What if there is no Climate Emergency ?

Reposted from edmhdotme

What if there is no Catastrophic Risk from Man-made Global Warming ?
What if Man-made CO2 emissions are not the “Climate Control Knob” ?
What if Man-made CO2 emissions really are a non-problem ?
But what if there is a real Global Cooling Catastrophe in the offing ?

It is the propaganda of Catastrophic Global Warming / Climate Change alarmists that has illogically conflated Carbon Dioxide, the beneficial trace gas that sustains all life on earth and which may cause some minor warming, with real and dangerous pollutants to create the “Great Global Warming Scare / Climate Change Scare / Climate Emergency / etcetera”, with their “we are all going to fry in the next few years” narrative”.

The temperature progression of Greenland Ice Cores, (during the Holocene interglacial above), shows that each high point in the past of our current benign epoch:

  • Optimum
  • Minoan
  • Roman
  • Medieval
  • Modern

has been colder than its previous high point.

For the last 3 millennia, since 1000BC, cooling has been progressing at a rate considerably higher than during the earlier Holocene that encompassed the highest temperature of the Holocene Climate Optimum.

As the Holocene epoch is now some ~11,000 years old experience of previous interglacials shows that it should be ending very soon, in geological time.  It is therefore much more likely that the Holocene will continue to cool at at least its current rate as it has done for the past 3 millennia, unless it terminates suddenly like earlier interglacials.

As a result of the failure to appreciate elementary arithmetic,  physics and biology, the Western world is being forced to indulge in a massive guilt trip, with endless predictions of impending global catastrophes.  But instead it is likely that modern Holocene warming at the end of the 20th century global warming is:

  • beneficial to the biosphere and Man-kind
  • within normal limits
  • sadly may be not now even be occurring at all.

The probability is that any current global warming is not man-made and in any case it could be not be influenced by any remedial action, however drastic, taken by a relatively small section of the Global population.

That prospect should be greeted with unmitigated joy.

If it is so:

  • concern over CO2, as a man-made pollutant can be entirely discounted.
  • it is not necessary to destroy the Western world’s economy to no purpose.
  • if warming were happening it would lead to a more benign and healthy climate for the biosphere and mankind.
  • any extra CO2 is already increasing the fertility of all plant life on the planet.
  • if it is occurring at all, a warmer climate within natural variation, would provide a future of greater opportunity and prosperity for the biosphere and for human development.
  • a warmer climate has frequently been well proven to be beneficial in the past.
  • a warmer climate would now be especially beneficial for the third world.

The role of Atmospheric CO2

Apart from accepting and emphasising the the role of water vapour and clouds in the “Greenhouse Effect” these notes use conventional Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC wisdom to calculate the temperature effect of CO2.  Any realistic climate policy should be based on the following points on recognising the role of natural atmospheric CO2 and Man-made CO2 emissions:

  • The greater part of the Greenhouse effect, (more than ~90% – 95%) arises from water as vapour and clouds in the atmosphere.


  • The warming Greenhouse effect is essential to all life on earth, without it amounting to ~+33°C planet Earth would be a very cold and inhospitable place indeed.
  • The major role of water as vapour or clouds is fully acknowledged by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC.
  • Nonetheless the IPCC only concentrate their alarmist views on Man-made CO2 emissions.  This is hardly surprising, after all the adverse role of Man-made CO2 emissions and their supposed impact on climate is built into the IPCC mission statement and mandate.

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf      (page 666 of the IPCC assessment.)

  • The world needs its atmospheric CO2 for the survival and fertilisation of all plant life.
  • Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide CO2 is therefore not pollutant.
  • So atmospheric Carbon Dioxide is the very stuff of life.
  • Atmospheric CO2 is essential for PHOTOSYNTHESIS in plants, it supports all life on earth
  • At about half the current atmospheric concentration of CO2, plant Photosynthesis falters and the world soon dies.
  • In comparison with its Geological past the World is now in a period of CO2 starvation, because most of the CO2, once at least 10 times more abundant in the atmosphere when plants evolved, has since been sequestered by microscopic life in the oceans as limestone, Calcium Carbonate.

CO2 concentrations came close to the fatally low level, (~150 ppmv), during the last ice age, 110,000BC – 10,000BC.  That dangerously low level of atmospheric CO2 could well be exceeded in any coming Ice Age.  Colder oceans absorb more CO2 and ocean life sequesters it as limestone.

This is the way our world will eventually die of atmospheric CO2 starvation in a future glacial period.

Increasing CO2 concentration, mainly arising from slightly warmer oceans outgassing CO2, has been promoting plant growth throughout the planet and reduces the water needs of plants.  According to NASA, ~15% extra green growth across the planet is already attributable to the relatively recent increase in CO2 concentration.


Man-kind as a whole contributes only a small amount of the CO2 in the Carbon cycle, (~3% per annum), and any extra atmospheric CO2 is rapidly absorbed by the oceans and the biosphere, (with a half-life probably as short as ~5 years).

Atmospheric CO2, whether Man-made or mostly naturally occurring, cannot therefore be considered as a pollutant.  If any extra CO2 were to have some minor warming effect, it would be all to the good.


However added CO2 from Mankind’s use of fossil fuels is unlikely to be sufficient to avoid the adverse cooling effects of the soon to be ending Holocene interglacial.

The diminishing warming effectiveness of increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

In spite of the hysterical propaganda, there is no direct straight-line relationship between CO2 concentration and global temperature.

Atmospheric CO2 concentration is not a direct control knob on Global temperature.

The effectiveness of CO2 as a warming Greenhouse gas rapidly diminishes logarithmically as its concentration increases.  The consequence of this logarithmic diminution mean that all further CO2 induced temperature increases can now only be absolutely marginal and that there is no chance of any further Catastrophic Global warming, whether effected by Man-kind or not.

In other words there cannot be “a Climate Emergency” caused by further increases in the level of Man-made CO2.

Screenshot 2019-09-23 at 10.06.07.png

This logarithmic diminution effect is caused by the overlapping energy wavelengths between greenhouse gasses and water vapour in the atmosphere.  An analogous illustration of the CO2 diminution effect with increasing concentrations, can be imagined as if one was painting over a window with successive layers of white paint.  The first layer will still be fairly translucent, but subsequent layers will progressively reduce the translucency until the window is fully obscured and thereafter any further paint layers can make no further difference to the fact that the window is already fully obscured.

A concentration of atmospheric CO2 greater than 200 ppmv equivalent to ~77% of CO2’s Greenhouse effectiveness is essential to maintain plant life and thus all life on earth.  Plant life will be extinguished with CO2 levels at ~150ppmv.

CO2 is not causing global warming

At the current level of ~400 ppmv, ~87% of the effectiveness of CO2 as a Greenhouse gas is already exhausted:  only 13% of warming effectiveness of CO2 remains.

Screenshot 2019-12-01 at 19.00.17.png

There is now so little of the potential of CO2 as a greenhouse gas now remaining that there is no possibility of ever reaching the “much feared” +2°C temperature rise or more predicted by alarmists.

From now increasing CO2 in the atmosphere can only lead to very limited further warming and certainly not to any catastrophic and any dangerous temperature increase.  The simple mathematics of increasing CO2 concentrations supporting this are set out below.

Screenshot 2019-09-23 at 14.02.30.png

Logarithmic diminution operates as follows:


  • 77% of the CO2 greenhouse effect of CO2, 0 – 200 ppmv, is essential to sustain plant life and thus all life on earth.
  • Extra atmospheric CO2 very effectively fertilises plants, enhancing growth and reducing water demand
  • Even if it is assumed that all the increase from 300ppmv – 400ppmv is Man-made, it could have only given 4.2% of the net Greenhouse effect, (aside from water and clouds), thus a temperature rise of between 0.14°C – 0.07°C
  • A possible immediate future rise from 400ppmv – 500ppmv could only give a rise of between 0.11°C – 0.05°C
  • A later rise of CO2 from 500ppmv – 1000ppmv, were it to occur, can only give an additional further rise of between 0.33°C – 0.17°C
  • This ignores the IPCC statement that accepts that only 50% of the present CO2 increase is Man-made, which would reduce the range of Man-made temperature increase by CO2 values by half.
  • This also ignores the assumption made in IPCC Climate models that there is massive positive and escalating feedback from further increasing CO2 emissions:  even if such massive positive feedback were proven, any continuing warming from continuing CO2 emissions would still remain marginal as a result of the logarithmic diminution effect.

Alarmists have stated that levels of +2.0°C – +1.5°C to be catastrophic and sadly they have convinced most of the Western world’s politicians.  It has since been admitted, via the Climategate release of emails, by the alarmist scientists at the University of East Anglia that the value of +2°C was simply “pulled from the air”.

Economically any increase up-to a further +2°C would be beneficial.  Global temperatures would then approach the very abundant period of the previous Eemian interglacial epoch 110,000 years ago, when hippopotami thrived in the Rhine delta.


It is now likely that the impact of any rise in CO2 concentrations on global temperature is not only marginally insignificant but also immeasurable, even at its greatest IPCC assessed effectiveness.  In fact any temperature rise could well be beneficial.

To bring India and the Developing world, (some 4.1 billion people, ~44% of the world population), up to the current level of development of China, as represented by its  present level of CO2 emissions/head, over the coming decades their CO2 emissions are bound to escalate by at least a further 20 billion tonnes per annum, (+~60%).  This inevitable increase in CO2 emissions is being promoted and supported by the Chinese “Belt and Road programme” with at least 700 new Coal-fired power stations in construction or in now the pipeline.


So faced with this inevitable escalation, the political belief of Western Nations that they are able to limit Global temperature by the elimination of their own relatively small proportion of CO2 emissions from their own use of fossil fuels can now only ever have marginal, immeasurable and entirely self-harming effects.


Therefore, any de-carbonisation efforts by Western Nations are misguided and irrelevant.

Fossil fuels are a gift of nature.  They are like a battery of energy created by sunlight several million years ago.  Their use has enabled all the civilised development in the West world and will continue to support the growth in prosperity of the Developing world.  Fossil fuels are not running out.  Fracking developments can occur almost anywhere worldwide.  For example there are 300 years’ worth of Coal in the UK alone.

Nonetheless there is a real Climate Catastrophe in the offing

That coming catastrophe is the exact opposite of the Climate alarmists “we are all going to fry in twelve years narrative”.  It presages a very scary future for Man-kind and the biosphere and it may well in part arrive in the comparatively near-term:

  • According to reliable Ice Core records the last millennium 1000 – 2000 AD was the coldest of our current Holocene interglacial.
  • The world has already been cooling at ~0.14°C / millennium, ~20 times the earlier rate since ~1000 BC, before Roman times.


Screenshot 2019-09-25 at 18.08.58.png

  • But as can be seen in the rapid Recovery from the last Ice Age, 10,000 years ago, when temperature increased at a rate of ~+2.5°C / millennium, ~20 times the present rate of temperature diminution, the world’s Climate can change much more radically and suddenly.
  • There is every reason to expect that the World could meet a similar falling temperature cliff at the coming end of our present Holocene epoch, this century, next century or this millennium, with a similar rate of decline as at the end of the previous Eemian interglacial.

Screenshot 2019-10-19 at 06.44.53.png

  • The modern short pulse of beneficial Global warming stopped some 20 years ago and recent global temperatures are now stable or declining.
  • At 11,000 years old, our congenial, warm Holocene interglacial is coming towards its end. The warmth of the Holocene epoch has been responsible for all man-kind’s advances, from living in caves to microprocessors.
  • The world is likely to revert very soon, (in geological time), to another period of true glaciation, again resulting in mile high ice sheets over New York. With much lower sea levels the state of Western Europe only 16,000 years ago can be seen below and this may gives an idea of how the coming new Ice Age will look in due course.

Screenshot 2019-06-30 at 21.05.21.png

  • The prospect of even moving in a cooling direction is something to be truly concerned about, both for the biosphere and for the well-being of Man-kind.
  • Some immediate cooling now seems likely in the near term, (this century), as a result of the state of the current Solar cycle.

How The Sun Affects Temperatures On Earth

Screenshot 2019-10-29 at 18.27.44.png

  • The weather gets worse in colder times, because of the greater energy differential that will arise between the poles and the tropics.
  • Cold fatally reduces agricultural productivity.
  • Cooling is already evident.

Screenshot 2019-09-23 at 10.16.42.png

The Real Climate Crisis Is Not Global Warming, It Is Cooling, And It May Have Already Started

Historic Midwest Blizzard Has Farmers “Expecting Massive Crop Losses”

And so trying to limit the “warming effect” of Man-made CO2 emissions in the Western world will do nothing to ameliorate a coming Cold Climate Catastrophe.


There is no Man-made Global Warming climate emergency.

“There is no climate emergency”

Spending any effort, for solely emotional and childish reasons, without:

  • rigorous scientific debate
  • true cost benefit analysis
  • without full engineering due diligence for any proposed technical solutions
  • let alone at UK / WORLD GDP scale costs, (measured in trillions),

trying to stop the UK’s 1% / the EU’s 10% or the capitalistic West’s ~30% of something that has not been happening for 3,000 years has to be monumentally ill-advised.


It should be understood that the real reason for “Green” thinking is to bring Energy and Economic catastrophe to the capitalist Western world.

Green thinking and its induced policies should be regarded as a continuation of the “Cold War”.


“Unlike most conspiracy theories about Russian meddling in Western politics, this one is out there in plain sight. The head of Nato, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, said the Russians, as part of a sophisticated disinformation operation, “engaged actively with so-called non-governmental organisations — environmental organisations working against shale gas — to maintain Europe’s dependence on imported Russian gas”.

The Centre for European Studies found that the Russian government has invested $95 million in NGOs campaigning against shale gas. ….. The US Director of National Intelligence stated that “RT runs anti-fracking programming … reflective of the Russian Government’s concern about the impact of fracking and US natural gas production on the global energy market and the potential challenges to Gazprom’s profitability.”

Russia, China and India are mocking the way Western governments have been induced by their “Green” thinking to promote their policies of abject self-harm at great national cost and to no perceptible benefit.  This is supported by Western “useful idiots”, (Lenin’s term).  Lenin held them in utter contempt.

The developing and Eastern worlds are certainly not going to be meekly following the deranged example of the “virtue signalling” West.


Postcsript:  An alternate view

All the above calculations have worked through the “IPCC conventional wisdom” on the Man-made Greenhouse effect for Global warming showing that any future Man-made effect can only be marginal in future at most.

However an alternative scientific view now justifiably asserts that the greenhouse effect is controlled virtually exclusively by cloudiness.  Their view is that the Man-made contribution can only be about +0.01°C.  This effectively negates any consideration at all of Man-made global warming.




In this paper we will prove that GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 fail to calculate the influences of the low cloud cover changes on the global temperature. That is why those models give a very small natural temperature change leaving a very large change for the contribution of the green house gases in the observed temperature. This is the reason why IPCC has to use a very large sensitivity to compensate a too small natural component. Further they have to leave out the strong negative feedback due to the clouds in order to magnify the sensitivity. In addition, this paper proves that the changes in the low cloud cover fraction practically control the global temperature.

Concluding as follows:

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

We have proven that the GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature. The reason is that the models fail to derive the influences of low cloud cover fraction on the global temperature. A too small natural component results in a too large portion for the contribution of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. That is why IPCC represents the climate sensitivity more than one order of magnitude larger than our sensitivity 0.24°C.

Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO2 is less than 10 %, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change. The low clouds control mainly the global temperature.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Karl Hawksworth
December 1, 2019 3:14 pm

What if there was not a UN or Greenpeace

Reply to  Karl Hawksworth
December 1, 2019 3:40 pm

We would have a global shortage of clowns

Reply to  gbaikie
December 1, 2019 6:04 pm

We would have a global shortage of two-legged parasites

…. corrected that for you

Mike McMillan
Reply to  gbaikie
December 1, 2019 7:05 pm

Wishful thinking, gbaikie, wishful thinking.

Reply to  Karl Hawksworth
December 1, 2019 8:02 pm
Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Karl Hawksworth
December 2, 2019 9:30 am

What if there was not a UN or Greenpeace

“HA”, …… what if actual, factual science was again being taught in the US Public Schools?

Anyway, ………………

As per the authors: J. KAUPPINEN AND P. MALMI

Increasing CO2 concentration, mainly arising from slightly warmer oceans outgassing CO2, has been promoting plant growth throughout the planet and reduces the water needs of plants.

Man-kind as a whole contributes only a small amount of the CO2 in the Carbon cycle, (~3% per annum), and any extra atmospheric CO2 is rapidly absorbed by the oceans and the biosphere, (with a half-life probably as short as ~5 years).

Well SURPRISE, SURPRISE, ……. two persons that agree with me as to the “driver” of biyearly and yearly atmospheric CO2 quantities as defined by the Keeling Curve Graph (and/or Mauna Loa Record).

So, those who feel more comfortable and secure with their allegiance to “group think” should continue touting their “junk science” belief that the Northern Hemisphere’s seasonal biomass “growth & decay” is the “driver” of atmospheric CO2.

December 1, 2019 3:25 pm

There is strong corellation between the rate of change of orbital eccentricity and onset of glaciation. Glaciation begins when the rate of change of eccentricity goes negative:
This suggests we should already be heading into glaciation from about 10kyr ago.

When the eccentricity goes negative, each boreal summer has reducing solar insolation compared to the austral summer. My proposition is that the water vapour increase during the austral summer gets deposited on land in the northern hemisphere and there is less insolation to melt all that snow during the boreal summer so it accumulates.

Glaciation is an energy intensive process. At peak land ice deposition, oceans can recede at 7mm/yr. That requires a massive amount of energy to evaporate all that water.

The one factor that is limiting the present period of glaciation is that the orbital eccentricity is quite low with only 85W/sq.m annual variation in insolation and the orbit is heading for its most circular orbit in 1.2Myr. Although the eccentricity is reducing, it is already closer to circular than it has been for over 300kyr.

Reply to  RickWill
December 1, 2019 8:01 pm

That graphic you refer to is as clear as mud.

Reply to  ATheoK
December 1, 2019 9:42 pm

What part of it is beyond your comprehension? I am willing to clear up any confusion you may have.

James R Clarke
Reply to  RickWill
December 2, 2019 7:44 am

It would be nice if the red and blue lines were labeled. I assume that the blue line is the rate of change of eccentricity, and the red line is temperature, but I had to look closely to figure it out. I have no clue what the black arrows are indicating. It would also be nice it the x-axis of both plots were aligned instead of offset by a few thousand years.

Is there any rule on the beginning and end of glacial periods? I would guess that anything less than 9 or 8 degrees C average global temperature would be considered a glacial period, and above 9 or 10 degrees would be an interglacial, but I don’t know. Anyone?

Reply to  James R Clarke
December 2, 2019 3:10 pm

The black up arrows are shown where the rate of change of eccentricity goes negative; the blue curve becomes negative. If that initiates glaciation then the black arrows would align with the onset of cooling.

The blue curve is accurate because it is based on movements of the planets. The red curve, not mine, is proxy temperature data produced from ice cores. I have aligned the times accurately. The ice core data has measurement error like all proxies. Of course there are other causes for significant temperature variation such as geological events that could upset the predictability of variation in orbital eccentricity.

The eccentricity turned negative again about 10kYr ago so the earth should be at the onset of the next glacial period. However the annual variation in insolation is only 85W/sq.m and that may not be sufficient variation to enable ice accumulation. When eccentricity is at its greatest, the annual variation in insolation is 200W/sq.m. That results in increased rate of evaporation during the austral summer when the insolation peaks.

Rainer Bensch
Reply to  ATheoK
December 2, 2019 8:48 am

Theo, you are right.

December 1, 2019 3:25 pm

The low clouds control mainly the global temperature.

Riiiight … erm … what controls the clouds? (me giggles and hides under desk)

Reply to  commieBob
December 1, 2019 4:29 pm


Clouds are a free variable relative to the energy balance, that is, a local radiant balance with the Sun (an average surface temperature) can be achieved for any average amount of Sun and any average amount of clouds. As a free variable, the most likely possibility is that cloud coverage drives an organization of the system that’s ‘optimized’ relative to energy considerations. This is a common goal of self organized systems where ‘optimum’ means minimizing changes in entropy as the system changes state. In other words, the goal is an average behavior that closely resembles an ideal behavior since deviations from ideal as the state changes increases the resulting change in entropy.

The data confirms that the planet’s relationship between the surface temperature and the emissions at TOA quickly converges to that of an ideal gray body (a non ideal black body) whose emissivity is about 0.62. This means that for each W/m^2 of LWIR photons emitted by the surface, 0.62 W/m^2 will leave TOA. Conversely, each non reflected 0.62 W/m^2 arriving from the Sun will result in 1 W/m^2 being emitted by the surface, or that each W/m^2 from arriving from the Sun will result in 1.62 W/m^2 of LWIR surface emissions.


The green line is the ideal behavior of a gray body whose emissivity is 0.62, the little red dots are monthly averages for 2.5 degree slices of latitude from pole to pole and the larger dots are the averages per slice over 3 decades of weather satellite data.

Given that the ratio between surface emissions and emissions at TOA is highly dependent on the amount of the surface covered by clouds and the relationship from clouds to the surface temperature is highly non linear as shown in the next scatter plot of cloud coverage for the same slices as before, the most rational conclusion is that a constant emissivity from pole to pole is the goal and clouds do their best to make that happen.


The next W/m^2 will have the same effect of contributing an additional 1.62 W/m^2 to the surface emissions corresponding to a sensitivity factor of 0.3C per W/m^2 or an alpha of 3.3 W/m^2 per degree. All Joules are the same making this is the only valid sensitivity metric to use. The nominal 0.8C per W/m^2 corresponding to an alpha of 1.3 W/m^2 per degree claimed by the IPCC is embarrassingly wrong.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
December 1, 2019 6:50 pm

I suspect that is the simplified version.

The behavior of clouds over the equatorial ocean is different than that at mid latitudes. The daily pattern of evaporation, convection, cloud formation, and thunder storms is like a strong negative feedback. link Farther from the equator, clouds are governed by different processes.

Reply to  commieBob
December 1, 2019 7:55 pm

When I first noticed the relative behavior of clouds and the ratio of surface LWIR emissions and emissions at TOA, it brought up the following question:

Is the relatively linear relationship between the LWIR surface emissions and those at TOA a coincidental result of a really bizarre, non linear relationship between surface emissions and cloud coverage, or is a relatively linear relationship between the LWIR emissions of the surface and the LWIR emissions of the planet the goal of self organization by clouds which adjust to the limits of their ability to do so?

Notice that the behavior of clouds changes on either side of 0C in response to the changing reflectivity of the surface. Below 0C, incremental clouds only warm the surface since ice and snow reflect about the same as clouds. Above 0C, clouds incrementally reflect energy away providing a cooling influence as well as the warming influence. The relative fraction of the surface covered by clouds as a function of temperature is adapting to a change in the system in order to maintain some other goal.

J Mac
Reply to  co2isnotevil
December 2, 2019 7:27 am

An important point, co2isnotevil! Thanks!

Reply to  co2isnotevil
December 2, 2019 12:47 pm

J Mac,

Here’s another in the form of a question. This illustrates what I consider the primordial failure of climate science which was to decouple the average effect of the next W/m^2 from the average effect of all W/m^2 and then obfuscate by casting the problem as non linearly applying feedback to amplify W/m^2 into a temperature, rather than as linearly amplifying W/m^2 of forcing into W/m^2 of LWIR surface emissions.

Why is it necessary to assert approximate linearity between W/m^2 and the average temperature , when a demonstrably linear relationship already exists between W/m^2 of solar forcing and W/m^2 of LWIR surface emissions and whose changes can be trivially converted into temperature changes?

The answer is that they needed to concoct a way to conform to Bode’s linearity constraint in order to apply feedback to justify an excessively high ECS which otherwise requires explicitly violating COE. If gave them the added benefit of incorrectly asserting that the average W/m^2 not otherwise accounted for comprised Bode’s implicit power supply. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

A feedback model with forcing in and LWIR emissions out would be more compliant with Bode’s feedback amplifier analysis, but is still insufficient owing to the missing implicit power supply.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
December 2, 2019 2:39 am

You sound like Ference Miskolczi. He found out that Earth will maintain an equilibrium by adjusting the optical depth through water vapor and clouds.

Reply to  Fulco
December 2, 2019 9:59 am


My position is very similar, except that the goal of the adjustment is not to achieve an energy balance, but to minimize the changes in entropy as the system changes state, i.e. the surface changes temperature. The differentiating point being that an energy balance can be achieved for any amount of clouds or Sun, but only one energy balance will minimize the changes in entropy as forcing changes (solar input) result in state changes (surface temperature).

Reply to  co2isnotevil
December 3, 2019 12:23 pm


This only works when plenty of water is available. Over the last century our species cultivated the land from 30% till 70%. In doing so it diminished the availability of water in the soil and thereby hindering the cooling capacity of the land and atmosphere. Go to KNMI Climate Explorer and find temperature readings for places with only natural vegetation, natural vegetation and agriculture, agriculture, urbanisation etc…
Land use has a great impact on temperature.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
December 3, 2019 11:24 pm


The bulk of the energy manifesting the temperature of the planet is stored in the oceans, so there’s plenty of water available for evaporation. Yes, land use has local effects on the temperature, but what I’m talking about is a macroscopic goal and if meeting that goal requires a higher or lower temperature, then that’s what happens. The goal is still met.

BTW, agriculture cools the surrounding region by both evaporation from irrigation and the consumption of solar energy by photosynthesis. I notice this driving through the central valley, where it’s 100 in the shade until I drive next to a corn field where it drops to 98, only to increase back to 100 once I’m past it.

In order for a constant equivalent emissivity to arise, the atmosphere must absorb a constant average amount of LWIR emissions from the surface. So to the extent that CO2 is absorbing a little more, fewer clouds are required which may cause some additional heating, but only in those places where there are fewer clouds. Note that GHG absorption between the surface and clouds is moot, since the clouds would be absorbing those LWIR emissions anyway contributing to the required constant amount of absorption.

There’s no evidence that increased CO2 increases the required constant amount of absorption, as there’s no discernible trend in the relative ratio between surface emissions and planet emissions even as CO2 concentrations have changed significantly since weather satellite monitoring began. However; there may be a tenuous trend where the yearly average cloud coverage of the planet has reduced ever so slightly.

Richard G.
Reply to  commieBob
December 2, 2019 7:35 pm

“…what controls the clouds?”

‘Temperature-dew point spread’ controls cloud formation. As temperature and dew point converge, clouds emerge. As temperature and dew point diverge, clouds dissipate. This is a function of relative humidity saturation (dew point) which is dependent upon temperature.

Think of air as a sponge. Warm air can hold more vapor. As a parcel of air cools the vapor condenses (phase change) to stay below saturation levels.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  commieBob
December 3, 2019 4:19 am

commieBob – December 1, 2019 at 3:25 pm

Riiiight … erm … what controls the clouds? (me giggles and hides under desk)

For the benefit of the “curious ones”, ……. a re-posting of an ole commentary, to wit?

The influence of – clouds, fog and mists are all forms of water vapor which have collected into larger “droplets” of water and are visible to the naked eye, …. and are the same as humidity which cannot be seen with the naked eye. And that is because of the density of the larger “droplets” of water and the fact that any source of visible light that strikes them will be absorbed more readily and/or reflected away from them more easily.

But now the effects of clouds, fogs and mists relative to incoming solar energy and re-emitted energy from the earth’s surface ….. are quite different (extremely more pronounced) than the effects of humidity. Again, this is because of their density (mass).

Clouds, fogs and mists act as a unidirectional buffer to both the incoming solar energy and the re-radiated energy from the earth’s surface. And the best way to explain this is by examples.

Night time cloud cover or fog will prevent near surface air temperatures from cooling off as fast because they per say buffer the re-radiated energy from the earth’s surface.

Day time cloud cover or morning fog will prevent near surface air temperatures from warming up as fast because they per say buffer the incoming solar energy.

And this conundrum is what confuses the ell out of scientists who are trying to calculate “average surface air temperatures” ….. and which wrecks havoc with their Climate Modeling Programs ….. because it is such an important but indeterminate variable.

And thus, because they cannot accurately calculate the effect of the aforesaid radiated energy transfers, …… nor can they accurately calculate the effect of the bidirectional molecule-to-molecule conduction of thermal energy between the surface and the atmosphere, ……they completely ignore and omit said from any of their calculations …… and attempt to CTA by blaming everything on atmospheric CO2.

And sorry, but no “giggles” included.

William Haas
December 1, 2019 3:50 pm

AGW is just a conjecture and it is based on only partial science and is full of holes. For example, the AGW conjecture depends upon the existence of a radiant greenhouse effect in the Earth’s atmosphere caused by trace gases with LWIR absorption bands. They try to hide that fact that according to their own theory the primary greenhouse gas is H2O which molecule per molecule as a more powerful IR absorber than is CO2 by a factor of 5. There is also on average 50 times more H2O molecules in the atmosphere than there is CO2 and of the CO2 molecules less than 25% were contributed my mankind’s use of fossil fuels. So mankind’s contribution to the radiant greenhouse effect is roughly less than a tenth of a percent.

A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the action of heat trapping greenhouse gases. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass limits cooling by convection. It is entirely a convective greenhouse effect that keeps a real greenhouse warm. So too on Earth where gravity combines with the heat capacity of the atmosphere to provide a convective greenhouse effect that keeps the surface of the Earth on average 33 degrees C warmer than it would otherwise be. 33 degrees C is the amount derived from first principals and 33 degrees C is what has been measured. Additional warming caused by a radiant greenhouse effect has not been detected. The radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed anywhere in the solar system and is hence science fiction so hence the AGW conjecture is science fiction as well. If CO2 really affected global climate, the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years should have caused at least a measurable increase in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere but such has not happened.

The bottom line here is that, based on the paleoclimate record and the work done with models, the climate change that we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control Despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and there is plenty of scientific rationale that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. Efforts to reduce Mankind’s adding CO2 to the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels will have no effect on climate. There is no climate crisis. In stead of dismantling the economy we all be better off if we take steps to improve it.

Reply to  William Haas
December 1, 2019 4:43 pm

The real issue is not that the GHG effect isn’t real, but that the IPCC wildly over-estimates the sensitivity to changing GHG concentrations and canonized their wildly over-estimated effect way back in AR1. If they reported a more accurate value, even the worst case surface temperature increase is nothing to worry about, much less obsess about. As a result, they would be unable to fulfill their reason to exist of providing science to support the policy goals of the UNFCCC which have morphed into the IPCC’s own specific policy goals. This conflict of interest broke climate science decades ago and it has remained broken even since by allowing the IPCC to become the arbiter of what is and what is not climate science based on what they choose to include in their reports which defines what their self serving consensus believes is ‘settled’ climate science.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  co2isnotevil
December 1, 2019 9:23 pm


I agree. There is a middle ground between no GHE and CAGW.
It is a weak CO2 GHE theory. A theory with CO2 providing a marginal, < 1K per doubling, temperature enhancement at the surface.
CO2 is LW IR active. Thus it will act as a blanket, slowing LW IR photons escape to 4 K space. That effect will warm the surface, as surely as a blanket on the bed warms on a cold winter night.
Do we need to worry and rearrange tens of Trillions of dollars of global economic prosperity because it might runaway on temp? Clearly, NO. The physics prevents such an outcome via water vapor, clouds, and albedo.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
December 1, 2019 10:45 pm


More definitively, COE demands that such an outcome is impossible. For the 3K per doubling claimed by the IPCC, each W/m^2 of equivalent forcing must increase LWIR surface emissions by 4.4 W/m^2, while the average W/m^2 of actual forcing contributes only 1.62 W/m^2 to the LWIR surface emissions. At 1.62 W/m^2 per W/m^2 of forcing and 3.7 W/m^2 of equivalent forcing from doubling CO2, the emissions increase is 1.62*3.7 = 6 W/m^2 for a temperature increase of about 1.1C which is less than the 1.5C limit they now say we need to achieve.

The reason COE demands that 4.7 W/m^2 per W/m^2 is impossible is that the planet has no way to tell the next Joule from the average Joule so that it can be so much more powerful at maintaining incremental surface warmth. It can’t be feedback which can’t tell the difference between Joules either.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  co2isnotevil
December 1, 2019 11:00 pm

Higher pCO2 will have an effect. The physics of LWIR, IR active gases, and the structure of the Tropospheric adiabatic lapse rate demands it.
The question is, “Will more CO2 have an effect worth spending many Trillions of dollars to do something about?”
A resounding NO is called for.

Trump is correct in ignoring this non-problem until it goes away. The Climate Carnival Barkers just need to go have self-sex with themselves until the climate fever passes.

Ben Wouters
Reply to  co2isnotevil
December 2, 2019 2:05 am

Joel O’Bryan December 1, 2019 at 11:00 pm

Higher pCO2 will have an effect. The physics of LWIR, IR active gases, and the structure of the Tropospheric adiabatic lapse rate demands it.

What on earth has the adiabatic lapse rate to do with the physics of LWIR??
Both the DALR and WALR (Dry and Wet Adiabatic Lapse Rates) are ONLY valid for rising or sinking air, that moves within an atmosphere that is in hydrostatic equilibrium (HE) against gravity.
The atmospheric temperature profile is largely a consequence of this HE.

richard verney
Reply to  co2isnotevil
December 2, 2019 4:46 am

and the structure of the Tropospheric adiabatic lapse rate demands it.,/i>

Does it? Does it not strike you stange that the formula for adiabatic lapse rate simply cdifferentiates between staurated (wet adiabatic lapse rate) and unsaturated (dry adiabatic lapse rate)?

In the unsaturated adiabatic lapse rate (by a misnomer often called dry adiabatic lapse rate), no account is taken of humidity, notwithstanding that water vapour is a potent GHG. Thus it makes no difference whether humidity is relatively dry, say at 10%, or relatively wet, say at 90%. It is simply all the same, and only differes when the air becomes fully saturated, ie, passes over to being wet.

Below the tropopause, it appears that essentially convection and conduction dominate. The radiative transfer of energy is overwhelmed by convection and conduction. It would appear that it is only above the tropopause where radiative transfer of energy dominates.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  co2isnotevil
December 2, 2019 9:06 am

“self-sex with themselves”

Self-sex with someone else is much more fun.

Gordon Dressler
Reply to  co2isnotevil
December 2, 2019 8:01 am

The fatal flaw in the whole Charney sensitivity calculation is the assumption that the existing level of atmospheric CO2 concentration does not affect the effect of introducing ADDITIONAL CO2 in the future.

It is well known from the radiation-absorption physics of gases that absorption vs. concentration follows a negative exponential trend . . . the more a trace gas is added to a neutral-absorption mix, the less additional radiation absorption per unit transmission length per % molar volume (or mass) increase of that trace gas. It is commonly referred to as an e-folding law, where e is the base of the natural logarithm. This effect persists toward an asymptotic limit.

By some calculations (and they are not as simple as might be imagined), at 400 ppm we may already be so close to the asymptotic limit of radiation absorption through the Earth’s atmospheric column that any additional CO2 (say, a doubling to 800 ppm) cannot possibly create any significant additional greenhouse effect.

I have seen some arguments that the asymptotic limit for CO2 LWIR absorption is a low as around 200 ppm.

This is a good explanation for why the Earth has NEVER experienced runaway greenhouse warming despite CO2 levels being a factor of ten or more higher than today’s 400 ppm.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Gordon Dressler
December 3, 2019 6:39 am

Also a good explanation for the FACT that there is NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that CO2 level changes have EVER “driven” temperature changes – because the aforementioned 200ppm has always been largely present.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  William Haas
December 3, 2019 4:36 am

William Haas – December 1, 2019 at 3:50 pm

A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the action of heat trapping greenhouse gases.

Zackly right.

And every type of gas within the confines of a greenhouse ……. is a greenhouse.

And technically, every type of gas within the confines of the earth’s atmosphere can be defined as a “greenhouse gas” simply because they all “play a part” in the transfer of thermal ‘heat’ energy between (to or from) outer space and the earth’s surface.

Jonathan Ranes
December 1, 2019 3:50 pm

If there is no climate emergency then democrats, communists, scam artists, universities, and politicians need a new foil. Any of the above searching for a new narrative to stampede the herd I am founding a new consultancy for just this purpose. Call now before the herd moves on without you and get a 5% discount.

Reply to  Jonathan Ranes
December 1, 2019 4:52 pm

One can sense the neo-Marxists panic and their need to increase the level of fanaticism, disruption, & violence as people are catching on to their con.

Talk about revealing.
Things are truly desperate when they have to send out a mentally ill teenager as their spokesperson.

John Shotsky
December 1, 2019 3:51 pm

Overall, a well put advisory of where climate is likely headed, regardless of when the downturn actually takes place. On the other hand, here is my thought about the ‘greenhouse gas’ CO2…
Take a look at the earth from the sun’s point of view: The sun is always shining on earth, as it spins like a rotisserie. The fact that it tilts back and forth ensures every part of earth receives some sun, during at least part of each year. The amount varies based on Milankovitch cycles, which cannot help but affect this rotisserie effect, as well as the sunspot cycles and maybe other factors.
Now, why again is the earth above it’s blackbody temperature? Because it is the subject of a rotisserie, which heats it up every day, and permits it to cool every night. It is the ATMOSPHERE that is warmed by the sun, partly directly, and partly from the heat of the surface convecting up. That HEAT is what makes us warm each day, and its loss at night is what makes it cold. It has absolutely nothing to do with CO2, or any other gas. We are the marshmallows on the spit, too ignorant to even notice the daily increase in temperature and nightly loss of heat as simply the effect caused by our own rotation. Slow down that rotation, and it will become much hotter during days, and much colder at nights. There is a balance because the earth radiates at a higher rate during the heating cycles and radiates at a lower rate while cooling.
The real point of all this is that there is nothing that Co2 can possibly do to earth’s climate – everything that causes our climate to change (other than land changes) is caused by external forces, that, themselves, operate in cycles. There is no doubt in my mind that the holocene era will end with cooing, and that much, if not most of mankind will die in the process. Just consider that there was a mile thick ice sheet where New York city sits now just 12000 years ago, and consider where those people will go when the ice returns. Now expand that to both hemispheres and you’ll have to imaging an unthinkable migration from the higher latitudes toward the equator. Food production will plummet. Not by Co2, but by the simple fact that the climate will eventually return to its more normal mode – glacial.

Reply to  John Shotsky
December 1, 2019 4:45 pm

The climate’s current normal mode of “glacial” will only remain as long as Antarctica is stuck at the south pole. Things will change when Antarctica rifts and the circumpolar current is disrupted. Might be a while though.

John Tillman
Reply to  GregK
December 1, 2019 6:46 pm

Then after that, the sun wil keep gaining power by one percent per 110 million years, before going red giant.

Earth will experience natural global warming, but not any time soon.

Johne Morton
Reply to  John Tillman
December 1, 2019 9:49 pm

This part, the gradual brightening of the sun as it moves through its main sequence life, has always intrigued me regarding the climate/temperatures on Earth. I always found it interesting that some of Earth’s coldest periods occurred only after the sun had already increased its luminosity significantly over the eons.

While this has been happening, I would assume that because the sun is always losing mass, Earth’s orbit has probably receded, while at the same time, the average temperature of the universe, and thus the background that Earth radiates into, has steadily decreased. Eventually the sun’s red giant phase will win out, but that will be a loooong time…

John Tillman
Reply to  Johne Morton
December 2, 2019 7:59 am

The changes in Earth’s orbit due to those in the sun’s mass haven’t been significant. However, earth might move far enough away during the next five billion years to avoid being engulfed when the sun goes red giant. Our planet would still probably be too hot and dry for life however, unless possibly underground.

Earth has been in the Goldilocks Eon for multicellular life for less than a billion years, but might not have another billion to go.

The icy intervals in Earth’s history, despite solar power gaining, have occurred due to tectonic, oceanic, atmospheric and albedo effects, but the most extreme periods were when the sun’s radiation was weaker. The current ice house of the past 34 million years has been milder than those of the Precambrian, and possibly of the Carboniferous-Permian, while longer lasting than that of the Ordovician-Silurian, both during the Paleozoic Era.

Terry Shipman
Reply to  John Shotsky
December 1, 2019 4:58 pm

This reminds me of the 1961 episode of The Twilight Zone Called “The Midnight Sun.” The earth has fallen out of its orbit and is getting closer and closer to the sun. Lois Nettleton gives a great performance as a woman trying to survive in a world literally going to hell. But then she wakes up from an illness-induced sleep and discovers she is now cold after her fever has broken. Then a man looks out a window where we see it’s snowing. He says something like, “Yes, it has become colder-ever since the earth began moving AWAY from the sun.”

I think Rod Serling was being a bit of a prophet in this episode. What we thought was the problem turned out to be the exact opposite. We had better pay attention to the signs of the times.

The thought has always gone through my mind-what if a rogue planet sized object came into the solar system and, in a near miss, turned the earth into an over sized billiard ball? Away from the sun or towards the sun?

Peter D Gardner
Reply to  John Shotsky
December 1, 2019 7:03 pm

“Take a look at the earth from the sun’s point of view.”
Indeed. Take look at the earth from God’s point of view. To what end continuing with the human race – a question posed in Arthur C Clarke’s novels & films in the Space Odyssey series? Humans are so limited and yet continue to insist they can do better than God and control the planet. Poor things. I’m sure it gets very boring for Him. If I were Him I’d finish them off and repopulate the Earth with a more intelligent species, or at least one that could remain sane without external assistance.

James R Clarke
Reply to  John Shotsky
December 2, 2019 8:14 am

It doesn’t have to be so bad when the glaciers return. There is enough land in Texas for every human on the planet to have a nice home with a yard all to themselves! (Not that I am advocating that!) When the oceans recede, the continents will grow. We will likely find Atlantis and maybe a few more pre-Holocene civilizations. The great deserts of the Earth will contract and become more fertile, as the polar front zones move towards the equator. There will be plenty of room for humanity. We will have to deal with a lot more severe thunderstorms and tornadoes, but far fewer tropical cyclones!

Humans and the rest of the biosphere will adapt, just like dozens of times before.

Reply to  John Shotsky
December 2, 2019 9:59 am

And when we go Full Glacial, the technologically advanced countries’ populations will migrate toward the equator, grow food hydroponically indoors or underground, probably with the aid of nuclear power, maybe even fusion. Yes, the global herd will be drastically culled, as I’m sure it was in the last glaciation. Those who perfected the arts of spear, fire, and cave survived to become our ancestors. As the cliche goes, wash, rinse, repeat. We are subject to the same cycles of epochs.

All of this chicken-little stuff is the same tired denial that we are part of Nature–not separate, not special, and especially not in control of what the weather on Earth does. CAGW is an apocalyptic cult, literally seeing things that aren’t there, and trying to brainwash more acolytes with the aid of a complicit media. What’s being sold is the actual *message,* because apparently fear and nihilism get attention much like the saber-toothed tiger rustling the grass did on those ancient, windswept savannahs. And your attention is now a very hot commodity. Those who’ve taken the “red pill” have eyes to see.

Reply to  John Shotsky
December 2, 2019 4:46 pm

John Shotsky,
You liken the earth to a rotisserie and then say that it is the atmosphere that is warmed by the sun, and I totally agree with you. However, when you go on to say “Slowdown that rotation, and it will become much hotter during days, and much colder at nights.” I have to strongly disagree, and I will explain why.

Climate science starts with the vacuum planet equation of astronomy, and if the earth was a vacuum planet then you would be absolutely correct, the slower the rate of daily rotation the greater the contrast between day and night. The maximum thermal contrast of course would occur if the earth was a tidally locked vacuum planet. Such a vacuum world would have a searing never ending day and a freezing never ending night. However, the earth is not a vacuum planet, it possesses a thick mobile non-condensing atmosphere of nitrogen, oxygen and argon gases and this completely changes everything.

The slowly rotating planet Venus is the closest approach to a tidally locked world that we can observe in our solar system. Data for Venus show that the surface temperature for the daytime and the night are almost identical. A similar lack of thermal contrast between day and night has also been observed for slowly rotating Titan, the giant moon of Saturn. Venus has an atmosphere predominantly of carbon dioxide while Titan has an atmosphere predominantly of nitrogen, so we have two separate gases creating the same thermal result, how so?

The key to this conundrum lies in the fact that climate is a consequence of fluid mass motion on a rotating world, and is completely independent of the nature of the constituent gases. For slowly rotating worlds, such as Venus and Titan, the atmosphere convects as a pair of Hadley cells (one for the north and one for the south) and so there is only a single global climatic zone. For rapidly rotating worlds such as earth and Mars the latitudinal reach of the Hadley cell is constrained by rotational dynamics. Both earth and also Mars possess three atmospheric cells, Hadley, Ferrel and Polar, and so possess three distinct latitudinally defined climatic zones.

Climate science in adopting the vacuum planet equation of astronomy as its key metric possess at its heart an error so egregious that everything built on this error is false, including the concept of global surface heating by back-radiation from greenhouse gases. It is impossible to use the vacuum planet equation to describe the climate of a tidally locked world that has a thick atmosphere, and yet such worlds must clearly exist. You are absolutely correct to say that the sun heats the atmosphere during the day, and that this retained heat is dissipated at night. However, the daily rotation rate acts to define the structure of a planet’s atmospheric cells, and so climate is a dynamic mass movement process and not one caused by atmospheric thermal radiant opacity.

Abolition Man
December 1, 2019 3:54 pm

Rather than being a “pollutant,” CO2 is a requirement for life on Earth. The Green movement has from its inception been a catspaw for the Communists and Progressives that resent and fear Western democracies for providing the liberty and prosperity their false “religions” can not! Their “long march” through our media and education systems has given them the ability to indoctrinate any and all with a message of societal guilt for our sins of the past. Making ignorant children like St. Greta fear for their future is a potential wrench in the works that could destroy the unprecedented freedom and prosperity humankind currently enjoys. We should be using science to explore our solar system and the Universe beyond; instead we are arguing about whether we can survive rising CO2 levels that are almost an order of magnitude lower than periods when life flourished on Earth. Russia, China and India are laughing all the way to the bank as Europe destroys its own economy and the ignorant in Commifornia and other US states try to imitate them. Regardless of ones belief in regard to CAGW one thing is clear; we need to push the development of modern nuclear power plants now. Anyone who argues with that is not interested in science! Nuclear now! CO2 to 1,000ppm!

December 1, 2019 4:01 pm


What if all the models are not really running too hot?….and they are accurate

….and the reason temps are not keeping up is we’re saving our butts from going into another ice age

Lance Flake
Reply to  Latitude
December 1, 2019 7:06 pm

That’s funny. The models can’t possibly be accurate with such a sparse amount of data and a stunning lack of fundamental, experimentally-proven theory. The models are group-think made computational, the technological sleight of hand needed to pull the radical environmental con on the public. These people need to instill deep-seated fear to hide their trick, and good science isn’t cooperating, so fake science like their models have to be employed. Take away the models and their con is exposed for the naked power grab that it truly is.

Tom Abbott
December 1, 2019 4:13 pm

From the article: “In addition, this paper proves that the changes in the low cloud cover fraction practically control the global temperature.”

Wouldn’t it be funny if CO2 added no net heat to the Earth’s atmosphere? 🙂

Global cooling is definitely a more serious potential problem for humans than is global warming. And it doesn’t have to get all that cool to seriously affect humans. All it takes is a later spring frost and an earlier fall freeze to drastically affect agricultural production. With global warming at least there will be food to eat.

Richard M
Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 1, 2019 5:05 pm

There is science that supports the claim that CO2 absorption bands are almost completely saturated at 200 ppm. This article says it is 77% but I suspect a lot of the 23% is due to what is called pressure broadening. This may not be based on solid science.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 1, 2019 6:25 pm

Wouldn’t it be funny if CO2 added no net heat to the Earth’s atmosphere?

What’s even funnier is using the phrase, “net heat”.

Heat is heat, … one way, … warm to cold.

December 1, 2019 4:22 pm

It should be pointed out that any extraction of energy flow from the normal atmospheric convection from the equator to the poles by wind farms or solar arrays simply exacerbates and accelerates the overall cooling effect.

Jim Butts
December 1, 2019 4:27 pm

Remember that only about 12000 years ago ice was a mile deep in the great lakes area.

Warmer is better and in any case much easier to control than cold.

Nicholas Schroeder
December 1, 2019 4:38 pm

Here’s an unsettled serving of reasonable scientific doubt. If I am correct ALL of man caused climate change just goes away.

Can YOU refute my points?

Bring science.

By reflecting away 30% of the sun’s incoming radiation the albedo, created and maintained by the atmosphere, cools the earth like that reflective panel behind a car’s windshield.

Remove the atmosphere and the albedo goes with it, i.e. no water vapor, no clouds, no snow and ice, no vegetation, no oceans – the earth becomes a desolate barren rock much like the moon, 390 K hot^3 lit side, 90 K cold^3 dark.

The terrestrial surface also receives 25% to 40% more kJ/h and becomes warmer.

Radiative Green House Effect theory postulates exactly the opposite even in the face of the above observations which prove RGHE to be incorrect.

Zero RGHE, Zero warming GHGs, Zero man caused climate change.

All of those side discussions become irrelevant, i.e. temperature trends, weather, polar bears, ice caps, sea levels, wildfires just become so much yada yada yada.

Curious George
Reply to  Nicholas Schroeder
December 1, 2019 4:56 pm

“Remove the atmosphere .. the earth becomes a desolate barren rock much like the moon” – you also have to slow down the rotation. Removing the atmosphere is not enough. And remember that even rock, sand, and dust reflect some light. Just yesterday I saw the Moon.

Nick Schroeder
Reply to  Curious George
December 1, 2019 5:35 pm

UCLA diviner and Kramm suggest that rotation doesn’t make much difference. Lit side heats quickly, dark side cools quickly.
Lunar albedo is about 0.11.
The atmosphere does not warm the earth, but cools it.
If that statement is correct, RGHE goes Kerbluey.

John Tillman
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
December 1, 2019 6:02 pm

The moon rotates on its axis about once every 27 days, ie 27 times more slowly than earth. This does indeed make a difference. Since the moon lacks an atmosphere and turns slowly, its dark side gets much colder than its lit side. Earth’s faster rotation and atmosphere moderate the difference in day and night side temperature.

Reply to  Nicholas Schroeder
December 1, 2019 5:53 pm

I agree that clouds are a key factor in controlling heat input.

However area averaged temperature of the moon is 200K and that is what earth would average without its atmosphere and the surface water distribution that makes most of the globe life-friendly.

Nick Schroeder
Reply to  RickWill
December 1, 2019 6:36 pm

Averages are for the simple minded.

Robert of Texas
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
December 1, 2019 7:03 pm

That entirely depends on its use…average is a perfectly good measurement of some data, given we know certain other statistical characteristics to give it some context.

The “average global temperature” is a good example of how NOT to try and use average.

Nick Schroeder
Reply to  RickWill
December 1, 2019 6:41 pm

The S-B equil temp for 1368/4 * .89 is about 270 K.

Reply to  Nick Schroeder
December 1, 2019 7:58 pm

What is the 1368?

Steve Keohane
Reply to  RickWill
December 2, 2019 10:30 am

I think that is the watts/square meter from the sun.

Reply to  RickWill
December 2, 2019 3:43 pm

You mean it is the AVERAGE of the peak insolation at zenith. At perihelion in 2020 it will reach 1403W/sq.m and at aphelion it will be 1319W/sq.m. The insolation varies from 1403W/sq.m to zero over some part of the planet annually.

So the numerator 4 is used to arrive at the area AVERAGED insolation based on the AVERAGE annual insolation at zenith.

Then there is the 0.89, which must be the AVERAGE emissivity for the earth’s surface. Those two linear averages are used in the S-B equation, with Temperature to the 4th power, to arrive at a thoroughly meaningless radiating temperature.

The area averaged surface temperature of the moon I gave above is based on billions of orbiting satellite measurements calibrated to a few actual moon surface measurements.

Ulric Lyons
December 1, 2019 4:54 pm

Greenland temperatures are the very worst measure of mid latitude temperatures. Such misunderstanding of climate leads to the rewriting of actual history. The real Minoan warming was 2700-2500 BC, when Greenland was very cold. City building flourished globally at that time. The big spike in the Greenland proxy at 1250-1200 BC was a super solar minimum which collapsed the Minoan civilisation along with several others. The warm spike from around 1000 AD in the GISP2 series was the Oort solar minimum, it’s not evidence for the Medieval Warm Period. The Maunder Minimum should show a lot warmer than it does in the GISP2 series.

comment image

December 1, 2019 4:56 pm

Well put-together article!!!

It is also clear that tide gauges linked with >10 year GPS sites, show absolutely NO sea level rise acceleration over the last hundred years, whilst CO2 has markedly accelerated over the same interval. If CO2 was a “control knob” for climate, it would also show up as acceleration in the rate of sea level rise.

It simply is not there!!! (Repeat three times, better yet, ad nauseum)!!!

Reply to  tomwys
December 1, 2019 10:40 pm

Neither is the greenhouse effect. Connolly and Connolly radiosonde analysis. Nikolov and Zeller, also.

John Tillman
December 1, 2019 5:01 pm

Not only is there no “climate emergency”, but so far the fourth molecule of plant food per 10,000 dry air molecules added in the past 170 years has been a great boon to life on the planet. For children and other living things, climate is better now than in AD 1850, at the end of the Little Ice Age.

Richard M
December 1, 2019 5:02 pm

How were the CO2 percentages computed? How did you get 77% saturated at 200 ppm and 87% at 400 ppm?

I think this part of the science has been brushed off time and again. Would love to see the physics that supports absorption numbers.

Robert of Texas
Reply to  Richard M
December 1, 2019 6:59 pm

I agree, but would add I would love to see the science that supports what happens even if a CO2 molecule absorbs an infrared photon. My current study seems to indicate that the energy from this absorption is over 100 times more likely to be transferred as kinetic energy then re-emission of a photon from the CO2 molecule. This has to do with how the energy is stored – it isn’t in an electron jump it’s in a wiggle (one or two) between atoms.

If this is correct, then what are the odds the kinetic energy is transferred mostly to oxygen and nitrogen molecules, and the if there is enough energy built up in these, re-emitted as a photon that CO2 cannot interact with (at least not easily). The odds would seem to be on the order of 999,500 (+/- some amount like 100) to 1.

If this is correct, and the air is allowed to convect…how exactly is it warming the surface? Only CO2 touching the surface would have high odds of adding energy to it. So while a trace amount of CO2 *might* increase convection in the air by some tiny (likely immeasurable) amount, I just do not understand the science that suggests it controls the surface temperature. Even if the air holds slightly more water…it is convecting upwards into clouds and releasing huge amounts of energy high up.

If someone that actually understood (a Science, b) how to explain, and c) the hypothesis of carbon driven climate change, and would like to post a paper on it, I would forever be in their debt.

How do we figure out energy saturation of the molecues?
How is the energy absorbed exactly, and by how much?
How is the energy transferred?
How does this cause the surface to warm up?
How the hell does not air convection and the evolution of cloud layers not make this impossible to model?

I would *REALLY* enjoy a knowledgeable person that really understands this material to explain this to me. I am NOT being sarcastic. But you have to start with your assumptions, and build up from well understood principles. No waving your hands!

I am pretty certain I will never read this posting, or paper, because deep down I do not think anyone *really* understands it…they just have hunches, hypotheses, and common-sense ideas (well, and not so common sense ideas).

Reply to  Robert of Texas
December 2, 2019 7:13 am

I am with you on all of your post, and also await an answer. I think DR. Happer himself is still struggling with it, as there are so many variables and unknowns. For example, we are talking about the movement of HEAT, that governs temperature. With our existing satellites we still cannot measure the timing of heat movement, which changes all the time. For example, what if convection starts 3 minutes earlier each day due to our added CO2? Like a boiling pot of water, the maximum temperature does not change, only the timing of convection.(movement of heat).

December 1, 2019 5:02 pm

Here is the cross-correlation (40 years of data) between global temps (UAH) and CO2 concentrations (Mauna Loa), presented by Dr Murry Salby :


The diagram shows that :
– right part of the diagram : there is a positive correlation between global T variations and CO2 concentration with a lag of some 10 months. This is meanly related to Henry’s law and more generally “surface conditions” (see Murry Salby presentation at 1:08:23),
– left part of the diagram shows no global positive correlation, but if any, a weak negative correlation between CO2 concentration variations and T with a lag of some 16 months.

Thus, the assumption of a global warming caused by CO2 concentration increase is not supported by 40 years of data analysis and any theory that attempts to explain such assumption is either wrong or incomplete.

Reply to  Petit_Barde
December 2, 2019 7:58 am

And, as Professor Salby has shown, CO2 emission from land also depends on temperature.

https://youtu.be/b1cGqL9y548 at time 34:00

December 1, 2019 5:06 pm

NASA makes their Earth Observations data freely available to the public. The monthly satellite data for any year is sufficient to determine the correlation between atmospheric water vapour and outgoing long wave radiation. Each year, the water vapour cycles up from January to July then down till December. Outgoing long wave radiation does the same thing, cycles up from January to July then cycles down from July to December. In 2018 each mm of water vapour corresponded with INCREASING OLR by 1.6W/sq.m:

They are highly correlated over the globe each year. This is the exact reverse of the proposed “greenhouse” gas fairy tale.

There is no such thing as “greenhouse effect” in earth’s climate system. It is imaginary; a good tale for gullible people. The author does not concede that the are “greenhouse” gasses but accepts it as a starting position. It needs to be strongly rejected and highlighted for the nonsense it is.

A rock in space at earth’s distance from the sun, without surface water will have an average temperature of 200K; same as earth’s moon. Nothing like the 255K so-called radiating temperature of earth. The reason earth is warmer than the moon is because it has wide distribution of surface water, with its massive energy storage and heat distribution ability. Absolutely nothing to do with “greenhouse” gasses.

The other common fallacy is that solar insolation at top of the atmosphere is constant. The fact is it currently has a range from minimum to maximum of 85W/sq.m each year. A massive range that drives the annual weather cycle.

Reply to  RickWill
December 1, 2019 5:57 pm

Sounds right.

Reply to  RickWill
December 1, 2019 8:22 pm

NASA/RSS have been measuring TPW (Total Precipitable Water, i.e. sum of water vapor molecules all the way up) by satellite and reporting it monthly since 1988 at http://www.remss.com/measurements/atmospheric-water-vapor/tpw-1-deg-product . Fig 3 in my blog/analysis at http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com is a graph of the NASA/RSS numerical data and includes a rational extrapolation back to 1700. When normalized by dividing by the averages, the NASA/RSS data are corroborated by NCEP R1 and NCEP R2. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/09/does-global-warming-increase-total-atmospheric-water-vapor-tpw/
WV does not increase January to July then down till December. WV trend has been increasing about 0.0427 mm/yr (=kg/m^2/yr) = 0.15%/yr for the time it has been accurately measured worldwide, Jan 1988

Reply to  Dan Pangburn
December 1, 2019 9:59 pm

Neither of those links offer monthly data points.

This link has monthly chart for TPW from 1993 to 2009:
comment image
TPW clearly cycles over a wide range each year. With minimum in January and peak in July.

The data points on my chart were extracted from the NASA earth observations data base by month for 2018. Linked here:

The same pattern emerges each year because of orbital eccentricity causing wide variation in insolation over the year and axis obligatory combined with distribution of water over the earth’s surface resulting in increased solar input to oceans during the austral summer compared with the boreal summer.

Reply to  RickWill
December 2, 2019 9:33 am

If you had looked, you could have found the numerical data for TPW in a sub-link as noted as Ref 11. The numerical TPW data thru Oct 2019 is at http://data.remss.com/vapor/monthly_1deg/tpw_v07r01_198801_201910.time_series.txt
The numerical data for HadCRUT4 is currently at http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/time_series/HadCRUT.

Reported measured data demonstrates that on the short term (a month or so), temperature drives water vapor as shown at https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EDl9nYkUYAACIkG?format=jpg&name=small .

On the long term, water vapor drives temperature as shown at https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EKy1PLqUEAE57Ac?format=jpg&name=small .

This provides fertile ground for those motivated to mislead to cherry pick periods where the increasing side of a temperature fluctuation temporarily drives both water vapor and OLR up.

Reply to  Dan Pangburn
December 2, 2019 2:51 pm

None of the links actually give GLOBAL MONTHLY TOTAL PRECIPITABLE WATER.

Rather than links, just provide a list of the 12 months TPW for 2018. No 60 month trends or 20 month trends; just month by month for the total globe. Not over the oceans but total globe.

It only requires a list showing month and Global TPW.

This is the 2018 monthly data for TPW(mm) and OLR (w/sq.m):
Jan 17.04 236.8
Feb 17.29 236.5
Mar 17.73 237.9
Apr 18.19 238.7
May20.40 240.6
Jun 20.92 243
Jul 21.89 243.9
Aug 21.04 243.4
Sep 20.54 242.2
Oct 19.68 239.5
Nov 18.93 237.1
Dec 18.91 236.5

Just give me your list showing TPW by month and we will see how they compare.

Reply to  Dan Pangburn
December 3, 2019 9:07 am

You appear to be unaware that different agencies report different values for TPW because you don’t say where the data you quote came from. The values that you give for 2018 suggest they might be from NCEP R2. NCEP R1 gives lower values and NASA/RSS gives higher. They all give about the same slope per cent wise indicating they differ by an irrelevant scale factor wrt climate change.

As I said above “This provides fertile ground for those motivated to mislead to cherry pick periods where the increasing side of a temperature fluctuation temporarily drives both water vapor and OLR up.” Trying to understand climate change by examining a single year is foolish.

Reply to  Dan Pangburn
December 3, 2019 1:31 pm

I am not trying to “understand climate with a single year of data”.

I am quite simply showing that for 2018 and, in fact any month, year or any longer period, global water vapour and OLR are highly POSITIVELY correlated. That is the exact opposite of the “greenhouse gas” fairy tale that considers water vapour to be the “most powerful” heat trapping gas.

You will find that the TPW data you are looking at covers oceans only. It is not global data. That is obvious from the images in your links because the land masses are greyed. The data I am using comes from NASA Earth Observations using MODIS:

That data proves the fundamental belief of global warming to be false. Any modelling based on this fact free belief is useless.

If you have any doubts about the highly POSITIVE correlation between TPW and OLR, take a few minutes to time align these two charts:
comment image

They are so highly POSITIVELY correlated over decades that they can be interchanged.

Reply to  Dan Pangburn
December 4, 2019 4:29 pm

The friends of science graph of TPW seriously disagrees with TPW reports that agree with each other at Andy May’s article at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/09/does-global-warming-increase-total-atmospheric-water-vapor-tpw I used the NASA/RSS TPW ongoing monthly numerical data (thru Oct is at http://data.remss.com/vapor/monthly_1deg/tpw_v07r01_198801_201910.time_series.txt ) to graph through Sept 2019 in Fig 3 of my blog/analysis at http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com

Your other link is to a map. How do you get a global average numerical value TPW from a gray scale world map?

Here is an animation which shows the heavy tropical band moving up and down annually. (search keywords: global water vapor animation) https://www.eldoradoweather.com/climate/GlobalMaps/Water%20Vapor/watervapor.php If you picked a particular latitude in the right place I expect you might see a cycle similar to the FOS graph but that wouldn’t be global average.

I don’t think lacking TPW coverage over land or total magnitude of TPW makes much difference and here’s why. I only use the slope as a percent and that is about 1.5% increase per decade.

A very powerful understanding of the influence of water vapor (WV) on planet warming can be obtained from being aware that cloudless nights cool faster and farther when absolute water vapor content of the atmosphere is lower especially when there is no dew or frost. This simple observation demonstrates thermalization (ghg molecules absorbing radiant heat from the surface and sharing the absorbed energy with surrounding molecules), that water vapor is infrared electromagnetic radiation (IR) active, which makes it a so-called greenhouse gas (ghg), and that the misleadingly named greenhouse effect (GHE) exists.

All reporting agencies show an increase in average global temperature. I am not convinced that some have cooked the books a bit but in spite of this, it appears there has been some warming. My finding is that CO2 has nothing to do with it but water vapor increase, mostly from irrigation, does. Proof of that is at Section 2.8 in my blog/analysis.

It is blatantly obvious to anyone competent in engineering heat transfer analysis that the GHE exists.

December 1, 2019 5:27 pm

This one is doing the rounds again . . .
Dan Britt – Orbits and Ice Ages: The History of Climate
Apparently CO2 has stopped the Milankovitch cycle in its tracks.

Reply to  Warren
December 1, 2019 7:08 pm

A problem with his analysis is that he confuses cause and effect with regard to CO2/temp, which is interesting given that he should know about the lag.

Reply to  Warren
December 2, 2019 5:40 am

In the video, Britt produces a graphic showing global average temps since the beginning of the current Ice Age, about one million years ago. Temps stair-step down from that point, which shows it’s been much warmer than present during the majority of the past one million years.

If that’s true, there’s obviously no reason to fear that a warm-up will “disrupt” the planet’s ecology.

So there is no crisis, and Britt’s presentation suggests to me that this is a virtuous cycle — industry warms the planet and increasing population means there are more of those rare individuals who advance science and technology. Warm conditions are needed for humanity to thrive.

Tim Ken
December 1, 2019 5:28 pm

What is the specific basis for the calculations depicted in the three graphs of GISP2 ice core data anomalies (depicted at 8K, 10K and 122K years). I would like to be able to provide a defensible description to others to back up these significant graphs.

Julian Flood
December 1, 2019 5:33 pm

When the “Earth is going to freeze!” panic begins, please contact me. I know a control knob.

It’ll cost you though.


December 1, 2019 6:09 pm

“This logarithmic diminution effect is caused by the overlapping energy wavelengths between greenhouse gasses and water vapour in the atmosphere. ”

This is not true is it? The Beer-Lambert Law will operate in the absence of any water vapor overlap. Of course, it doesn’t have to, but just being pedantic here.

Steven Mosher
December 1, 2019 6:16 pm

Greenland is not the globe
and GISP2 is not the only record of temps in greenland.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Steven Mosher
December 1, 2019 8:13 pm

And one data set of 12 trees is not the globe either, but some believe it, just like Jesus.

Reply to  Patrick MJD
December 2, 2019 1:20 am

That is funny. Really funny!!!!

Reply to  Steven Mosher
December 2, 2019 7:06 am

Got a counterpoint to make Steven, or is that all you’ve got?

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  WXcycles
December 2, 2019 9:27 am

He just wants everyone to think he’s smarter than they are. Which is why he couches his responses in belittling ways.

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
December 2, 2019 3:09 pm

He wants everyone to think that he is as smart as he thinks he is.

Phil Salmon
Reply to  Steven Mosher
December 2, 2019 4:38 pm

Steve is right you know.
A colony of Na3i survivors of WW2 made it to the moon. They made a station on the dark side. From there they beam a power-ray to earth which energises a force-field all around Greenland. This makes the weather / climate of Greenland independent of the rest of the world.

O yes and they invented time travel as well so they also made Greenland’s climate independent of the rest of the world for the past 3 million years.

Bryan A
Reply to  Steven Mosher
December 2, 2019 10:18 pm

And Greenland is in the northern hemisphere in the Arctic Zone which warms twice as fast as anyplace else due to Polar Magnification

December 1, 2019 6:17 pm

“As the Holocene epoch is now some ~11,000 years old experience of previous interglacials shows that it should be ending very soon, in geological time. It is therefore much more likely that the Holocene will continue to cool at at least its current rate as it has done for the past 3 millennia”

The Holocene warming and cooling cycles appear to be more chaotic than some kind of orderly temperature decline. Pls see


December 1, 2019 6:22 pm

There is no climate emergency but politicians ,the green movement and the corrupt United Nations are orchestrating the greatest scam that has ever been attempted in this modern era .
Those at the top are well aware that this is a scam but there are millions of useful idiots who believe that the world is gonna end unless we all stop using fossil fuel , because they have been told that and the 97% meme can’t be wrong .
I have been following this for the last 40 years and no one has brought forward absolute proof that the doubling of CO2 will cause any harm to mankind .
How can people be so easily persuaded ?
When the earth starts to cool that is when we should all become very worried .
I will just tell you why I started to wonder what was going on and why I deducted that scientists are not telling the truth.
I am a farmer and back in the 1990s I attended a field day and these scientists stated that we as farmers were adding to global warming because our cattle and sheep were emitting Methane .
Our stupid government here in New Zealand are going to tax farmers for their livestock’s methane emissions
The argument goes like this ,methane is a far worse greenhouse gas than CO2 so they have to eliminate it .
Common sense has gone and stupidity has taken over .
Livestock do not emit one ADDITIONAL carbon atom or molecule of CO2 or CH4 into the atmosphere .
THAT CAN’T BE TRUE you all yell in unison .
Well it is true because all forage that farmed animals eat has absorbed CO2 and during digestion the microbes in the animals stomachs release methane which the animals belch into the air.
This methane is broken down in the upper atmosphere in 8 to 10 years into CO2 and water vapour .
Not one extra atom of carbon added to the atmosphere.
It is a cycle and poses absolutely no danger to anyone or anything .
Atmospheric methane levels were flat lining from 1999 till 2008 and then started rising and that was caused by world coal production rising from under 5 billion tonnes to over 8 billion tonnes .
Biogenic methane emissions should never have been put into the Kyoto climate treaty and when the facts are put before you ,questions have to be asked ,what scientific studies have ever verified the reason for introducing farmed livestock methane emissions except a hatred farmed animals and of man kind .
Proud to be a farmer feeding the world with milk and meat products.
Graham Anderson

John in NZ
Reply to  Gwan
December 1, 2019 10:48 pm

You won’t get any disagreement from me.

December 1, 2019 6:34 pm

“Economically any increase up-to a further +2°C would be beneficial. Global temperatures would then approach the very abundant period of the previous Eemian interglacial epoch 110,000 years ago, when hippopotami thrived in the Rhine delta”

The sea level rise devastation in agw fearology had actually occurred in the Eemian along with the disintegration of the WAIS that is yet another feature of agw fearology.

Also the chaotic warming and cooling cycles seen in the Holocene are also seen in the Eemian but much more intense and more violent.

The Eemian was no picnic the hippo notwithstanding. Please see


Reply to  Chaamjamal
December 2, 2019 7:58 am

You do some amazingly good work. Thx.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Chaamjamal
December 2, 2019 9:30 am

“The sea level rise devastation in agw fearology had actually occurred in the Eemian along with the disintegration of the WAIS that is yet another feature of agw fearology.”

The only “emergency” related to sea level rise is that we have, as a civilization, failed to learn from the past, when sea levels were higher. We built high-rise hotels, expensive homes, etc. on land that was underwater 5000 years ago. We’re stupid.

John of Cairns
December 1, 2019 6:40 pm

Excellent article. Nobody really wants to consider a drop into a real ice age, which would be the end of us and our world. Not to be pessimistic, what if we are only in for another grand minimum, which is likely anytime soon. They seem to turn up about every 200 years, and since the Dalton arrived 220 years ago ….. The best evidence would be a cooling of the ocean surface. The WMO should be the people to go to because the have control of the ARGO buoys, but they admit that they have been adding ships surface readings to the data. Of course, that would bias the perfect raw data upwards. However, for those with knowledge to interpret the raw data,according to Bob Tisdale, it’s still available at Berkeley Earth. Bob neatly exposed the chicanery of the WHO ,because there isn’t enough shipping in the Southern Ocean to influence the data, And a slight cooling shows up. Australia is at this time experiencing a blockbuster drought. The question for the brains trust is- Is a slight sea surface temp. drop and less evaporation enough to cause such an extensive drought? And has it really been happening worldwide? The UN has hardly been a paragon of truth in recent years, so we should really find out so that we have some kind of warning.

Pop Piasa
December 1, 2019 6:40 pm

All I want for Christmas is to see the points in this article presented in the MSM. Censorship blatantly exists where the climate “rubber meets the road”.

December 1, 2019 6:51 pm

” (page 666 of the IPCC assessment.)” – The devil is always in the details 🙂

Peter D Gardner
December 1, 2019 6:52 pm

Back in 2013 I read a scientific paper on the EPICA C ice core which showed clearly two things over the last 750,000 years, nearly 8 complete glacial cycles:
1) When temperature is rising, CO2 lags temperature, at other times it is more or less in sync.;
2) The temperature trend changes from +ve to -ve direction when CO2 is at or near maximum concentration.
Obviously CO2 could not be driving temperature. These observed phenomena were not explained in the paper and if I remember correctly the authors did not know of any explanation.
I have recently interviewed two people who are not scientists but who are closely involved in Antarctic science. I asked them if they knew whether these phenomena were now understood. They didn’t know. As far as I am aware we still await an explanation.
Can anyone on here explain them?

Reply to  Peter D Gardner
December 1, 2019 7:51 pm

The oceans………………not hard really except when your a “scieintist” and cant handle the truth

Burl Henry
Reply to  Peter D Gardner
December 2, 2019 12:13 pm

Peter D. Gardner:

“Obviously CO2 could not be driving temperature. These observed phenomena were not explained in the paper and if I remember correctly the authors did not know of any explanation”

The explanation is changing levels of volcanic activity, with cooling during periods of extensive volcanism due to their emission of dimming SO2 aerosols, and rapid warming when the volcanism abated, and their aerosols settled out of the atmosphere.

Similarly, The Roman Warming Period ended due to large volcanic eruptions, and the Medieval Warming Period was associated with sparse volcanic activity. The Little Ice Age was caused by a resumption of extensive volcanism, with the Great Famine of 1315-1317, which resulted in ~7,900,000 deaths, being an extreme example. It was caused by the VEI5 eruptions of Mount Tarawera in 1310, 1311, 1312, 1313, 1314, and 1315.

The LIA ended circa 1850, again due to reduced volcanic activity, but warming similar to that of the MWP has been delayed, because their SO2 aerosols have largely been replaced by those from the Industrial Revolution’s burning of fossil fuels.

However, due to global Clean Air efforts, circa 1975, they gradually began to be reduced, and temperatures have risen as a consequence.

As you stated, CO2 has played no role in affecting our temperatures, nor has any sunspot activity. It is all due to changing levels of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere..

Peter D Gardner
Reply to  Burl Henry
December 2, 2019 3:54 pm

Thanks but we need a consistent explanation covering the glacial cycle of approx 100,000 years and demonstrable over several cycles.

Burl Henry
Reply to  Peter D Gardner
December 3, 2019 6:58 am

Peter D. Gardner:

First, there are no cycles, unless volcanism is somehow cyclic, which I strongly doubt. The “cycles” are artifacts of graphical programs.

The consistent explanation is that all glacial events are due to increased volcanism,

Consider the rapid recovery observed after glacial events. Once volcanism has abated, it only takes probably 10 to 20 years for all of the dimming SO2 aerosols from the largest eruptions to settle out of the atmosphere, less time for VEI4’s.

Peter D Gardner
Reply to  Burl Henry
December 3, 2019 12:06 pm

I was referring to glaciation which is cyclic, period approx 100k years. If volcanism is not cyclic it is not the explanation.

Patrick MJD
December 1, 2019 8:10 pm

Just had someone tell me 280ppm/v CO2 is *THE* ideal concentration for the planet and that will stop climate change and bushfires.

No cure for stupid.

Reply to  Patrick MJD
December 2, 2019 7:00 am

To stop bushfires you just reduce the 02 component. Genetically alter plants to not respire – planet saved!

Reply to  Patrick MJD
December 2, 2019 8:24 am

260ppm for pre-industrial CO2 level? An interesting meta analysis is published by J. R. Bray [ Tellus XI (1959) 2 “Recent changes in CO2 concentration” ] – [ Tellus A and Tellus B are the international, peer-reviewed journals of the International Meteorological Institute in Stockholm ]. A large number of cited values for atmospheric CO2 are quoted for the 19th and 20th centuries. By including all the values in the literature since 1816, one author reported a mean of 335ppm for the period 1816-1901 and 334ppm for 1904-1940. Doubtless critics will claim the analyses were suspect but much of the data is higher than currently reported for those periods from ice core analysis. Issues have been raised regarding these results. https://www.astrobio.net/climate/ice-cores-may-not-be-accurate-thermometers.

James Walter
December 1, 2019 8:37 pm

There is a climate emergency – the current little ice age. The UN, Greta the Grinch, et. al., want to destroy our ability to fight it. It can be survived – a full blown ice age, not so much. But if we started working on it NOW, we would survive better. It IS and emergency! A Global Cooling emergency!

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  James Walter
December 2, 2019 9:36 am

We’d survive a new glacial (we’re already in an ice age) just fine. New land would be uncovered by the receding oceans for Canadians to move to. And, being the stupid humans we are, we’d happily build there, not caring about the time in the vague future when the oceans will reclaim those lands.

Chris Hoff
December 1, 2019 8:47 pm

Ernst Georg Becks graphs for the last 200 years of CO2 chemical measurement showed two spikes in 1825 and 1942 at 550 ppm. It would be hilarious to watch the hand wringing of the mainstream media if the world saw a sudden spike to 550+ ppm CO2 level over the course of 2 years followed by an immediate falling back to 360 ppm. They’d have a difficult time explaining how the level suddenly rose and then why it fell back and how there was no corresponding dramatic temperature shift.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Chris Hoff
December 2, 2019 9:37 am

Don’t know about 1825, but 1942 was the height of WWII. Tremendous expansion of industry (not to mention lots of explosions) all around that period.

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
December 3, 2019 4:16 am

I think the bombing intensified from 1942 until the Allies started running out of industrial targets sometime in early 1945. Aside from the Russian front, all was quiet in Europe. Has anyone quantified the emissions from warfare? Would they have exceeded the emissions of a major volcanic eruption?

December 1, 2019 9:14 pm

The GISP2 ice core data, the source used for the lead chart, stops ~1855. So the final trend line is from 1,000 BC to ~1855, not to the present. The ‘modern’ warming period is not represented on that chart.

Warming in the 20th and 21st centuries is missing from that data, so the claim that each high point in the past has been colder than the previous one cannot legitimately be made using this source.

December 1, 2019 11:17 pm

Supplemental Information from Beerly& Royer’s (2011) “Convergent Cenozoic CO2 history” shows some of the different proxies for reconstructing last 65 million year estimates of CO2 by stomata, plankton, boron, paleosols, etc.

Hopefully the following link to their data will work easy for those interested in non-ice core data. You can certainly track the reports supplemental data down if following fails.


Reply to  gringojay
December 1, 2019 11:34 pm

I see link fails … try going to address below & clicking on where says “supplemental information” in blue off to right side of page:


December 1, 2019 11:18 pm

What is the calibration of the temperature scale in the first graph? It ranges from 1.4 to 2.8 C based on what zero point?

December 1, 2019 11:22 pm

The effect of the atmosphere and ocean is 90 K, not 33 K, compared to the moon. “Back radiation” has no measurable effect. The global temperature is caused by the sun and air pressure (Nikolov & Zeller + Mulolland & Wilde)

December 2, 2019 12:51 am


can someone explain to me why temperature anomalies are plotted in temperature differences and why is it more accurate as the NASA states?

http://ete.cet.edu/gcc/?/globaltemp_anomalies/#:~:targetText=In other words%2C the long,temperature was cooler than normal.

December 2, 2019 1:25 am

and what if there is?

and all you distinguished commenters have been working hard to persuade people not to do anything about it?

Reply to  griff
December 2, 2019 5:46 pm

Where is the evidence that a climate emergency exists? Heck, provide evidence that one is even possible.

Regardless, how can a rational person conclude that returning the earth to the average temperature over the last 10,000 years could ever constitute and emergency?

Reply to  MarkW
December 2, 2019 6:23 pm

Easy, Facts just don’t matter. Get used to it. Rational people are not in charge. Your Science is ignored and carefully crafted start-end dates are used to deceive but the bottom line is it is a Political and Religious situation is what we are dealing with. The Warmists believe what they profess so get used to it. Little will be done unless their is something like the Piltdown Man surfaces. Climategate was not enough and the perpetrators were (gag) exonerated. Since the main players won’t debate, we are stuck with your opinions which are rational.

December 2, 2019 1:38 am

When will we learn that “facts don’t matter”. What is needed is a new approach. I have watched the “debate” for over 20 years and Warmists cite “Science” as their ultimate authority. They firmly believe their own “stuff” and ridicule “deniers” as being bad people with bad information. This website is keeping the news in the forefront witch it should, but science suffers a lot. Warmists facts counter your facts, and of course your lies. Different approach is needed because FACTS DON’T MATTER.

Michael Hammer
December 2, 2019 2:29 am

The author states first:
The greater part of the Greenhouse effect, (more than ~90% – 95%) arises from water as vapour and clouds in the atmosphere.

and then second:
The warming Greenhouse effect is essential to all life on earth, without it amounting to ~+33°C planet Earth would be a very cold and inhospitable place indeed.

If we accept the first statement then the second is wrong because without water vapour there would be no clouds and without clouds the albedo of Earth would be far lower. That means instead of absorbing 243 watts/sqM of solar energy, Earth would be absorbing more like 320 watts/sqM which would give it a black body temperature of +1C. In fact a bit more given the Earth is not quite a black body. That means the “total” GHG impact is not 33C but more like 12C.

If we really want to see how irrational the theory of AGW is, look at Earth’s energy loss to space – outgoing long wave radiation or OLR for short. According to the AGW theory, rising CO2 acts as a blanket reducing Earth’s energy loss to space ie: reducing OLR. Trouble is that OLR has been monitored since the start of the satellite era and it is not falling with rising CO2, it is rising. In fact it has risen by 3 watts/sqM since about 1980. To put that in perspective AGW theory claims doubling CO2 would REDUCE OLR by about 3 watts/sqM before feedbacks.

Another little point, it is claimed most of the impact of rising CO2 is due to feedbacks, especially the impact of rising water vapour in the atmosphere. They claim constant relative humidity which means absolute water vapour content rises almost exponentially with rising temperature. Problem is that evaporating water takes lots of energy – a quick calculation suggests constant relative humidity in a 3C warmer world takes an extra 17 watts/sqM of energy at the surface to evaporate the extra water (even assuming no increase in convection). Where does that energy come from, increase in back radiation wont do it. Of course that also ignors that if more water evaporates, more rain must fall which means more clouds which increases Earth’s albedo which results in less solar radiation be absorbed, a very significant NEGATIVE feedback term not positive feedback.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Michael Hammer
December 3, 2019 8:06 am

We can speculate about the particulars ad infinitum – the fact is that observations confirm that CO2 has NO effect on temperature, but temperature DOES affect the atmospheric CO2 level. They have always had the cart before the horse, and their conjecture is shown by observation to be complete nonsense.

donald penman
December 2, 2019 2:43 am

I have thought about what might happen when the earth receives less sunlight either because of low sunspots or orbital changes. The arctic/Antarctic receives no sunlight during the winter so a drop in solar radiation is not going to make it colder there during winter during summer it receives more solar radiation so the effect of a drop in solar radiation would be insignificant, the subpolar high latitudes have insignificant solar radiation during the winter so the effect of a drop in solar radiation during winter will be insignificant during winter and even less significant in the summer when solar radiation is high but the high mid latitudes have a significant amount of solar radiation to lose at the winter solstice even though the effect in summer is insignificant so they will cool down most with a drop in solar radiation. The difference in temperature between winter and summer is caused I think mostly by changes in solar radiation because the earth cools down very little over this time scale. The UK was covered by large ice sheets because it is in the high mid latitudes.

Joseph Zorzin
December 2, 2019 4:44 am

What’s with the following web site: https://skepticalscience.com/

I believe the entire climate catastrophe thing is over rated. But I read both sides. That above web site seems to deconstruct all the “denier” ideas.

I’ve just begun reading wattsupwiththat.com but I’ve been a big fan of Tony Heller’s site and he makes a lot of sense. However, I’m disturbed by that site I mention at the top of this post. Anyone have any thoughts on that site?

Steve Keohane
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 2, 2019 5:44 am

I think that is Tamino’s clown science site. Haven’t looked at it in not long enough ago.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Steve Keohane
December 2, 2019 9:06 am

It’s very thorough- attempting to deconstruct every claim of those who don’t believe we have a climate catastrophe. I’m sure somebody must have deconstructed that entire site. I recall reading somewhere a critique of it but can’t find it. The site’s mantra is that people should be skeptical of climate skeptics- so I posted a comment there saying, maybe people should also be skeptical of those who are skeptical of climate skeptics. Then I got a warning that with such language I might be locked out! That didn’t impress me.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 2, 2019 9:39 am

“Then I got a warning that with such language I might be locked out! That didn’t impress me.”

That’s all you need to know about that site. Not allowing dissenting opinion or analysis isn’t science.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
December 3, 2019 8:34 am

That site totally slams the skeptics. Anyone who reads it and believes it will believe all skeptics are stupid, corrupt and on the take from fossil fuel companies. Now, I’m always a skeptic of everything. But from reading the mainstream media, and not being aware of skeptic web sites, since they are NEVER mention in the MSM- I just assumed until maybe a year or so ago that climate change was real and very threatening. Then a very skeptical friend of mine mentioned several of the skeptic web sites and I started looking at them. They certainly didn’t seem stupid or corrupt. Now, if happen to mention some of the ideas of the skeptics, I get ugly replies- as if I’m being a bad boy reading those horrible skeptical writers- that of course the climate “scientists” have truth on their side. I don’t know where the truth lies, but when I see that kind of arrogance and sarcasm, it makes me think that side is really afraid they may be wrong. If you debated with a chemist – and said something lame, the chemist wouldn’t react with so much hatred and condescension, IMHO.

Gary Mount
Reply to  Steve Keohane
December 3, 2019 4:01 am

That’s John Cook’s web site.

Joseph, the WUWT community is very familiar with John Cooks blog. I can tell you what I think about it but you’re going to have to learn a lot of climate science to be able to distinguish the factual content from the unscientific parts. Early in my search for climate science information, wattsupwiththat (WUWT) gained my trust and has held my trust for the last 10 years. WUWT isn’t considered the top climate science blog for nothing.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Gary Mount
December 3, 2019 8:46 am

I’m not on top of climate science but I’m on top of the climate since I’ve been working outdoors in frigid Massachusetts for almost 50 years as a forester. I don’t doubt that the temperature has gone up a bit. Old time loggers, when I was starting my work, told me that winters used to be so severe they could easily log in wetlands- which is not so easy now. But, so what, if it’s slightly warmer? Maybe it is something we need to be pondering but the idea that it’s a threat to civilization is crazy. When I read about Climategate- I was surprised that the major evidence for Michael Mann was tree rings. I can say as a forester- tree rings are not a terrific temperature proxie. Many variables effect tree rings- not just the temperature- so there may be a weak correlation with climate but a very weak one. Of all the various climate change points debated- the one idea that catches my attention but I can’t seem to find rock solid science on- is the idea that the sensitivity of the climate to CO2 is logarithmic. I know that this is claimed by skeptics and I’ve read comments by the alarmists who say it’s not true- but it seems to me that definitive science on this subject is lacking. The alarmists never point to good science regarding this concept. If it’s true, it would be a knockout blow to the alarmists.

December 2, 2019 7:14 am

” … Australia is at this time experiencing a blockbuster drought. …”

“Australia” is not in drought. Draw a line west from Mackay Queensland west to the NT border and most places north of that line had one of the biggest floods for many decades in February and March this year.

Parts of southern Queensland and parts of New South Wales are in a fairly prosaic drought. Much worse droughts have occurred in the past 25 years alone.

Gordon Dressler
December 2, 2019 7:25 am

This is a nice article that I agree with overall (confirmation bias? I hope not!), but I take exception to this statement:
“As the Holocene epoch is now some ~11,000 years old experience of previous interglacials shows that it should be ending very soon, in geological time. It is therefore much more likely that the Holocene will continue to cool at at least its current rate as it has done for the past 3 millennia, unless it terminates suddenly like earlier interglacials.”

The last eight or so glacial-interglacial cycles of the current Ice Age have an average period of around 100,000 years. If we allocate half of this period to being the interglacial portion, that yields an average duration of about 50,000 years for the warm part of the cycle.

The interglacial part of each cycle displays the characteristic pattern of gradual warming for about the first 80-90% of those 50,000 years, followed by a relatively precipitous drop down to near-minimum glacial temperatures during the final 20-10% (respectively) at the ending of the interglacial.

Therefore if we conservatively say the last glacial period ended some 15,000 years ago (thereby overlooking the Younger Dryas cold anomaly event), the historical odds are that we still have some 40,000-15,000 = 25,000 years of long-term global warming ahead of us.

But please note that this overall cyclic pattern says nothing about what shorter term global temperature variations may occur within the characteristic 50,000 year interglacial (e.g., Medieval warm period, Little Ice Age, etc.)

Paul Martin
Reply to  Gordon Dressler
December 2, 2019 12:35 pm

Gordon Dressler says: “If we allocate half of this period to being the interglacial portion, that yields an average duration of about 50,000 years for the warm part of the cycle.”

I believe the ice cores spanning the recent glaciation cycles show the period is NOT split evenly; rather the de-glaciation is a significantly smaller portion of each cycle.

Gordon Dressler
Reply to  Paul Martin
December 2, 2019 3:14 pm

OK, make the warm (interglacial) portion only 25% of the total period. The revised math then says the odds are that we should have 20,000-15,000 = 5,000 years remaining until the beginning of the precipitous decline to the next glacial period.

What’s the real difference to anyone alive today, or in the next 1,000 years?

J Mac
December 2, 2019 7:47 am

Excellent presentation, edmhdotme!
Thank You!

December 2, 2019 8:04 am

What I see as the fall back position by the alarmist to all this is “but would you want to go back to that” and “it would still cause dramatic change and change is hard”, or something.

We are humans, and intelligent (purportedly). We can cope with change as we have before. Change is inevitable anyway, and we will have to at some point. There is literally no way that over the next 1000 years the climate will stay exactly as it has for the last few hundred.


James F. Evans
December 2, 2019 8:10 am


December 2, 2019 9:36 am

Everyone is overthinking this debacle. A few clues early on evidenced the issue as a scam. When the media and government started with the “97% of scientists” thing, I knew something was up. 97% of scientists can’t agree on the color of a stop light, or if it even exists. Then came the call for money. The clincher was the degree governments started building a bandwagon to promote the idea of global warming. Once the government got behind it, that was the final nail. We had government departments refusing to hire “deniers”, universities refusing to give tenure to deniers, Hollywood twits going crazy over global warming – all the players who usually signify stupidity and fraud. There is no global warming. We will not die in 10 years. Listening to a 15 year old tell us how bad everyone is is embarrassing and I’m not a part of it. I’m 78 and know better. Future historians (there will be a future) will look back on this and psychoanalyze how such fakery can take hold during an explosion of scientific advances. The sky is not falling.

December 2, 2019 10:24 am

I immensely enjoy reading the broad content of WUWT; I also enjoy, almost revel in, consuming the back and forth contend to the COMMENTS. Thanks to the site management and the rich mass of commenting readers.

Reply to  Hunter
December 3, 2019 4:09 pm

Hunter, totally agree. I spend more time reading, and learning from, the comments than the articles (which I also enjoy).

December 2, 2019 11:45 am

The problem is the radical liberals and chicken little’s of the world either can’t or don’t want to understand any kinds of facts or do any thinking. But the main problem is that the liberal press continues to pound out their crazed messages and give them a publicity platform to promote their nonsense. It is all about the money and control – not about what is happening to the climate.

December 2, 2019 1:25 pm

Seems to me the miniscule effect that concentrations of CO2 higher than 200 ppm have already been scientically confirmed. Simply examine the 400million year Temp/CO2 data graph. Draw the best straight line though the temp data ftom 50million years ago to 400 million years ago. The average temperature declined by only 1C while CO2 went from 4000ppm to 200 ppm.

Gordon Dressler
Reply to  Alcheson
December 2, 2019 3:27 pm

Can’t be true. Why, that is an argument based on (paleo)scientific data and logic! Climate emergency management does not permit such.

/sarc off

P.S. I believe paleoclimatology shows the atmospheric CO2 level was around 180 ppm during the Quaternary glaciation around two million years ago; the low point is more recent than the 50 million years you stated.

December 2, 2019 3:39 pm

Any warming today is simply the continuation of the nature-caused warming that began 10,000 years ago and melted most of the continental glaciers.

Dr. Mark Abhold
December 2, 2019 7:02 pm

Before cows were raised on range land there were buffalo. 60 million of them in the late 1700s. Almost as many buffalo as there are bovine cattle in the us now (about 95 million). The impact of grazing animals on CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere is obviously not as large as has been claimed.

Peter K
December 2, 2019 8:45 pm

Actually, there is a “Climate Emergency” in NY at the moment. Twenty inches of snow expected with airlines grounded colleges closed, workers told to stay home etc. Pity Greta wasn’t still there. She could see the emergency first hand.

December 3, 2019 2:07 am

You are right

December 3, 2019 8:15 am

To quote NATO talking heads as “proof” of Russia interfering with green policies, just confirms what French President Macron just said – NATO is brain-dead.
NATO even listed “instability” and “climate” as adversaries. Shiver my timbers, but that is scary stuff.

The green insanity comes from a much closer-to-home policy, and is simply eugenics. Removing dense energy sources will definitely reduce population and longevity. That means China, and India know full well they are being targetted, and respond just right.
Even Dr. John Schellnhuber, dubbed CBE by the Queen personally in 2004 at the Berlin Embassy, openly declares 2 billion max. What would he intend for 5.5 billion “useless eaters”, one might rightly wonder? As Lord Bertrand Russell stated , the high minded say, what of it.

AGW is not Science
December 3, 2019 8:16 am

You can drop the “What if.”

State it simply – “There IS NO climate emergency.”

And when a “climate emergency” happens, it (1) will NOT be caused by human activities, (2) will NOT be something that can be “stopped” by any “change” to human activities, and (3) will be a COOLING of the climate, which is dangerous to ALL life on Earth, NOT a WARMING of the climate, which is beneficial to all life on Earth.

December 3, 2019 9:58 am

The first graph is based on GIS2 core data from Greenland but the data does not go up to 2000 as implied. It goes to about 1860 which is long before the modern AGW signal really gets going. The article falls apart if you look at the global climate data and not just a single ice core.

You can’t just stick your head in the sand and chat that everything is okay…

Mark Matis
December 3, 2019 3:39 pm

The tribe merely yearns for the “good old days” of their Messiahs – Lenin and Stalin – and intend to get there. BAMN.

December 3, 2019 5:24 pm

We are cooling, folks; for how long even kim doesn’t know.

December 4, 2019 9:49 am

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change
GCM General Circulation Model (many, based on IPCC CO2 assertions)
These eight links from five authors are all you really need to understand global warming.
My speculation: As the temperature went down into the Little Ice Age, limestone was deposited around the edges of bodies of water. As the temperature has recovered since, the limestone dissolved and added CO2 to the oceans, with a delay of 300-400 years. It was just an accident that this added CO2 coincided with our industrial revolution. Temperature creates CO2, not the other way around. There is proof of that. Read on.
Shows that temperature change over the last 170 years is due to 3 things: 1) cycling of the ocean temperature, 2) sun variations and 3) moisture in the air. There is no significant dependence of temperature on CO2.
Connolly father & son
Shows the vertical temperature profile follows the ideal gas laws and is not caused by CO2. Millions of weather balloon scans and trillions of data points have been analyzed to come to these conclusions. One important conclusion is that there is no green house gas effect.
Pat Frank
Shows that GCM results cannot be extrapolated a few years, let alone 50 or 100.
Joe Postma
Shows that the “flat earth model”of the IPCC is too simple. Their real models are built into the GCMs which don’t fit the real data.

Johann Wundersamer
December 7, 2019 6:09 pm

“The warming Greenhouse effect is essential to all life on earth, without it amounting to ~+33°C planet Earth would be a very cold and inhospitable place indeed.”

Very disputable, since

“How does atmospheric pressure affect weather?

Although it is not visible, air pressure affects the weather pattern to a great extent. Rising air creates low pressure while sinking air creates high pressure.

… As a result, air rises and cools; clouds and precipitate are formed. Low air pressure produces unstable weather conditions like rain or storms.

Mar 11, 2018

https://the-weather-station.com › ho…

How Does Air Pressure Affect Weather? – The Weather Station”



So the potential energy of Earth’s atmosphere weight pressure alone contributes to the Earth’s energy balance sheet.

Johann Wundersamer
December 7, 2019 6:23 pm

as can be seen in the rapid Recovery from the last Ice Age, 10,000 years ago, when temperature increased at a rate of ~+2.5°C / millennium, ~20 times the present rate of temperature diminution, the world’s Climate can change much more radically and suddenly. –>

as can be seen in the rapid Recovery from the previous Eemian interglacial, 10,000 years ago, when temperature increased at a rate of ~+2.5°C / millennium, ~20 times the present rate of temperature diminution, the world’s Climate can change much more radically and suddenly.

Johann Wundersamer
December 7, 2019 6:54 pm
%d bloggers like this: