistical trickery, one claims to be saving society, nature, the planet, or some other sanctified entity from certain doom.

Kristi Silber
Reply to  Andy Pattullo
June 19, 2018 3:47 pm

Objective? You really think so? Why???

As a scientist, you should know that what you describe is impossible on the scale at which it would have to happen. Even if there are some rotten apples, the idea that there are enough dishonest scientists to carry out a coordinated worldwide hoax for half a century is simply preposterous.

As a scientist, you should know the dangers of convincing the public not to trust science. If they can be convinced that 1000s of scientists in a variety of fields are deceiving the world, where does it end? Why should people trust any scientific conclusions with which they disagree?

Reply to  Kristi Silber
June 19, 2018 4:49 pm

Precisely Kristi. That is the gunpowder Ball and his ilk play with as they attack the IPCC and the scientists.

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  Kristi Silber
June 20, 2018 3:32 am

Then please explain Lysenkoism. Geoff

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Kristi Silber
June 20, 2018 5:47 am

“As a scientist, you should know the dangers of convincing the public not to trust science. If they can be convinced that 1000s of scientists in a variety of fields are deceiving the world, where does it end? Why should people trust any scientific conclusions with which they disagree?”

Kristi, it’s not that thousands of scientists are deliberately deceiving the world. It’s just a small Climategate Cadre of co-conspirators who bastardized the global temperature records to make it look like things are getting hotter and hotter, and all these thousands of other scientists have just bought the lie and believe it is true, and then proceed to make their particular speculations in their particular specialties based on a false foundation that the temperatures are going to continue to climb into the “danger zone”.

Just a few conspirators, Kristi, not thousands. But just a few is all it took to perpetrate this CAGW lie.

Curious George
June 19, 2018 10:22 am

Climate models did not even bother to develop a reasonable grid (probably composed of triangles) for their simulation. They stick to the simplest latitude-longitude grid, with cells getting smaller and smaller toward poles, where this choice of grid imposes an artificial singularity. This allows us to measure the mathematical sophistication of modelers: zero.

June 19, 2018 10:55 am

This looks informative:

I’ll have to read it more thoroughly later. I just found it, skimmed a bit of it for now.

Kristi Silber
June 19, 2018 2:02 pm

“The global climate campaign was intent on proving to the world that human production of CO2 was causing AGW. This means it was premeditated. It became a crime of passion after the crime was committed because the perpetrators allowed their passion to override and resist anything that revealed the truth. The people involved knew from the start that what they were doing was less than pseudoscience, so it is premeditated.”

Dr. Ball believes he can read minds.

“Many scientists can and do create many speculations based on a few facts and assumptions every day. ”

This includes Dr. Ball. This whole article if full of assertions with no evidence. This seems to be a specialty of his.

“As I understand, this became known as validation, and the modelers claimed success because they tweaked variables until the model recreated past conditions. The problem is it became a hindsight correlation with no proof of cause and effect.”

Well, evidently you DON’T understand it fully, Dr. Ball. (Nor do you seem to know one of the basic tenets of science: nothing is ever “proved.”) I suggest you read There are diverse ways of developing and tuning models, which makes it all the more impressive that many of their results overlap. For instance, “The question of whether the twentieth-century warming should be considered a target of model development or an emergent property is polarizing the climate modeling community, with 35% of modelers stating that twentieth-century warming was rated very important to decisive, whereas 30% would not consider it at all during development.”

“Only one marked Very High (VH) is for CO2, a self-serving assessment that is easily debunked.”

If it’s so easy, why hasn’t it been debunked in the last 100 years?

Climate projections will always have an element of uncertainty since no one can predict what humans will do, or what natural factors (e.g. volcanoes) will affect the future climate. Some parameters have high uncertainty of whether they will happen at all. Others are highly probable, but the degree (of warming, sea level rise, etc.) cannot be precisely estimated. The projections would be far LESS believable if the IPCC said, “The planet will warm by 3 degrees by 2100.”

“Could somebody give me the data on the number and nature of aerosols in the atmosphere as well as the volume and how it varies over any time period?”

As a matter of fact, my uncle spent his career at NOAA measuring atmospheric aerosols. He was chief of the MLO for decades. If you really want to know, I will contact him, but if you’re just blowing smoke, forget it. (“Volume” of aerosols, though, is irrelevant even if it could be calculated. Volume at what temperature and pressure?)

Dr. Ball also buys into the completely illogical idea that the whole thing is a conspiracy, a hoax. Can anyone really believe that for the last 50 years 1000s of scientists all over the world have been conspiring to fool the public and their fellow scientists? There is no evidence whatsoever, but what does that matter when one REALLY wants to believe something – or wants to convince others it’s the case? Why would Exxon scientists in the 1970s make the shite up? What possible motivation would they have? What motivation would anyone have to believe we were changing the climate? “Global redistribution of wealth and power”? That’s the most ludicrous idea out there. As if the amount of money spent on mitigation and adaptation is going to change the international power balance!

“Critics of my article argued that there was sufficient certainty to consider the models valid tools. I reject that claim completely because certainty is inadequate at every phase of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) claim.”

I don’t care if you reject it, Dr. Ball. What bothers me is that you consistently spread your opinions as if they were fact. You aim to influence people, but considering the readiness with which you are willing to assume worst of people and misinterpret others’ statements (the “climategate” emails, for example), you not only lack credibility, you lack integrity and professionalism. You give skeptics a bad name. It’s exactly this kind of behavior that encourages ostracism of contrarian scientists and dismissal of their views. I hope people here will seriously consider this.

Reply to  Kristi Silber
June 22, 2018 5:23 pm

nah. let me show you how we know you are stupid:
you say ” one of the basic tenets of science: nothing is ever “proved.””
which is false- but not just false; it’s self evidently false because of the self contradiction.
and any scientist or logician will tell you that a self contradiction is a falsehood.
so we know that you make an absurd assertion that nothing is ever proved and simultaneously pretend you just proved it.
you can’t get stupider, girl.
and it probably does no good to tell you so. you won’t understand because stupid…lol
so just register the mockery. you’re a one man cringe-fest.

Reply to  Kristi Silber
June 23, 2018 8:13 am

Sacrifice: the exchange of something of value for something of lesser value, i.e. the negation of a value
and you suggest that negation of values must be a virtue (a virtue is the means by which one gains or keeps a value.)
so you see, you have self contradictions you’ve accepted as truth which makes a pons asinorum to reality you can not cross. you are infected with lies and your mind is crippled from it. you are a mystic and reality rejects you. 🙂

that’s not the only scotoma, of course, because once you believe a lie- other lies are accepted on the basis.
you say ” one of the basic tenets of science: nothing is ever “proved.”” which is a profound lie.
anything that is true can be proven.
it is impossible to prove that there is any unprovable truth, duh.
that’s the reductio ad absurdum that proves your statement must be false.

your sophistry and constant nagging to corrupt the psyche of earnest students is just frikn evil. you suck.

June 19, 2018 9:49 pm

To quote from , I’m :
Seeking an executable understanding of the differential in a voxel because mapping it over a sphere ( as in Tim’s Figure 1 ) is rather trivial in an APL like CoSy .

The equation for electromagnetic energy balance as a function of spectrum is presented at and is the subject of my 2014 Heartland talk showing the quantitative absurdity of claiming Venus’s surface temperature , ~ 2.25 times the ~ 328K gray body temperature in its orbit ( energy density ~ 25 times what the Sun supplies to its orbit ) is due to some spectral filtering effect .

The paradigm leaves out the ubiquitous trade-off of kinetic ( heat ) and gravitational energy which can be rather easily worked out from the simple observation that a particle moving upward in a gravitational field slows down and one moving downward speeds up . This effect is seen all the way to the center of any massive object and atmospheres are not immune .

Only with both components can the total energy balance equations — balance .

Donald Meaker
June 20, 2018 2:36 pm

The Navier Stokes differential equations describe fluid flow with changes in temperature and density. They are nonlinear, chaotic, and show sensitive dependence on initial conditions. That means that no finite set of data can ever be sufficient to predict a distant future state with confidence. This has been known since the 1963 paper “Deterministic Nonperiodic Flow” by Edward Lorenz (in Nature). Anyone who pretends to predict a distant state of a Navier Stokes system is either a fraud, or incompetent, or both.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights