Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #390

The Week That Was: 2019-12-14 (December 14, 2019)

Brought to You by SEPP (www.SEPP.org)

The Science and Environmental Policy Project

Quote of the Week: “In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s really true. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the computation results to nature, or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works. [Boldface added.]

“If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.” Richard Feynman on the Scientific Method

Number of the Week: 20 to 30º C (35 to 55º F) warmer


By Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)

Not With a Bang, But a Whimper: (T.S. Eliot, “The Hollow Men”) The months-long UN Climate Festival has ended for this year with cries “wait until next year.” It began in September with the UN Climate Week in Manhattan and concluded with the 25th annual Conference of Parties (COP-25) of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Madrid. It featured bluster and teenage fears and anxieties with cries that the world is doomed, all of it based on a fanaticized future created by numerical climate models that fail basic testing. The UN, particularly the UNFCCC and its subordinate organization, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), have created a social beast by greatly exaggerating the warming effects that increasing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases have.

As described below, the UN has abandoned the scientific method as articulated by Nobel co-Laurate in Physics and brilliant teacher Richard Feynman. For example, see the Quote of the Week stated above. The UN and its followers, such as the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), fail to compare their guesses directly with nature – observations of the atmosphere, where greenhouse gases warm the planet by slowing heat loss to space. The harm being done by the UN and its followers can be seen by the psychological responses of many people expressing “climate anxiety” and the development of counseling programs by psychotherapists on “climate depression.”

According to reports, UN Secretary-General António Guterres started the Madrid conference by declaring: “For many decades the human species has been at war with the planet … And the planet is fighting back.” In a sense, this is accurate. For decades the UN has proclaimed that man, not nature, is causing climate change. And nature is fighting back – winning. It does not obey the UN pronouncements and predictions / projections of the climate modelers.

The UN is engaged in a war, not on climate change, but on human prosperity. As stated in the November 9 TWTW:

“Based on World Bank estimates a group called Our World in Data estimates that the number of people living in extreme poverty is down 66% in the past 28 years. In 1990, the number of people in extreme poverty was 1.9 billion, about 36% of the world’s population. In 2018, the number of people in extreme poverty was 650 million people, about 9% of the world’s population of 7.5 billion.”

“The bulk of this remarkable decline in extreme poverty has occurred in South Asia, East Asia and Pacific. The extreme poverty population in Sub-Saharan Africa has increased. Much of the reduction of extreme poverty can be attributed to opening of the economies to market competition (especially China and India) and use of energy, particularly fossil fuels.”

Yet, even as the use of fossil fuels is reducing dire poverty, we are not seeing dire warming of the atmosphere as global emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) increase. The extreme exaggeration used by the UN and green groups may be becoming less convincing. Nevertheless, on the early morning of December 15, two days after the Madrid conference was scheduled to close, Secretary-General António Guterres tweeted:

“I am more determined than ever to work for 2020 to be the year in which all countries commit to do what science tells us is necessary to reach carbon neutrality in 2050 and a no more than 1.5-degree temperature rise.”

See links under Defending the Orthodoxy, Social Benefits of Carbon Dioxide, After Paris, Funding Issues, and https://twitter.com/antonioguterres/status/1206199271009075200


Rhetoric, Not Physical Evidence: In a post on her website, Climate Etc., Judith Curry addresses some of the hyperbole used by the UN and its followers. As a former climate modeler who began to question the global climate models and their procedures, she was cast out of that closed society. A few of her succinct observations are:

“So . . . exactly what should we be worried about? Consider the following statistics:

· Over the past century, there has been a 99% decline in the death toll from natural disasters, during the same period that the global population quadrupled.

· While global economic losses from weather and climate disasters have been increasing, this is caused by increasing population and property in vulnerable locations. Global weather losses as a percent of global GDP have declined about 30% since 1990.

· While the IPCC has estimated that sea level could rise by 0.6 meters by 2100, recall that the Netherlands adapted to living below sea level 400 years ago.

· Crop yields continue to increase globally, surpassing what is needed to feed the world. Agricultural technology matters more than climate.

· The proportion of world population living in extreme poverty declined from 36% in 1990 to 10% in 2015.”

After addressing other issues such as sea level rise, she states:

“The extreme rhetoric of the Extinction Rebellion and other activists is making political agreement on climate change policies more difficult. Exaggerating the dangers beyond credibility makes it difficult to take climate change seriously. On the other hand, the extremely alarmist rhetoric has frightened the bejesus out of children and young adults.”

“JC message to children and young adults: Don’t believe the hype that you are hearing from Extinction Rebellion and the like. Rather than going on strike or just worrying, take the time to learn something about the science of climate change. The IPCC reports are a good place to start; for a critical perspective on the IPCC, Climate Etc. is a good resource.

“Climate change — manmade and/or natural — along with extreme weather events, provide reasons for concern. However, the rhetoric and politics of climate change have become absolutely toxic and nonsensical.

“In the meantime, live your best life. Trying where you can to lessen your impact on the planet is a worthwhile thing to do. Societal prosperity is the best insurance policy that we have for reducing our vulnerability to the vagaries of weather and climate.”

And concludes with:

JC message to Extinction Rebellion and other doomsters: Not only do you know nothing about climate change, you also appear to know nothing of history. You are your own worst enemy — you are triggering a global backlash against doing anything sensible about protecting our environment or reducing our vulnerability to extreme weather. You are making young people miserable, who haven’t yet experienced enough of life to place this nonsense in context. [Boldface in the original.]

See links under Challenging the Orthodoxy.


Climate Awards: Unlike some past COP events, no Nobel Peace prizes were given. Instead, Time Magazine awarded “The Person of the Year” distinction to a certain Nordic blond girl with pigtails who has been fashionable in expressing her teenage fears and anxieties about the future of the earth’s climate. In 2016, the same award went to Donald Trump, who is noted for his bluster.

The awards seem very appropriate for describing the public discourse on climate change. It tends to be in one extreme or the other: bombast and bluster; or fears and anxieties – replacing reasoned judgement. See links under Communicating Better to the Public – Use Propaganda on Children and Communicating Better to the Public – Use Children for Propaganda


Model Guesses and Observations: In a post on this website, Roy Spencer compares model runs with observations. The models are the last generation used in the 5th Assessment Report of the IPCC, CMIP5 (AR5, 2013&14). As shown, the models do poorly when compared with two different sets of satellite data (University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) and Remote Sensing Systems (RSS – satellite only)) and four different datasets of reanalysis data (used to calibrate weather models daily). The only model that does well against the UAH and the reanalysis data is INM-CM4, Russian Institute for Numerical Mathematics Climate Model Version 4, in Moscow.

The average warming of the global lower troposphere estimated by the models is roughly twice the warming observed by UAH and other observations. In discussing the discrepancies Spencer makes several observations:

“I still believe that the primary cause of the discrepancies between models and observations is that the feedbacks in the models are too strongly positive. The biggest problem most likely resides in how the models handle moist convection and precipitation efficiency, which in turn affects how upper tropospheric cloud amounts and water vapor respond to warming. This is related to Richard Lindzen’s “Infrared Iris” effect, which has not been widely accepted by the mainstream climate research community.

“Another possibility, which Will Happer and others have been exploring, is that the radiative forcing from CO2 is not as strong as is assumed in the models.

“Finally, one should keep in mind that individual climate models still have their warming rates adjusted in a rather ad hoc fashion through their assumed history of anthropogenic aerosol forcing, which is very uncertain and potentially large OR small.” [Boldface is italics in the original.]

In a separate critique, German climate science critic Professor Fritz Vahrenholt wrote that the model will not be corrected. [Translated]

“’Then hundreds of pages dealing with model projections would have to be critically revised,’ comments Vahrenholt. So, for the IPCC, it’s best to just simply ignore all the inconvenient science and to go on pretending.

“Vahrenholt concludes: ‘Politics is hot because the models are too hot. Which scientists have the courage and are ready to accept their responsibility to enlighten FFF and policymaking?’” [the meaning of FFF is not clear.]

It is sad to think that due to inertia, or political consequences, modelers and administrators of scientific organizations will continue to pretend there is nothing wrong with the models. But this may be true in the US, if not elsewhere.


Radiative Forcing: Physicists W. A. van Wijngaarden and William Happer (W & H) submitted a paper to EPA on the influence of methane on climate, particularly on global warming. It is based on a much longer paper underway on the influence of greenhouse gases on climate, mainly on changing the greenhouse effect by increasing radiative forcing of the Earth’s atmosphere. Radiative forcing, also called climate forcing, is the difference between energy which reaches the earth, primarily from the sun, and the energy radiated back to space. Greenhouse gases slow the energy radiated back to space as well as absorb some of the energy hitting the atmosphere. This can be contrasted with a transparent atmosphere, an idealized atmosphere with no interference with electromagnetic radiation.

In general, the new papers, particularly the paper in progress, are too complex for these pages. They include multiple equations of both differential and integral calculus. A few key points will be stated.

It is important to realize that as a greenhouse gas concentration increases, the total greenhouse effect increases, but the influence of the last amounts added decreases. This is similar to what economists call diminishing returns. For example, if carbon dioxide is doubled, assuming no other influences (feedbacks) the increase in temperatures would be X (the current climate debate is on the value of X). If the atmospheric CO2 goes from 200 parts per million (ppm) to 400 ppm, temperatures will increase by X. But the next doubling requires going from 400 to 800 ppm – also increases the temperatures by X.

At the current levels in the atmosphere, an increase of say 10 ppm of CO2 from 400 to 410 ppm will have some influence on temperatures but it is less than the temperature increase of increasing CO2 concentration from 200 ppm to 210 ppm. It is not noticeable and is trivial. In physics, it is said the absorption bands are saturated, meaning that increases in molecules of these gases no longer readily absorb and re-radiate electromagnetic energy as previous increases. Stated differently, increasing molecules of these gases has a lessening influence on the ability of each additional molecule to the slow the radiation of energy from earth to space.

In the abstract, W & H state:

“Radiative forcing is the difference in the net upward thermal radiation from the Earth through a transparent atmosphere and radiation through an otherwise identical atmosphere with greenhouse gases. Radiative forcing, normally specified in units of W m−2, depends on latitude, longitude and altitude, but it is often quoted for a representative temperate latitude, and for the altitude of the tropopause, or for the top of the atmosphere. For current concentrations of greenhouse gases, the radiative forcing at the tropopause, per added CH4 molecule, is about 30 times larger than the forcing per added carbon-dioxide (CO2) molecule. This is due to the heavy saturation of the absorption band of the abundant greenhouse gas, CO2.”

It is important to note that the most important greenhouse gas, by far, is water vapor. Yet, the IPCC and its followers generally ignore water vapor until the end of their analysis when it becomes the important effect that amplifies or magnifies the influence of CO2.

Based on their analysis, W & H state (p 11)

“Methane levels in Earth’s atmosphere are slowly increasing, as shown in Fig. 7. If the current rate of increase, about 0.007 ppm/year for the past decade or so, were to continue unchanged it would take about 270 years to double the current concentration of C {i} = 1.8 ppm. But, as one can see from Fig.7, methane levels have stopped increasing for years at a time, so it is hard to be confident about future concentrations. Methane concentrations may never double, but if they do, WH show that this would only increase the forcing by 0.8 W m−2. This is a tiny fraction of representative total forcings at midlatitudes of about 140 W m−2 at the tropopause and 120 W m−2 at the top of the atmosphere. [Please see the paper for explanation.]

W & H go on to state:

“The reason that the per-molecule forcing of methane is [appears in calculations to be] some 30 times larger than that of carbon dioxide for current concentrations is “saturation” of the absorption bands. The current density of CO2 molecules is some 200 times greater than that of CH4 molecules, so the absorption bands of CO2 are much more saturated than those of CH4. In the dilute “optically-thin” limit, show that the tropospheric forcing power pe molecule is P {i} = 0.15 × 10−22 W for CH4, and P {i} = 2.73 × 10−22 W for CO2. Each CO2 molecule in the dilute limit causes about 5 times more forcing increase than an additional molecule of CH4, which is only a “super greenhouse gas” because there is so little in the atmosphere, compared to CO2.”

In short, the influence of methane on temperatures is and will be trivial – much to do about nothing. Next week TWTW will address the recent paper by Richard Lindzen, another climate science skeptic. See links under Challenging the Orthodoxy and Defending the Orthodoxy.


The Last Pacific Island Glacier: The November 30 TWTW discussed how David Gunnlaugsson, Iceland’s former prime minister, debunked the publicity stunt by green groups mourning the passing of an Iceland glacier. As it turns out, melting Icelandic glaciers are revealing tree stumps, buried in ice for 3,000 years. Could it be possible Iceland and the world was once warmer than it is today?

This week writing in Watts Up With That, Willis Eschenbach addresses the melting of the last Pacific island glacier. He writes:

“There is no evidence for ice on any of the New Guinea mountains between about 7,000 and 5,000 yr. BP, and in fact the tree line of Mt. Wilhelm [4,500 m (14,800 ft)] was as much as 200m above its present position from 8,300 to 5,000 yr. BP.”

It appears that glaciers are not permanent, and their melting is not evidence of unprecedented global warming. See links under Changing Cryosphere – Land / Sea Ice

Number of the Week: 20 to 30º C (35 to 55º F) warmer.

Wijngaarden and Happer (W & H) state:

“The warming would be different at different latitudes and longitudes, or in summer or winter, or if clouds are taken into account. But 20 C to 30 C is a reasonable estimate of how much warming is caused by current concentrations of greenhouse gases, compared to a completely transparent atmosphere.” [An idealized atmosphere with no interference with electromagnetic radiation.]

These numbers should give pause to those who claim greenhouse gas warming is causing extinction.


Commentary: Is the Sun Rising?

Deep solar minimum on the verge of an historic milestone

Guest post by Paul Dorian, WUWT, Dec 12, 2019


Link to extreme events in 1913: Hottest temperature ever Record on Earth, July 10, 2013 at Greenland Ranch, Death Valley, Nevada: Maximum 134 F; Minimum 85F – a temperature range of 49 degrees F.

By Paul Dorian, Perspecta Weather, Accessed Dec 13, 2019


Challenging the Orthodoxy — NIPCC

Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science

Idso, Carter, and Singer, Lead Authors/Editors, Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), 2013


Summary: http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/ccr2a/pdf/Summary-for-Policymakers.pdf

Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts

Idso, Idso, Carter, and Singer, Lead Authors/Editors, Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), 2014


Summary: https://www.heartland.org/media-library/pdfs/CCR-IIb/Summary-for-Policymakers.pdf

Climate Change Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels

By Multiple Authors, Bezdek, Idso, Legates, and Singer eds., Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, April 2019


Download with no charge:


Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming

The NIPCC Report on the Scientific Consensus

By Craig D. Idso, Robert M. Carter, and S. Fred Singer, Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), Nov 23, 2015


Download with no charge:


Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate

S. Fred Singer, Editor, NIPCC, 2008


Global Sea-Level Rise: An Evaluation of the Data

By Craig D. Idso, David Legates, and S. Fred Singer, Heartland Policy Brief, May 20, 2019


Challenging the Orthodoxy

Methane and Climate

By W. A. van Wijngaarden and W. Happer, CO2 Coalition, Nov 22, 2019


On Climate Sensitivity

By Richard Lindzen, with Review Assistance from Roy Spencer, CO2 Coalition, 2019


CMIP5 Model Atmospheric Warming 1979-2018: Some Comparisons to Observations

By Roy Spencer, His Blog, Dec 12, 2019


“Model Failure”…”Politics Hot Because Climate Models Are Too Hot”, Says Leading German Climate Science Skeptic

By P Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, Dec 7, 2019


The toxic rhetoric of climate change

By Judith Curry, Climate Etc. Dec 14, 2019


Climate Truth File 2020

Your 2020 Skeptical Climate Change Talking Points Report

By Marc Morano, CFACT, Dec 10, 2019


Distinguished Princeton Physicist Likens Climate Movement To “Madness”…A “Bizarre Environmental Cult”

By P Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, Dec 8, 2019


[SEPP Comment: Graph giving history of atmospheric concentrations of CO2 over the past 550 million years.]

Digital Cathedrals

The Information Infrastructure Era

By Mark Mills, Manhattan Institute, Dec 11, 2019


[SEPP Comment: Mark Mills looking at the future of the information age in which reliable, consistent, affordable electricity become ever more critical.]

Nominations Open For ‘The World’s Greatest Climate Hypocrite’ Competition

By Staff, GWPF, Dec 11, 2019


Defending the Orthodoxy

UN chief warns unchecked climate change will mean ‘survival of the richest’

By Justine Coleman, The Hill, Dec 12, 2019


[SEPP Comment: Yet the UN wishes to punish the poorest by denying them use of fossil fuels.]

COP25 blog – Only 2020 COP will reveal whether Madrid was a success – German env min

By Sören Amelang Benjamin Wehrmann, Clean Energy Wire, Dec 11, 2019 [H/t GWPF]


NOAA Ecologist Re-arms Debunked Arctic Carbon Time Bomb

By David Middleton, WUWT, Dec 13, 2019


‘Last Decade Was The Warmest’ – Yes, But…

By David Whitehouse, GWPF, Dec 5, 2019


There is a lot of good data in the WMO press release, but also a lot of shallow analysis.

Natural gas drives record CO2 emissions in 2019

By Patrick Galey, Phys.org, Dec 4, 2019 [H/t Toshio Fujita]


“In contrast the use of oil and particularly natural gas is going up unabated. Natural gas is now the biggest contributor to the growth in emissions.”

[SEPP Comment: The next fuel to be demonized?]

Obama Buys $11m Beachside Property–Sea Level Rise? You Didn’t Believe That Bull Did You?

By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Dec 9, 2019


“WhatsMyElevation lists the elevation of their home as being 3 feet above sea level. Others place it at 10 feet.”

“The Obamas paid about half the original asking price for the property when it first became available in 2015, the report said.”

[SEPP Comment: Were the claims of drastic sea level rise by the Obama administration just a negotiating tactic for beachfront property?]

Questioning the Orthodoxy

The Incredible Story Of How Climate Change Became Apocalyptic

By Roger Pielke, Forbes, Dec 6, 2019


100 scientific papers: CO2 has minuscule effect on climate

Increasing evidence destroys primary claim of alarmists

By Staff, WND, Dec 12, 2019 [H/t Bernie Kepshire]


“[Mototaka Nakamura writing in] Electroverse noted that today’s ‘global warming science’ is built on the work of a few climate modelers who claim to have demonstrated that human-derived CO2 emissions are the cause of recently rising temperatures ‘and have then simply projected that warming forward.’”

Climate Fraud: UN General Secretary Guterres Tells 3 Lies In Single Sentence! He’s “Saying Exact Opposite Of What’s True”

By P Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, Dec 10, 2019


David Bellamy, Britain’s Most Loved Naturalist With Unfashionable Views On Climate Change

By Staff, Press Association, Via GWPF, Dec 12, 2019


Mega-Rich Environmentalists Respond To Questions About Their Use Of Private Jets

By Chris White, Daily Caller, Dec 9, 2019


No joke: Russian scientists marked problem Kara Sea polar bear with T-34

By Susan Crockford, Polar Bear Science, Dec 7, 2019


Link to Siberian Times article: T-34 polar bear video explained: scientists marked the predator in ‘safe paint’

By Staff Reporter, The Siberian Times, Dec 7, 2019


[SEPP Comment: T-34 was the designation of a formidable WW II Soviet tank. The Siberian Times has unusual polar bear pictures.]

After Paris!

Global Economic Conflict: A Nobel-Winning Alternative to the Paris Climate Agreement?

By Patrick J. Michaels, Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Via WUWT, Dec 13, 2019


COP 25: Loss and Damage inches on, but is toothless and homeless

By David Wojick, CFACT, Dec 13, 2019


Fossil fuel groups ‘destroying’ climate talks: NGOs

By Patrick Galey, Paris (AFP) Dec 7, 2019


[SEPP Comment: Featuring a meaningless graph.]

Social Benefits of Carbon Dioxide

Then all the plants died and…

By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, Dec 11, 2019


Global Extreme Poverty

By Max Roser and Esteban Ortiz-Ospina, Our World in Data, Revised 2019


Problems in the Orthodoxy

€100 billion isn’t enough to make Visegrád carbon-neutral

€3 trillion is the Czech government’s estimate what the 3 Central European countries need to be paid

By Lubos, Motl, The Reference Frame, Dec 11, 2019


India’s Fossil-Fuel-First Policy Unyielding To Paris Climate Deal Pressure

By Vijay Raj Jayaraj, India, GWPF, Dec 12, 2019


Seeking a Common Ground

After 30 years of failed climate politics, let’s try science!

By Larry Kummer, Fabius Maximus website, Dec 12, 2019


[SEPP Comment: The major issue is the proper database to use to test climate models. If the models are used to predict dangers of carbon dioxide-caused warming, then the proper database is atmospheric temperature trends.]

Review of Recent Scientific Articles by CO2 Science

The Mitigating Influence of CO2 on Drought and Heat Stress in Wheat

Li, X., Kristiansen, K., Rosenqvist, E. and Liu, F. 2019. Elevated CO2 modulates the effects of drought and heat stress on plant water relations and grain yield in wheat. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 205: 362-371.Dec 11, 2019


A Marine Gastropod’s Response to Ocean Acidification

Leung, J. Y.S., Doubleday, Z.A., Nagelkerken, I., Chen, Y., Xie, Z. and Connell, S.D. 2019. How calorie-rich food could help marine calcifiers in a CO2-rich future. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 286: 20190757. Dec 9, 2019


“In commenting on their findings, Leung et al. say the CO2-induced enhancement of the nutritional quality of the food consumed by the gastropods compensated for the energetic burden of ocean acidification, enabling the calcifiers to ‘build energetically costly shells that are robust to acidified conditions.’ Consequently, they conclude that the results of this natural ocean water experiment ‘unlock a possible mechanism underlying the persistence of calcifiers in acidifying oceans.’”

Models v. Observations

A prediction that came true

By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, Dec 11, 2019


“So when they sneer ‘don’t you believe the science?’ the right answer is, depends on what you mean by science. You can believe the models or you can believe the data, but don’t say you believe both because they don’t agree with each other.”

[SEPP Comment: Also important are the databases used.]

Model Issues

RSS AMSU: acceleration of global warming is mostly negative

By Lubos Motl, The Reference Frame, Dec 8, 2019


“I want to show you how incredibly uncertain the quadratic coefficient is. We will use the RSS AMSU v4.0 satellite data from 1979 to 2019. If you change TLT [Tropical Lower Troposphere] to TMT in the URL, you may get the same data for the mid troposphere instead of the lower one.

“Your humble correspondent tends to use the RSS data instead of UAH not because I believe that UAH’s numbers are worse – but mainly because I believe that both teams are doing professional work and by using the data from skeptics John Christy and Roy Spencer, I would create an unnecessary extra opportunity for a stupid kind of ad hominem criticisms.”

This time for sure… again

By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, Dec 11, 2019


“Hang on a sec. The problem is that the models predicted something would happen and it didn’t. So then the programmers went back and said OK, if we assume there was this much aerosol or other pollution and we also assume it causes this much cooling, then look, we can push the prediction around until it fits the known data.”

“As John von Neumann once said, ‘With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.’ And all the tweaked models prove is that if you add some more compensating assumptions to your previous failed assumptions you can predict the past.”

Measurement Issues — Surface

The Bureau of Meteorology’s Climate of Deceit

By Tony Heller, Quadrant, Dec 14, 2019



[SEPP Comment: Unlike the hockey-stick trick of hiding recent data contradicting the storyline, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology [BOM] hides data before 1910 contradicting the storyline.]

The BEST and worst of ACORN-SATv2 Tmins

By Michael Chase, WUWT, Dec 12, 2019


[SEPP Comment: Explaining how Australia’s BOM adjusted historic data.]

Excuses? Coldest Summer day, Snow in Australia and suddenly BOM remembers how inadequate their equipment is…

By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Dec 8, 2019


Changing Weather

Victoria Secrets Exposed…More Falsehoods By Spiegel, Guardian… Victoria Falls Variability Nothing To Do With CO2.

Victoria Falls ignoring IPCC science: Sometimes more water, sometimes less

By Die kalte Sonne (German text translated by P. Gosselin), No Tricks Zone, Dec 11, 2019


[SEPP Comment: As diagramed, the 1907 to 2006 flow appears to be related to the 60-year Pacific Decadal Oscillation.]

The 2019 Atlantic Hurricane Season

By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Dec 11, 2019


[SEPP Comment: In the early part of the record starting in 1850, hurricanes that did not reach land were generally not recorded. Probably the best single measure is the running sums of major hurricane frequency and the tropical cyclone accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) calculated since 1981. The numbers are diminishing. http://climatlas.com/tropical/]

New Danish Hurricane Study Faulted

By Donn Dears, Power For USA, Dec 13, 2019


Locals Accuse Environment Agency Of Criminal Neglect For Linc Floods–Say Extreme Rain Used To Be Worse

By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Dec 8, 2019


Changing Climate

3000-Year-Old Trees Excavated Under Icelandic Glacier

By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Dec 12, 2019


Changing Seas

Built on sand: Dutch find unlikely ally against water

By Jan Hennop, Trintelhaven, Netherlands (AFP) Dec 8, 2019


New Video : Maldives To Drown – Every 30 Years

By Tony Heller, Real Climate Science, Dec 12, 2019


Changing Cryosphere – Land / Sea Ice

Arctic Temperature Was 7°C Warmer Than Today 10,000 Years Ago

By Willem G.M. van der Bilt, William J. D`Andrea Johannes P. Werner Jostein Bakke, Geophysical Research Letters, Vig GWPF, Dec 8, 2019


Satellites capture decades of change across the Arctic

By Kate Ramsayer for GSFC News, Greenbelt MD (SPX) Dec 11, 2019


Rate of Greenland’s ice sheet loss has increased since 1990s: study

By Rachel Frazin, The Hill, Dec 10, 2019


Mass balance of the Greenland Ice Sheet from 1992 to 2018

The MBIE Team, Nature, Dec 10, 2019


From the abstract: “Between 2013 and 2017, the total rate of ice loss slowed…”

Greenland Ice Melt Accelerating, Says Jonathan Amos (Conveniently Forgetting What He Wrote In 2003!)

By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Dec 13, 2019


“Far from showing acceleration, it is pretty clear that the rate of melt has slowed since 2012. Factor in 30 years of virtually zero melt, and the wild projections up to the end of the century are simply rubbish.”

Pacific Glaciers Redux

By Willis Eschenbach, WUWT, Dec 12, 2019


“There is no evidence for ice on any of the New Guinea mountains between about 7,000 and 5,000 yr BP, and in fact the tree line of Mt. Wilhelm was as much as 200m above its present position from 8,300 to 5,000 yr BP.”

Changing Earth

When Volcanoes Attack… White Island Edition

By David Middleton, WUWT, Dec 11, 2019


What’s creating thousands of craters off the California coast?

By Katherine Kornei, Science, Dec 9, 2019 [H/t Toshio Fujita]


Agriculture Issues & Fear of Famine

The EU’s absurd risk aversion stifles new ideas

Excessive regulation means the health and environmental benefits of new technology are suppressed

By Matt Ridley, The Times, Via The Rational Optimist, Dec 9, 2019


“Last month, at the WTO meeting in Geneva, India joined a list of countries including Canada, Australia, Argentina, Brazil and Malaysia that have lodged formal complaints against the EU over barriers to agricultural imports. Not only does the EU raise hefty tariffs against crops such as rice and oranges to protect subsidised European farmers; it also uses health and safety rules to block imports. The irony is that these are often dressed up as precautionary measures against health and environmental threats, when in fact they are sometimes preventing Europeans from gaining health and environmental benefits.”

Un-Science or Non-Science?

Approval of political leaders can slant evaluation of political issues: evidence from public concern for climate change in the USA

By Wanyun Shao & Feng Hao, Climatic Change, Dec 9, 2019


From the abstract: “Using a nationally representative survey dataset combined with climate extremes data including extreme heat, extreme precipitation, and mild drought or worse, we use Structural Equation Modeling to examine how politics and climate extremes altogether shape American public concern for climate change.”

Volcanic rock movements caused dramatic shift in climate 55 million years ago

By Brooks Hays, Washington (UPI), Dec 5, 2019


“’This is important because the difference between our calculated magma-driven gas release and records of changing greenhouse gas concentrations across the PETM will tell us about feedbacks that either release more greenhouse gases and make warming worse, positive feedbacks, or act to remove greenhouse gases and reduce warming, negative feedbacks,’ Jones said. ‘The size of these additional feedbacks in response to rapid warming is a key question for our understanding of past and future climate change.’”

Lowering Standards

#AGU19 becomes “political science” – invites candidate Bloomberg to speak

By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Dec 11, 2019


Shocking lapse of ethics at #AGU19 – Gleick returns

By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Dec 12, 2019


Breaking Bad In Climate Science

By Tony Heller, Real Climate Science, Dec 10, 2019


“The American Meteorological Society has taken climate superstition to a new level. Far too much junk science to cover in just one blog post. This post covers their first claim, that “climate change” caused the 2018 Four Corners drought.”

More BAMS Science Hype and bogus model success claims

By Joseph D’Aleo, ICECAP, Dec 10, 2019


Link to report: Explaining Extreme Events from a Climate Perspective

This BAMS special report presents assessments of how human-caused climate change may have affected the strength and likelihood of individual extreme events.

By Staff, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (BAMS), 2019


“When I grew up in the world of science, science was understood as a method of finding information. You would make a claim or a hypothesis, and then test that claim against independent data. If it failed, you rejected your claim and you went back and started over again. What I’ve found today is that if someone makes a claim about the climate, and someone like me falsifies that claim, rather than rejecting it, that person tends to just yell louder that their claim is right. They don’t look at what the contrary information might say.”

Communicating Better to the Public – Use Yellow (Green) Journalism?

Andrew Montford: Alarmism No More

By Andrew Montford, GWPF, Dec 10, 2019


Burnett: Climate-Change Alarmists Are Getting More Delusional In Their Predictions

By H. Sterling Burnett, Heartland Institute, Dec 13, 2019


“The push for ‘rebranding’ [more shrill] comes as the United Nations reports governments around the world are failing to meet their greenhouse gas reduction commitments.

Is shale development worth the costs? A CMU study says no.

Research finds shale gas jobs don’t offset damage done

By Staff, Pittsburg Post-Gazette, Dec 8, 2019


[SEPP Comment: The numbers come from Nature, Sustainability, a yellow (green) journal. The greatest negative is “climate change.”.]

Skeptics win on fires: ABC quietly flips — suddenly it’s fire management not climate change to blame

By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Dec 10, 2019


Communicating Better to the Public – Make things up.

Debunking Phony Hurricane Myth

By Donn Dears, Power For USA, Dec 10, 2019


Claim: The Montreal Protocol Saved the Arctic From Global Warming

By Eric Worrall, WUWT, Dec 9, 2019


Link to letter: Reduction in surface climate change achieved by the 1987 Montreal Protocol

By Rishav Goyal et al. Environment Research Letters, Dec 6, 2019


[SEPP Comment: Ozone is a greenhouse gas –more of it slowed global warming?]

The Best & Worst Countries For Climate Change Policy

By Nieall McCarthy, Statista, Dec 11, 2019 [H/t Mark Liebe]


“A group of think tanks comprising the NewClimate Institute, the Climate Action Network and Germanwatch have released the 2020 Climate Change Performance Index…”

Huge Climatic Crowd Exaggeration! Claimed Size Of 500,000 Was 97% Lie… Only 15,000 In Madrid, Spanish Police Say

Greta demonstration in Madrid: Crowd number – 97% is exaggeration?

By A. R. Göhring (German text translated/edited/supplemented by P Gosselin), No Tricks Zone, Dec 13, 2019


Communicating Better to the Public – Use Propaganda

I’m Choosing Not To Have Kids Because I Care About The Environment

By Marianna Keen, Huff Post, Dec 13, 2019 [H/t James Crawford]


Promoters of Climate Anxiety

By Cliff Mass, Weather and Climate Blog, Dec 9, 2019


Therapy for Climate Anxiety & Climate Depression

North Seattle Therapy & Consulting PLLC

Adult, Adolescent and Couples Psychotherapy [H/t Mark Albright]


Communicating Better to the Public – Use Propaganda on Children

Why We Strike Again

By Greta Thunberg, Luisa Neubauer, and Angela Valenzuela, Project Syndicate, Nov 29, 2019


“After more than a year of grim scientific projections and growing activism, world leaders and the public alike are increasingly recognizing the severity and urgency of the climate crisis. And yet nothing has been done.”

[SEPP Comment: Motivated by poor science, with little evidence as to causes of climate change, this commentary is really an indictment against the IPCC and climate modelers who do not understand what is required to produce reliable models.]

Communicating Better to the Public – Use Children for Propaganda

Greta Thunberg awarded Time’s ‘Person of the Year’

By Owen Daugherty, The Hill, Dec 11, 2019


“Trump earned the ‘Person of the Year’ label in 2016.”

Communicating Better to the Public – Protest

New Video : “Every Phenomenon Of Nature Filled Them With Alarm”

By Tony Heller, Real Climate Science, Dec 14, 2019


Questioning European Green

Ruth Lea: Carbon Policies Are ‘Futile Gesture Politics’

Press Release, Global Warming Policy Foundation, Dec 6, 2019


Link to report: Carbon Futility: Five Essays on Climate Policy

By Ruth Lea, GWPF, 2019


Green Suicide: Germany’s Industry In Freefall

By Staff, Daily Telegraph, Via GWPF, Dec 7, 2019


Europe’s Green Deal on climate change failed its first test

The European Union couldn’t agree on a 2050 deadline for slashing greenhouse gas emissions

By Justine Calma, The Verge, Dec 12, 2019


Questioning Green Elsewhere

‘Green Energy’ Capacities Are Overblown Hot Air

By Larry Bell, Newsmax, Dec 9, 2019


Soaring into failure

By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, Dec 11, 2019


“The Throne Speech seemed to agree, saying ‘A clear majority of Canadians voted for ambitious climate action now’. Except for all the people who would consider a nickel too high a price to pay for it.”

Funding Issues

The Business of Climate Change

By Rupert Darwall, Real Clear Energy, Dec 12, 2019


“All this might remind readers of two groups in Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged: the Moochers, comprising, in this example, the craven CEOs and their in-house CSR crowd; and the Looters, the environmental NGOs. Their ultimate victim is capitalism, the only economic system ever to have produced durable, transformative economic growth.”

[SEPP Comment: It would be interesting to see how many and from what countries are those who receive the Daily Subsistence Allowance, and who pays for their travel. According to the UN International Civil Service Commission it is $292 per day in Madrid. No wonder Jo Nova reported that many of the delegates who arrived early are from central Africa. https://icsc.un.org/]

Worries over ‘fresh money’ as EU cooks up energy transition fund

By Frédéric Simon, EURACTIV, Dec 10, 2019 [H/t GWPF]


Banks gave $745 billion to groups planning new coal power plants: NGOs

By Carole Guirado, Paris (AFP) Dec 6, 2019


[Sepp Comment: Misleading headline. The banks did not GIVE the money. They LOANED it.

“The amount lent to companies planning new plants was calculated using data covering both lending and underwriting between January 2017 and September 2019 for all 258 coal plant developers identified in the Global Coal Exit List, drawn up by the Urgewald and BankTrack groups.”]

Climate change could wipe $2.3 trillion off global stocks

By Anneken Tappe, CNN Business, Dec 9, 2019


[SEPP Comment: Enough to give the UN Green Climate Fund the $100 billion a year it wants for 23 years.!]

The Political Games Continue

Bloomberg calls for closing all coal-fired power plants to combat climate change

By Paul Steinhauser, Kelly Phares, Fox News, Dec 12, 2019 [H/t Gordon Fulks]


Michael Bloomberg to Reassure COP25 the USA is “still in”

By Eric Worrall, WUWT, Dec 10, 2019


Litigation Issues

One Of The Stupidest Litigations In The Country Dies With A Whimper

By Francis Menton, Manhattan Contrarian, Dec 10, 2019


Link to: Decision After Trial

People of the State of New York, By Letitia James, Attorney General of the State of New York v. Exxon Mobil Corporation

By Hon. Barry Ostrager, Dec 10, 2019


“One of my recurring missions is the effort to assist the readership in identifying the stupidest litigation that has been brought anywhere in this big country. Mostly this effort has resulted in nominating for the title cases that in some way involve issues of ‘climate change’ or, in other words, the idea that if we only sue the right bad guy for enough money we can improve the weather.”

[SEPP Comment: Unlike other states and the US federal court system, in New York the Supreme Court is the lowest level court for jury trials, with branches in all the counties in New York.]

With New York Supreme Court Ruling, ‘Exxon Knew’ Is Officially, Unequivocally Dead

By Spencer Walrath, Energy in Depth, Dec 9, 2019


[SEPP Comment: The accompanying graphic shows 4 million pages reviewed; 4 years spent; 3 failed legal theories;0 investors mislead; and 2 charges retracted at the 11th hour.]

Pushing back the Deep State? US Supreme Court may be able to stop politicians fobbing off big decisions to the EPA

By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Dec 11, 2019


Subsidies and Mandates Forever

Proposed BBC License Fee Abolition Threatens Britain’s State Funded Climate Warriors

By Eric Worrall, WUWT, Dec 11, 2019


Congress Racing To Extend and Expand Electric Vehicle, Wind, and Solar Tax Credits

By Myron Ebell, CEI, Dec 13, 2019


Energy Issues – Non-US

Alex Epstein’s Clear Thinking on Climate and Energy

By Rupert Darwall, Real Clear Energy, Dec 10, 2019


UK Energy Consumption and Weak Productivity Growth

By John Constable, GWPF, Dec 8, 2019


Energy reality by the numbers

By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, Dec 11, 2019


Link to Video: TED x Grande Pariaire

By Chris Slubicki of Modern Resources, Nov 25, 2019


Fossil fuel use for heating German homes rises as govt delays action

By Freja Eriksen, Clean Energy Wire, Dec 13, 2019


Eskom Blackouts Raise Risk of Second South African Recession

By Prinesha Naidoo and Felix Njini, Bloomberg, Dec 9, 2019 [H/t GWPF]


[SEPP Comment: When it comes to heavy lifting, the economy needs reliable power.]

Russia’s Gas Pipeline to Europe Faces Sanctions Under U.S. Defense Bill

U.S. lawmakers aim to halt $10.5 billion project, Nord Stream 2, by targeting key contractors

By Brett Forrest in Washington and Bojan Pancevski in Berlin, WSJ, Via GWPF,


Energy Issues — US

America Is Not Yet A Net Crude Oil Exporter

By Robert Rapier, Forbes, Dec 1, 2019


[SEPP Comment: As last week’s TWTW stated: in September the US was a net exporter of Crude Oil and Petroleum Products, not crude alone.]

Coal plants close as they get too costly to operate

By L.M. Sixel, Houston Chronicle, Dec 4, 2019


“The Department of Energy reported that coal plants have been facing a general decline as low natural gas prices have made natural gas-fueled generators more competitive.”

Nuclear Energy and Fears

The Next Nuclear Plants Will Be Small, Svelte, and Safer

A new generation of reactors will start producing power in the next few years. They’re comparatively tiny—and may be key to hitting our climate goals.

By Staff, Wired, Dec 13, 2019


Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Solar and Wind

First US steel plants powered by wind, solar energy are coming for industry with big carbon footprint

By Jacob Douglas, CNBC, Dec 7, 2019


[SEPP Comment: Article fails to address the key issue: Who provides the reliable, consistent power needed when wind and solar fail?]

Report: A Cloud Drifting Over a Solar Farm Knocked Out Power for 10hrs [Australia]

By Eric Worrall, WUWT, Dec 10, 2019


Energy & Environmental Newsletter: December 9, 2019

By John Droz Jr. Master Resource, Dec 9, 2019


Health, Energy, and Climate

A Fishy Study Posits That Pesticides Can Travel Back In Time

By Henry I. Miller, Issues & Insights, Dec 11, 2019


ACSH Explains: Measuring Particulate Matter And Health

By Chuck Dinerstein, ACSH, Dec 2, 2019


Revisiting Harvard’s ‘Six Cities’ Study

By Chuck Dinerstein, ACSH, Dec 4, 2019


“In the opinion of the EPA, it was the best science available at the time; it no longer can make that claim. But wouldn’t future ‘pivotal regulatory science’ benefit from an external review? Can we continue to argue that the Six Cities study represents our best evidence?”

Other Scientific News

The return to Venus and what it means for Earth

By Arielle Samuelson for JPL News, NASA, Pasadena CA, Dec 12, 2019 [H/t WUWT]


[SEPP Comment: It may dispel the notion that Venus is “runaway greenhouse.”]


Climate change is making horses fat as it’s causing an abundance of grass to grow, top vet warns

By Brendan McFadden, The Telegraph, UK, Nov 29, 2019


[SEPP Comment: Trees are becoming obese as well.]

‘Peak meat’ must be reached by 2030 to combat climate change, scientists say

By Emma Reynolds, CNN, Dec 13, 2019 [H/t Ken Schlichte]


“The world needs to reach ‘peak meat’ within the next 10 years to combat the effects of climate change, scientists have warned.”

“‘The reduction we need means we need deep transformation in every sector,’ Helen Harwatt, an environmental social scientist at Harvard Law School and lead author of the letter, told CNN.”

Stop the press: Solar panels could stop Earthquakes

By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Dec 14, 2019


School bans children from sending Christmas cards to protect the environment

The headteacher of the primary school says the tradition is bad for the environment.

By Staff, Sky News, Dec 4, 2019 [H/t GWPF]


Turning Dogs Into Dinner

Is there anything climate change can’t do?

By Donna Laframboise, Big Picture News, Dec 11, 2019



Chevron, Facing Fossil Fuels Glut, Takes $10 Billion Charge

Oil giant cuts the value of its holdings, including shale, citing low prices caused by oversupply

By Christopher M. Matthews and Rebecca Elliott, WSJ, Dec 10, 2019


[TWTW Comment: The era of the US soon “running out of oil and gas” is over. Other than the highly questionable fear of carbon dioxide-caused global warming, there is no practical or economic reason for the US to subsidize wind and solar power or biofuels.]

TWTW Summary: The article begins:

“Chevron Corp. is writing down the value of its assets by more than $10 billion, a concession that in an age of abundant oil and gas some of its holdings won’t be profitable anytime soon.

“In the largest write-down by an energy producer in years, Chevron said Tuesday that it was cutting the value of a number of properties, notably its U.S. shale holdings in Appalachia, by a combined $10 billion to $11 billion. Chevron is also restructuring its operations to focus on fewer prospects in the face of persistently low natural gas prices, and will explore sales of some assets.

“The second-largest U.S. oil company lowered its forecast for future commodity prices, and said that as a result, it was reducing the value of production from one of its offshore oil projects in the Gulf of Mexico, called Big Foot. It also lowered the value of a planned facility to export liquefied natural gas from Canada.

“Chevron Chief Executive Mike Wirth said in an interview that the company had performed well in a difficult market but wanted to focus on its most promising future prospects, including an expansion of shale oil drilling in Texas.”

After discussing market reactions, the article continues

“The sobering reappraisal by Chevron, one of the world’s largest and best-performing oil companies, is likely to ripple through the oil-and-gas industry, forcing others to publicly reassess the value of their holdings in the face of a global supply glut and growing investor concerns about the long-term future of fossil fuels. Particular pressure is falling on shale producers, especially those focused on natural gas in places like Pennsylvania, which are struggling with historically low U.S. prices caused by oversupply.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
December 16, 2019 2:08 am

“As described below, the UN has abandoned the scientific method”

More evidence of that



Charles C.
December 16, 2019 3:31 am

One possibility for FFF:

“Hence, they are calling on universities, firms, and individuals, regardless of their race, social status, sex, age, and other differences to participate in the protests and force politicians to take action, too.”We want everyone to come to the squares on September 20, to change their lives and strike, not just after work,” Zajakova added.

September 23The Fridays for Future (FFF) movement announced that over 2,400 events will take place between September 20 and 27 around the world, but the number is said to be growing as the Week for Future event draws near.The climax of the week is scheduled for September 23 when the UN Climate Action Summit takes place in New York City.

“We will be sending global leaders the message that our #houseisonfire and that we are calling on them to do what science is clearly telling us must be done,” the FFF wrote on its website.Our time is nearly up, but we believe we still have hope for a planet where it will still be possible to live, Zajakova said.”

December 16, 2019 4:26 am

radiative forcing

No simple observations, nor basic science, derive this radiative forcing. So how do we know the magnitude or precise effect of it? We don’t. We must make a model from basic principles of science (simple physics!). We did that; and call it the standard IPCC model. How do we know our model is correct? What did we test it against? Shouldn’t the tests be rigorous? Shouldn’t those tests include suggestions by critics and model skeptics? What of the model validation? Shouldn’t we hire independent scientists to validate the model against its proposed tests? We don’t do any testing and validation. Instead we propose to spend hundreds of trillions of dollars in a frantic gamble to reach zero emissions; without knowing whether the target can be achieved, whether achievement will do any good, nor just how weak and uncompetitive it will make our economies.

Is there is no alternative?

Off the top of my head I can think of four alternative mathematical models for radiative forcing or a ‘greenhouse gas effect’ three of which show no significant climate warming after extra carbon dioxide is added to our atmosphere. The fourth indicates about one third the effect of the standard IPCC model. When I said ‘no significant’, I meant a tiny effect at most; less than a fifth of a degree Celsius. So why must we all use the same IPCC model when other models are possible and no one can show that any of the models is substantially correct. If any are any good, those showing less warming are clearly better than the standard model showing the most warming. When did all the experts scientists agree that only one model (derived from Manabe and Wetherald, 1967; with modifications by Held and Soden, 2000) should be used?

Ben Wouters
December 16, 2019 5:32 am

Wijngaarden and Happer (W & H) state:
“The warming would be different at different latitudes and longitudes, or in summer or winter, or if clouds are taken into account. But 20 C to 30 C is a reasonable estimate of how much warming is caused by current concentrations of greenhouse gases, compared to a completely transparent atmosphere.”

Our Moon has an average surface temperature of ~197K, iso its Teff of 270K (255K for Earth).
~11% of TSI is reflected (albedo), so 89% warms the surface.
Moons rotation rate is low. Increasing it to Earts 24h rotation would increase the average surface temperature to 210-220K.
Adding an Earth like atmosphere would increase the albedo (clouds), cause absorption ao in the stratosphere etc, in total at least 1/3 of TSI extra would NOT reach the surface, on top of the 11% albedo.
So adding an Earth like atmosphere to our (faster rotating) moon would prevent over 100 W/m^2 extra from reaching and warming the surface.

Adding 30K to the mentioned 220K results in 250K, still ~40K short of the average surface temperature of planet Earth, and the question of how our deep oceans became so hot (~275K) remains unanswered.

Coach Springer
December 16, 2019 7:59 am

J.C.: · While the IPCC has estimated that sea level could rise by 0.6 meters by 2100, recall that the Netherlands adapted to living below sea level 400 years ago.

Extremely generous of her to use this estimate to demonstrate adaptation.

Jim Whelan
December 16, 2019 9:48 am

“… observations of the atmosphere, where greenhouse gases warm the planet by slowing heat loss to space.”

I keep hearing this. Though I don’t doubt that greenhouse gases have some effect, it seems to me that any atmosphere will slow heat loss through the effects of conduction and convection. Any atmosphere will pick up energy from the surface, just through molecular motion and the fact that heated gases expand and the gravitational pressure differentiaql in any atmosphere will mean:

– The atmosphere will be colder and higher altitudes, and
– Convection caused by rising warm gases will transmit significant amounts of energy to higher altitudes.

As a result, the average radiation emission will be at lower temperatures (at higher altitudes) than the surface (i.e., the surface will be warmer than the radiative temperature).

That alone can likely account for any less significant warming from greenhouse gases. Especially since much of the energy trapped by greenhouse gases will be transmitted (through molecular motion) to other gases in the atmosphere.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights