There is no Climate Emergency !

Reposted from edmhdotme

Screenshot 2019-12-12 at 09.43.19.png

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 photosynthesis and thus 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 recent previous interglacials shows that, on a geological time scale, it could well be ending quite soon.  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 much more suddenly like earlier interglacials.

As a result of the failure to appreciate elementary arithmetic,  physics and biology, the Western world has been forced to indulge in a massive guilt trip about its industrialised civilisation, with endless predictions of impending global overheating catastrophes.  But instead it is likely that modern Holocene warming during the 20th century and particularly just at the end of the 20th century 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 primarily Man-made and in any case it could be not be influenced by any remedial action, however drastic, taken by a comparatively small part of the Global population, the developed Western democracies.

So that prospect should be greeted with unmitigated joy.

If it is so:

  • all concern over CO2, as a man-made pollutant can be entirely discounted.
  • it is not necessary to degrade the Western world’s successful capitalist economies to no purpose.
  • if some warming were happening it would lead to a more benign and healthy climate for the biosphere and mankind.
  • any extra CO2 has already increased 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, as has frequently been well proven to be BENEFICIAL in the past.
  • a warmer climate would now be especially beneficial for the underdeveloped 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 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 greatest part of the Greenhouse effect, (~90% – 95%) arises from water as vapour and clouds in the atmosphere.

  • 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.      (page 666 of the IPCC assessment.)

  • Instead atmospheric Carbon Dioxide is the very stuff of life and any higher concentrations would be beneficial.
  • The world needs its atmospheric CO2 for the survival and fertilisation of all plant life.
  • Atmospheric CO2 is essential for PHOTOSYNTHESIS in plants, it thus supports all life on earth
  • Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide CO2 is therefore in no way pollutant.
  • 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 still 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.  As Colder oceans absorb more CO2 and ocean life sequesters it as limestone.  That dangerously low level of atmospheric CO2 could well be exceeded in any coming Ice Age.

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

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

Screenshot 2020-05-02 at 07.51.06.png

Man-kind as a whole contributes only a small amount of the CO2 to 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, is not a pollutant.  If any extra CO2 were to have some minor warming effect, it would be all to the good. 

See  Patrick Moore  2016   Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

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

The diminishing warming effectiveness of increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

In spite of the hysterical propaganda, there is no straight-line relationship between CO2 concentration and global temperature.  In spite of the UN IPCC propaganda, atmospheric CO2 concentration is not a 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
  • that there is no chance of any further Catastrophic Global warming from increased atmospheric CO2, whether Man-made or not.
Screenshot 2019-09-23 at 10.06.07.png

In other words there cannot be “an enormous Climate Emergency” caused by further increases in Man-made emissions of CO2.

This logarithmic diminution effect is caused by the overlapping energy wavelengths between greenhouse gasses and water vapour in the atmosphere.  As a result at the current level of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere at ~400 ppmv, the effect of CO2 as a Greenhouse gas is close to being fully saturated.

An analogy of the CO2 diminution effect with increasing concentrations, can be pictured 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 would be entirely extinguished with CO2 levels at ~150ppmv.

CO2 is not causing global warming

At the current CO2 level of ~400 ppmv, ~87% of the effectiveness of CO2 as a Greenhouse gas is already exhausted:  only 13% of the warming effectiveness of CO2 remains even up to 1000ppmv.

Screenshot 2019-12-05 at 17.11.01.png

There is now so little of the potential of CO2 as a greenhouse gas now remaining that there is now no possibility of ever reaching the “much feared” +2.0°C : +1.5°C temperature rise or more predicted by alarmists.

When compared with CO2, Water Vapour and Clouds play a much more significant role in the Greenhouse effect.  Methane and other warming Greenhouse gasses play an even less important and only a very marginal contribution to the Greenhouse effect.

Screenshot 2019-12-02 at 17.57.18.png

The range of published scientific views on the significance of atmospheric Water on the Greenhouse effect ranging from 98% – 75% is shown below.  The further residual CO2 warming available across this range of assertions up to a concentration of 1000 ppmv or some 2.5 times the present CO2 concentration.

The further residual CO2 warming available across this range of cases up to a concentration of 1000 ppmv, some 2.5 times the present CO2 concentration.  Beyond 1000ppmv the temperature increasing capability of atmospheric CO2 can be discounted. 

So from now on increasing CO2 in the atmosphere can only lead to very limited further warming and certainly not to any catastrophic and any dangerous temperature increase. 

These calculations therefore show that Climate Sensitivity to the doubling of CO2 concentration range from 0.17°C to 0.33°C.t ow.

Screenshot 2019-12-11 at 11.02.06.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 rapidly and 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 likely temperature rise of between 0.07°C – 0.14°C
  • A possible immediate future rise from 400ppmv – 500ppmv could only give a likely rise of between 0.05°C – 0.11°C
  • A later rise of CO2 from 500ppmv – 1000ppmv, were it to occur, can only give an additional further rise of between 0.17°C – 0.33°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 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 was admitted, via the Climategate emails, by the alarmist scientists at the University of East Anglia that the previous worst case 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.  

And in fact any temperature rise could well be beneficial.

The future of Man-made CO2 emissions

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 Chinese CO2 emissions/head, over the coming decades their CO2 emissions are bound to escalate by a further 33 billion tonnes per annum, (in effect doubling current Man-made CO2 emissions).  This progressive and 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 throughout the developing world, the political belief of Western Nations that they are able to limit Global temperature by the elimination of their 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, irrelevant and futile.

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 throughout the World.  They will continue to support the growth in prosperity of the Developing world.

Fossil fuels are not running out. For example there are 300 years’ worth of Coal at the maximum previous extraction rate available in the UK alone.  Fracking developments can occur almost anywhere worldwide.

Nonetheless there is a true Climate Catastrophe in the offing

That coming catastrophe is the exact opposite of the Climate alarmists with their:

“we are all going to fry in twelve years narrative”.

This prospect presages a scary future for Man-kind and the biosphere and it may well arrive in the comparatively near-term:

  • According to relatively recent Ice Core records the last millennium 1000 – 2000 AD was the coldest of our current Holocene interglacial.
  • Since ~1000 BC, before Roman times, the world has already been cooling progressively at ~0.14°C / millennium, ~20 times the earlier rate.
Screenshot 2019-12-12 at 09.45.29.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 suddenly and much more radically , as it did at the end of the Eemian interglacial.
  • 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.
Screenshot 2019-10-19 at 06.44.53.png
  • The modern short pulse of beneficial Global warming stopped with diminishing Solar activity, some 20 years ago and recent global temperatures are now stable or declining.
  • The warmth of the Holocene epoch has been responsible for all man-kind’s advances, from living in caves to microprocessors.  At 11,000 years old, our present congenial, warm Holocene interglacial epoch should be coming towards its end.
  • Therefor it is reasonable to think that our world is likely to revert soon, (in geological time), into another period of true glaciation, again resulting in mile high ice sheets over New York.

However there is a possibility of respite for the medium term:  the planetary mechanics in this Holocene interglacial are uniquely different to the previous interglacials of the last 400,000 years.  Remarkably, as the earth’s orbit currently has a very low eccentricity, this Holocene interglacial could well persist much longer than the previous norm of ~11,000 years before the world’s descent into a truly catastrophic ice age.

According to Clive Best’s analysis, our Holocene epoch is unique coinciding with low orbital eccentricity.  As a result our beneficial warm Holocene epoch could well continue for a further 12,000 years, prior to the serious descent into true glaciation

To give some context about Ice Ages this video provides an animation of the Northern Hemisphere ice ages for the past 400,000 years.Video Player00:0000:0001:07Use Up/Down Arrow keys to increase or decrease volume.

This was the state of Western Europe’s coastline can be seen below with much lower sea levels only 16,000 years ago and this gives an idea of how a coming new glacial age will look in due course.

Screenshot 2019-06-30 at 21.05.21.png

Nonetheless in the immediate term, it seems likely that a relatively minor reduction in Solar output could still radically influence World Climate with periodic, quite devastating Little Ice Ages like periods, similar to the period 1300-1850.  That Little Ice Age ending only 150 years ago, following the prolific Medieval Warm Period caused enormous suffering and the deaths of millions.

The prospect of even moving in a cooling direction is something truly concerning, both for the biosphere and most certainly for the well-being of Man-kind’s population approaching 8 billion.

Even if our beneficial Holocene epoch does persist beyond 12,000 years, some immediate cooling now seems probable 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 and more violent in colder times, simply because of the greater energy differential that arises between the poles and the tropics.
  • Cold fatally reduces agricultural productivity.
  • Such short term Cooling is already becoming evident and affecting agricultural productivity.
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 immediate minor Cold Climate Catastrophe nor the later inevitable descent into full glaciation.  Any “Climate Action”, if it were effective at all, could only enhance the cooling effect that has already been evident for the last 3 millennia.


There is no Man-made Global Warming Climate Emergency.

“There is no climate emergency”

Spending any effort to avert Global Warming, for solely emotional and childish reasons, without:

  • rigorous scientific debate
  • true financial due diligence and realistic cost benefit analyses
  • full engineering due diligence for any proposed technical solutions
  • let alone at WORLD GDP scale costs, (measured in trillions),

trying to stop the UK’s 1% or 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 indeed mocking the way Western governments have been induced by their “Green thinking and their Virtue Signalling” to promote their policies of abject self-harm at great national cost and to unlikely perceptible benefit, only perhaps in the far future.  Such actions are supported by Western “useful idiots”, (Lenin’s term).  Lenin rightly 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.

The context in Spring 2020

In spite of all the noisy Climate Propaganda of the past 30 years, in Spring 2020 the world is faced with a different but very real economic emergency from the reactions to the COVID-19 virus pandemic.  

That Emergency, with the world facing global economic breakdown and the immediate death of many citizens, should put the futile, self-harming and costly Government mandated attempts to control future climate into stark perspective.  This real pandemic Emergency clearly shows how irrelevant concerns over probably inconsequential “Climate Change” in a distant future truly are.

5 2 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
May 22, 2020 2:11 am

Interesting & very likely the correct viewpoint, or very close to it.

However splitting the tome into parts, as others here do, would be appreciated. That or editing to improve readability & pare back on the length.

Just my 2c.

Carbon Bigfoot
Reply to  Eric
May 22, 2020 4:51 am

Nobody is interested in your 2 cents edit BS Eric–Stuff It!!

Reply to  Eric
May 22, 2020 6:53 am

You may read chapter by chapter, one every day if that’s easier for you 😀

May 22, 2020 2:14 am

This rant is rather familiar.

(You are upset that you didn’t comment once there?) SUNMOD

Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 22, 2020 2:24 am

Because it’s correct.

Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
May 22, 2020 4:28 am

“the beneficial trace gas”


Krishna Gans
Reply to  Loydo
May 22, 2020 5:49 am

You again, no knowledge of the facts, but ranting, as usual…

Joel Snider
Reply to  Krishna Gans
May 22, 2020 11:13 am

Isn’t it amazing how he can make such a moronic statement with such utter all-encompassing conceit?

Reply to  Loydo
May 22, 2020 5:55 am

It’s the basis of all life. Pretty amazing really.

Reply to  Loydo
May 22, 2020 6:01 am

Loydo, Obviously, true. Both beneficial and trace. What’s your point?

That said, I’d like to know what the author’s response is to the non-risible point made by geologist Dan Britts (on YouTube):

The fact that temps have risen despite the cooling trend implicates CO2, the only climate variable which is rapidly changing?

For the record, I’m OK with warming — it beats the alternative hands-down — and I conclude that the catastrophic narrative must be BS since the climate has been warmer than now in the recent geological past without precipitating an extinction of anything.

Reply to  Loydo
May 22, 2020 6:19 am

Imagine a world without CO2, we hadn’t to read any Loydo BS 😀

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Loydo
May 22, 2020 6:33 am

The truth hurts, huh Loydo?

Reply to  Loydo
May 22, 2020 8:09 am

On net, very beneficial.
Known negatives are small and easily adapted to.
Known positives are huge.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  MarkW
May 22, 2020 10:28 am

Generally, everything has good and bad points. Chocolate tastes good, but has a large number of calories. This is a clue about the mendacity of the catastrophic global warming meme. That is, alarmists only present the potential for bad things happening, and ignore the good things. It is so extreme that ridiculous claims are made for almost everything except the heartbreak of psoriasis (I’m waiting.). It is a distinct tell that the purveyors of pestilence and hot doom only present one side of the story.

Reply to  Loydo
May 22, 2020 4:35 pm

“LOL” The best scientific refutation of all time…..

Reply to  Loydo
May 22, 2020 6:42 pm

“the beneficial trace gas”

Why the drive by comments?
Why don’t you engage with your repliers?
Could it be that you realise who stupid your comments are after you write them?

co2 is a both a trace and beneficial gas.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 22, 2020 2:54 am

There was also another version in October last year! They’re both referenced at the bottom of the article. Must be a slow news day.

One change: the top chart, which shows the GISP 2 data, is now simply referred to as “Greenland Ice Core data”. Possibly listing it as GISP2 would remind people of the fact that it stops in the mid 1850s.

Reply to  TheFinalNail
May 22, 2020 3:32 am

You are forgetting that there may be new readers since last year , especially among the many who are now unemployed and at home thanks to the lunatic “scientists” of Wuhan.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  TheFinalNail
May 22, 2020 8:03 am

“Possibly listing it as GISP2 would remind people of the fact that it stops in the mid 1850s.”

Yes, most of the graphs are misleading in that respect.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 22, 2020 3:24 am

By definition, “rant” means to speak, write, or shout in an uncontrolled or angry way, often saying confused or silly things.

After going through this lengthy submission, I submit that it is you who is ranting by voicing opposition in an uncontrolled or angry way, Nick! You have a long history of it!

For far too long, the climate activists have made predictions and issued warnings that are tantamount to saying confused or silly things! None of their catastrophic predictions have happened! NONE!

You’d think people who have such a long history of crying wolf would tire of such shenanigans but their objective is to use their false narrative to control and tax the earth’s population, which is a prize that motivates and drives them ever onward!

Unfortunately, they are doing so much damage in the process that class action criminal charges are justified and should be levied against them!

Their whole approach is very reminiscent of the “official” reaction we’re supposed to take in the current pandemic; the mechanisms are eerily similar! And a clear-eyed assessment in hindsight argues against such obvious overreaction!

And it is time to stop!

Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 22, 2020 3:45 am

Nick Stokes: the Oxford dictionary defines a rant as the use of bombastic language, the theatrical declamation of something, or simply turgid empty talk.
Please enlighten us as to why you see fit to dismiss the article as a rant, and let’s have some referenced, reasoned arguments from you regarding the points you disagree with.

Reply to  Carbon500
May 22, 2020 3:51 am

OK, this is ranting:

“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”.”

Exactly the same wording in the December 2019 and October 2019 versions. So it’s a repetitive rant.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 22, 2020 4:39 am

Is it similar to “we only have 10 years left every 10 years?”

Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 22, 2020 4:45 am

Yet you KNOW it is correct

… and that you are totally unable to argue against this because the statements of the purpose were made by the very people pushing the climate agenda.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 22, 2020 5:08 am

Nick Stokes: no observations about the points raised in the article, then?
Yes, comments such as those you quote could qualify as a rant – but you omit to mention that the author justifies these by citing alleged Russian interference in Western affairs.

Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 22, 2020 5:10 am

Not even close, Nick.. now THIS is ranting:

Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 22, 2020 8:11 am

Is speaking the truth, now ranting?
Care to actually refute the claims? Or is logic beneath you?

Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 22, 2020 9:09 am

Climate change is a convenient lie. It allows politicians to gain power and manufacturers of useless product to gain wealth by subsidy and manufacturers of consumer goods to gloss their third rate tawdry rubbish with a veneer of morality. And it advances teh careers of journalists and scientists who need to remove their socks to count beyond ten.

What’s not to like? Only the consumers suffer and since when have they mattered? As long as they consume…

Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 22, 2020 10:03 am

“it’s a repetitive rant’ a bit like the

“We only have ……. years to save the earth….”

“the arctic will be ice free…”

“The earth is burning up….”

and on and on and on repetitive rants..

Reply to  richard
May 22, 2020 3:56 pm

Yeah, and those pesky polar bears refuse to become extinct!

Joel Snider
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 22, 2020 10:58 am

Yeah, Nick – people who speak the truth tend to be consistent, as opposed to frauds who keep changing their story.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 22, 2020 4:14 am

Yes, 2+2 is still 4, why not try something new? Maybe 2+2 = 8?

Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 22, 2020 4:43 am

Care to point out the factual errors in the post?

Reply to  Graemethecat
May 22, 2020 7:57 am

…… exactly. Especially when there’s a really glaring one:

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

The Beer-Lambert logarithmic diminution of a greenhouse gas effect requires no water vapour in its operation. That’s a separate effect.

As with Loydo, I sometimes wonder if Nick and Mosher comprehend these “simple physics” effects, or if they’re just pretending to be nitwits to dupe people who really are nitwits.

paul courtney
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 22, 2020 7:59 am

Mr. Stokes: Yes, and you had nothin’ then as well.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 22, 2020 8:08 am

Once again, no attempt at refutation.
We all know why.

Reply to  MarkW
May 22, 2020 2:16 pm

What is the point? It is just a mechanically generated gish gallop of nonsense. I don’t know if edmhdotme is a bot, but he might as well be. This was posted in October, and there was discussion. Posted again, virtually unchanged in December. No-one seemed to remember the previous occurrence, so went through it all again. Now posted again, virtually unchanged. And again, no-one seems to remember whatever was said before.

(It disturbs you so easily, maybe you can ignore this thread, its that easy, even a caveman can do it!) SUNMOD

Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 22, 2020 3:06 pm

Yup, even Nick knows he can’t refute the arguments.
So instead he’ll just insult everyone and pretend that it is beneath what is left of his dignity to actually respond.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 22, 2020 7:36 pm

Speaking of rants, yours sure are predictable.

Steven Mosher
Reply to  MarkW
May 23, 2020 1:00 am

The post hasnt made any claims with sources or data.

Its basically bald assertions.

here is a challenge.

Find the data for the first chart, and the method?

No data
No method
No science.
no need to comment or rebut.

There is a reason why in a science paper you need to.

1. cite the relevant science in the field
2. Cite and provide the data you use
3. Describe and document your methods

Point #4 is feynman’s point from Cargo Cult Science.

Integrity, as Feynman describes it, is that part of your explication where you
demonstrate that you considered other explanations for the data, that you considered
how you might be WRONG.

the author does none of this.

its not even wrong

David Kamakaris
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 22, 2020 10:36 am

Nick, Loydo, perhaps you could explain to us how you feel the climate is changing and why we should be concerned.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 23, 2020 5:25 am

I like this paper and appreciate the citing of our most recent paper published on wattsup:

Updating my post of 10May2020:

Planting was ~one month across the Great Plains of North America for the past two years 2018 and 2019. In 2018 the growing season was warm and the crop recovered, but in 2019 there was a huge crop failure across the Great Plains; however the harvest was good in the USA East and South. In 2019 fully 30% of the huge USA corn crop was never planted because of wet ground. Much of the grain crop across the Great Plains was not harvested because of early cold and snow in the Fall. Read the paper by Joe D’Aleo and me.

By Allan M.R. MacRae and Joseph D’Aleo, October 27, 2019.

Hope we have a good grain crop this year, but don’t bet on it. Here is why:

The Nino 34 SST Anomaly has crashed from almost +0.7 on April 18th down to below MINUS 0.2 today (May 16th). a decline of ~0.9C. in one month (H/T Walter Dnes).
comment image

5. UAH LT Global Temperatures can be predicted ~4 months in the future with just two parameters:
UAHLT (+4 months) = 0.2*Nino34Anomaly + 0.15 – 5*SatoGlobalAerosolOpticalDepth (Figs. 5a and 5b)

by Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., June 15, 2019.

Four months from this rapid cooling of Nino34 SST’s is mid-August to mid-September 2020 – harvest time.
No volcanoes needed – depending on future Nino34 SST’s, cooling may already be locked in.

May 23, 2020 7:20 am

Ja. Ja. I told you so……

(You might want to click on my name to read the report understand. Ca. 7 years of drought coming up.)

Reply to  Henry Pool
May 23, 2020 11:57 am

Told you so – 18 years ago.

The ability to predict is probably the best objective measure of scientific and technical competence. Note that every very-scary prediction of runaway global warming and climate chaos made by the climate alarmists (“warmists”) has failed to materialize. Nobody should believe them – about anything.*

Following are my/our three major statements made in 2002 – the first two statements are correct-to-date, for anyone who understands climate and energy. The warmists, with their “100% wrong predictive track record”, will dispute them. *See note above. 🙂

The third statement is looking more and more probable of occurring as predicted – but I’d rather be wrong about that one – I’m getting old and hate the cold.

Regards, Allan MacRae


In 2002 co-authors Dr Sallie Baliunas, Astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian, Dr Tim Patterson, Paleoclimatologist, Carleton, Ottawa and Allan MacRae wrote:

1. “Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”

2. “The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”

Allan MacRae published on September 1, 2002, based on a conversation with Dr. Tim Patterson:

3. “If [as we believe] solar activity is the main driver of surface temperature rather than CO2, we should begin the next cooling period by 2020 to 2030.”

Allan MacRae modified his global cooling prediction in 2013:

3a. “I suggest global cooling starts by 2020 or sooner. Bundle up.”

Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 23, 2020 5:43 am

Two more recent publications:

By Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc.(Eng.), M.Eng., January 10, 2020

“There are numerous highly credible observations that falsify the CAGW hypothesis and many are listed herein, but as Albert Einstein famously stated “One would be enough”.“

By Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc.(Eng.), M.Eng., May 22, 2020

“It is past time that these technologically-innumerate academics learned some basic scientific and economic realities, knowledge that many of us acquire as children:


INTERMITTENCY means the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow 24/7, and the electric grid needs reliable dispatchable generation, not generation that goes up and down uncontrollably. Battery storage is touted as the solution, but it does not economically exist at grid-scale.

DIFFUSIVITY means it takes far too much land area to replace conventional energy with wind and/or solar generation – it would take fully ~10% of all the land area in Britain to do so. In the USA, this 10% would total about 300,000 square miles, or all of Connecticut, Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia.

Energy experts have known these facts since ~forever. In 2002 my co-authors and I published the following statements that have both proven correct–to-date:

a. “Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”

b. “The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”

Published by APEGA in the PEGG, reprinted by other professional journals, The Globe and Mail and La Presse,
by Dr. Sallie Baliunas (Harvard-Smithsonian), Dr. Tim Patterson (Carleton U) and Allan MacRae, November 2002

Since then, trillions of dollars of scarce global resources have been squandered on worthless green energy schemes that are not green and produce little useful (dispatchable) energy. The result of this green energy virtue-signalling has been the destabilization of electrical grids, runaway energy costs, energy poverty, increased winter deaths, and INsignificant reduction in CO2 emissions. What a foolish green debacle!”

May 22, 2020 2:23 am

There is no climate emergency. Now, give me my excess taxes back.

May 22, 2020 2:24 am

Nothing in this very comprehensive CO2 related item about the current grand CO2 experiment. Even alarmist media and universities are saying the human CO2 reduction are “extreme” , yet the overall CO2 trend (Muana Loa and Cape Grim) shows zero impact.

Of course it has to be zero impact as we contribute so little, but the message is being witheld from the world.

Reply to  yarpos
May 22, 2020 8:13 am

Look at the raw data, not the filtered data. When you do that you will see why a 10% reduction for a couple of months would not be noticeable.

Reply to  yarpos
May 22, 2020 8:43 am

“but the message is being witheld from the world.”

It’s worse than that y. It’s a deliberate and predictable leftist and phony-leftist lie by conflating emissions with atmospheric levels.

I wonder why these useful idiots even do this sh!t? Maybe loydo could help us with that? Do they think that they’re going to get a uniform, or a badge even, showing them to be the worthy custodians of the phony-socialist, Little Ice Age cool utopia they helped create? Mindboggling. Even more mindboggling given that it will never happen.

May 22, 2020 2:36 am

Amazing clarity and power in the text. Glad to have discovered this blog with thanks to wuwt.

Nick Graves
Reply to  Chaamjamal
May 22, 2020 4:14 am

My thoughts entirely, Chaamjamal!

There’s a LOT of info to summarise and it’s difficult to keep it short enough and yet cohesive.

It bears repeating. And repeating…

May 22, 2020 2:46 am

Power text. Thanks!

May 22, 2020 3:18 am

If it was really about science, CAGW would have been dead a long time ago.

The left doesn’t see a problem with lying to achieve its ends. The technique is called the noble lie.

The problem is that the population isn’t mostly illiterate peasants any more. A very large proportion of the population has enough education to recognize the noble lie for what it is. That engenders social discord, which is the very thing the noble lie was intended to prevent.

The lying liberals are tearing civilization apart.

Reply to  commieBob
May 22, 2020 4:09 am

Stokes doesn’t think they are lying…he is all in.

Reply to  Derg
May 22, 2020 4:47 am

Sorry, he KNOWS they are lying..,

…. but still is all in with his support.

Reply to  commieBob
May 22, 2020 4:47 am

“the population isn’t mostly illiterate peasants any more.”

Pretty sure you’ll find a tight correlation between education level and acceptance of the risk of increasing CO2 levels. Those with science qualifications even more so.

Van Doren
Reply to  Loydo
May 22, 2020 5:24 am

You mean indoctrination level, not education level.

Reply to  Loydo
May 22, 2020 5:33 am

Oddly enough, you are correct, in my experience. The people I know who are true believers in CAGW are, without exception, Arts graduates. Not a single engineer or physical scientist I’ve ever met takes the scare seriously.

Of course, people without college education are far too intelligent and astute to fall for the nonsense.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Loydo
May 22, 2020 5:45 am

Education level is irrelevant. Much of the higher education level today can’t so simple math. They are too focused on social justice issues.

Based on the growing level of skepticism among scientists for the AGW alarmism it would seem that those with science qualifications are beginning to see through all the lies.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Loydo
May 22, 2020 6:22 am

Loydo, what you are referring to is described by the phrase “educated beyond their intellectual capacity”.

The current prime minister of Canada is a perfect example, competing thoughts with no way to order them. He was described by a wise man as a “ninny with a cluttered mind”.

Never more true than today.

Al Miller
Reply to  Loydo
May 22, 2020 7:17 am

How do you utterly fail to understand that this “green movement” was concocted right from the very start as a political movement that used CO2 as a bad molecule because the ordinary person with little scientific knowledge thinks it makes sense intuitively. Look it up, it’s all there for you to see. Start with that great shame to Canada Maurice Strong.
I suppose you believe Al Gore is a philanthropist -LOL.
How many failed predictions does it take to make you a cynic? they’re batting 100% and counting. How many utter fools like AOC would it take to make you think something smells wrong here?

Don Perry
Reply to  Loydo
May 22, 2020 7:28 am

Couldn’t disagree with you more!d

Reply to  Loydo
May 22, 2020 8:06 am

Those with science qualifications even more so.

Do you have data?

It isn’t news that skeptics are more knowledgeable about climate science and science in general than alarmists. link

Look around you at WUWT. There are lots of scientists and engineers, and the occasional meteorologist. 🙂

Trying to paint the skeptics as illiterate is just stupid. What you will find is that the alarmist/skeptic divide breaks along political lines. Those on the left are much more likely to be alarmists. Those on the right are much more likely to be skeptics. That should set off the alarm bells that it isn’t about science at all.

Reply to  commieBob
May 22, 2020 3:35 pm

Leftists just love to put labels on people Bob, whether or not the label fits doesn’t matter, it only has to suit their own narrative. They often put labels on people that are in fact a mirror image of themselves.

Reply to  Loydo
May 22, 2020 8:15 am

So what if those who have Doctorates in Women’s Studies are all in regarding this nonsense?
Why not limit your samples to those degrees that require people to think for a living?

Reply to  MarkW
May 22, 2020 3:42 pm

Mark! are you implying that women who complete such doctorates cannot think? Of course they can think, there are large numbers of them who think that women are superior to men!

Reply to  Megs
May 22, 2020 7:36 pm

Where did I say anything about women?

Reply to  MarkW
May 22, 2020 9:34 pm

As a woman I thought I could get away with saying at it is, it wasn’t a retort at you.

You do have a point and I hadn’t thought about that. I’m not going to try to name all the different classifications, the PC brigade will be on my back for leaving someone out! I can’t keep up with them, apparently you’re not supposed to say boys and girls any more. They are suggesting that you say ‘you all’!

Reply to  MarkW
May 22, 2020 7:37 pm

I spent a lot of time in college studying women.
Didn’t do me any good though, I still can’t understand them.

Reply to  MarkW
May 22, 2020 9:41 pm

I can’t say I’ve spent alot of time studying them, but I’ll never figure them out. Probably came from having only brothers and later sons, four of them!

Reply to  Loydo
May 22, 2020 9:11 am

You are right lloydo. The peasants are now literate, but innumerate.
Hence global warming – the convenient lie for people who Cant Do Sums

Reply to  Leo Smith
May 22, 2020 3:52 pm

Sigh…I really wish I’d had the opportunity to learn sums Leo, but I’m pretty smart otherwise. Smart enough to know that the ‘consensus scientists’ are scammers and they can’t do sums either.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Loydo
May 22, 2020 10:43 am

Do you have any citations to support your conjecture? Liberals are quick to pat themselves on the back about being smarter than the “deplorables.” However, having a degree in the arts or soft ‘sciences’ does not demonstrate “science qualifications.” Has it not struck you that most of the commenters here understand and know science off the top of their heads, and don’t have to go off and read Wikipedia for an hour before commenting?

As an example, you take a lot of criticism because you have failed to convince most commenters here that you really comprehend the points you are defending. You come across as an apologist for the high priests of Gaia, and yet are unqualified to even recite the liturgy.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 22, 2020 7:39 pm

In my years of observing the human animal I’ve found two constants;
1) Liberals are absolutely convinced that they are the smartest people in any room.
2) Liberals are in general, the most ignorant people I’ve ever been forced to deal with.

Reply to  MarkW
May 23, 2020 12:06 am

“1) Liberals are absolutely convinced that they are the smartest people in any room.
2) Liberals are in general, the most ignorant people I’ve ever been forced to deal with.”
It is mind boggling that you can’t see the hypocrisy of that statement…..

Reply to  Simon
May 23, 2020 4:19 am

Simon are you thinking American liberals as in leftists or Australian Liberal Party being conservative?

I’m quite sure the reference made was to leftists generally.

Reply to  MarkW
May 23, 2020 1:31 pm

The point is he is saying the left think they are so clever, but really they are dumb certainly a lot more dumb than conservatives. So Mark thinks he is so clever… which is exactly what he is accusing the left of doing.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Loydo
May 22, 2020 11:04 am

That’s because education has become poisoned by progressivism, which destroys everything in touches, and produces parrots with no ability to think for themselves. Anyone who dares speak out against the conformist doctrine will be run off campus.

An ‘educated’ progressive is someone that can actually graduate college and still be completely unaware of this.

Reply to  Loydo
May 22, 2020 11:59 am

Loydo, please tell us what the emissivity of CO2 is at 15 C. Tell us how much energy is available coming from surface at 15 C for CO2 to absorb. Tell us why the Shomate equation does not include the forcing equation.

Reply to  Loydo
May 22, 2020 2:03 pm

Yep, more education in real sciences…. less irrational “belief”in the non-problem of increased atmospheric CO2

Your scientific education is obviously seriously lacking, because all you show is blind ignorant “belief”

Reply to  Loydo
May 22, 2020 2:07 pm

“Those with science qualifications even more so.”

Poor Loy.

I doubt you have ever even met anyone with actual science qualifications”

They would not exist in your sphere of contacts.

Hari Seldon
Reply to  Loydo
May 23, 2020 7:48 am

Dear Loydo,

Do you mean, please, the “educational level” of a mentally ill “scientist” who decided not to attend a school any more, and she is additionally member of a terrorist organisation (Extinction Rebellion) together with her family? Maybe I am too old-fashioned, however I have a complete other idea regarding “educational level”. “Scientific background”: Do you mean Mr. Al Gore, who stated in December 2008 in Munich (for 180 000,- euros), that the Arctic will be ice free after 5 years? And in December 2018 there was more Arctic ice than in December 2008. My offer: I could tell much bigger nonsense and rubbish than Mr. Al Gore at highly reduced price (let’s say for 100 K euros)….

May 22, 2020 3:21 am

okay so one of the main criticism coming from the AGW camp is that the graphs depicting the Holocene temperatures do not include the current modern temperatures. I have heard the argument that including modern day temperatures would result in a spike in those graphs which is absent. Can anyone help me out here? Can we somehow overlay the current temperature graphs onto the Holocene graphs to see if the current temperatures would show up as a big anomaly?

Reply to  HeisenT
May 22, 2020 7:16 am

The problem is that paleo proxies for temperature (tree rings, ocean sediement, boreholes, ice cores, etc.) are low resolution, meaning changes are apparent at centennial or millennial scales. Warmer or cooler years or decades cannot be seen in proxy data. Add to that, the fact that tree growth variability results from various factors, such as moisture, soil, pests, which confound the temperature signal. If you splice on top a modern temperature time series from daily, or even miniute by minute readings, it is only for propaganda reasons.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Ron Clutz
May 22, 2020 10:48 am

Additionally, the effect of low-pass filtering is not just reducing the temporal resolution, but eliminating the transient peaks.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 23, 2020 5:26 am

Exactly. I have been trying to get some on Twitter to understand that trying to get. Global Average Temperature (GAT) by averaging of averages of averages of averages removes so much information as to be useless. Their answer, “But it is the only way to isolate the trend of global change in temperature.” This is besides all the interpolation and homogenization of temperatures.

paul courtney
Reply to  HeisenT
May 22, 2020 8:12 am

Heisen: My amateur answer is that the past is “cooler” or “warmer” based on, say, locating glacial moraines over a thousand years or so. Does not give you a temp. Today, we have digital thermometers. It’s like trying to compare apples to oranges, where you slice the apple with a scalpel (modern temp readings) v. smashing the orange with a club. Not sure if it’s a great analogy, but smashing oranges seemed funny.

Geoff from Tanjil
May 22, 2020 4:10 am

I liked your post so much Charles that I was moved to reply.
If the mods think it OT then so be it.
I am 66-year-old Australian who has followed WUWT, Jo Nova and other blogs for more than 20 years.
I have a background in instrumentation & control and industrial and process; so, the concept of man made runaway global warming or climate change caused by CO2 rang alarm bells 20 years ago and the bells are getting louder.
Countries like China and Russia do not need to be too concerned about the next election because there isn’t one; so they can continue with their long term 10, 20, 50 and 100 year plans while we only think in 4 year election cycles.
Western governments really do not understand, or maybe they do, but are constrained by their necessity to be voted in at the next election.
Understand that the Chinese in particular are on a long-term strategy. They are not concerned about minor setbacks, only the long-term outcome to win world dominance.
My son was in China 20 years ago and his “minder” proudly told him that China was going to conquer the world. Not through warfare but financial means. Think “belt and road initiative (BRI)”.
For us to win this war and that is what it is, the western world must take control of the institutions within its borders which are wittingly or unwittingly contributing to its demise.
Time is running out. This is serious.
I am predicting that the advent of Covid-19 will see China take some bolder actions due to the western world pressuring the WHO to investigate the origins of Covid-19.
How do we form an effective movement to save ourselves?
Follow the KISS principle.
1. We must take back our ability to manufacture the essential products we need within our own countries. Globalisation has unfortunately concentrated manufacturing in a few countries. Ask yourself who really controls those countries.
2. We must start re-building the energy infrastructure based on the abundant resources available. (Coal, oil and uranium in Australia)
This will weaken our rivals so be prepared for pushbacks at every step from the puppets and always remember who the puppet masters are.
There are rumblings in Australia where the Victorian State Labor Government is being questioned about the details of their BRI “contract” but unsurprisingly the lefties do not want us to know what they have signed us up to.
Fighting a war is a huge task and I really hope that the western Governments around the world can form the alliances needed to survive.
I hope that if you read this that you do not think it “melodramatic” but I am beginning to have concerns for the future of my children and grandchildren and my country.

Reply to  Geoff from Tanjil
May 22, 2020 6:28 am

I don’t think you are being in the least “melodramatic” Geoff. I think it’s time we made ourselves heard. The general population are fearful and have been drawn into the whole CAGW scam. I too fear for the future of my children and grandchildren, if the leftist/socialist succeed then the future is grim. Victoria is indeed an example of that.

Some of the journalists from Sky News follow this site from time to time, maybe we can hook them up with one or two of the scientists on this site. There are some Australian politicians who have visited the site from time to time, it would be good for them to have a conversation too.

Nick says he’s read this sort of post before, kidding we haven’t heard the leftist lies, hate and propaganda over and over again. Isn’t it time we played the same game only with the truth!

May 22, 2020 4:12 am

From ‘New Scientist’: As the world’s oceans warm, their massive stores of dissolved carbon dioxide may be quick to bubble back out into the atmosphere and amplify the greenhouse effect, according to a new study
Read more:
Once again, ‘may be’ and yet another new study from the climate industry.
‘Bubble out’ – who knew that CO2 bubbles out of the oceans?
Given the alleged never ending outgassing of ocean CO2 which in turn amplifies the warming effect of CO2 (more outgassing of CO2 = more warming = more CO2 outgassing = more warming), arguably we should have had climate doomsday countless millenia ago.
The fact that this has not happened rather negates this idea.
The ocean is buffered, and is a soup of countless potential reactants, organic and inorganic, with the ionisation products of CO2 entering the ocean.
Has anyone measured under controlled conditions how much CO2 is actually returned to the atmosphere from seawater?

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Carbon500
May 22, 2020 4:54 am

Isn’t the big concern there Ocean Acidification due to increased atmospheric CO2 being dissolved into seawater. Am I suppose to think that non-acidifying natural CO2 is outgassed and acidifying manmade CO2 replaces it?

Reply to  Ben Vorlich
May 22, 2020 7:44 am

Ben: the average pH of the open ocean’s surface waters ranges between 7.9 and 8.3 (values from the IPCC), both firmly alkaline values.
The first use of the phrase ‘ocean acidification’ was in a paper by Ken Caldeira and Michael E. Wickett (in Nature, vol 425, p365 September 2003) – from America, of course – where all the good climate scares began. Any lowering of the pH value, however minute, even if at the top of the alkaline values of the pH scale, is deemed to be ‘acidfication’ by the climate doomsayers. This is in my view a deliberate misrepresentation of terminology.
Then there’s this from (of all people!) the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) in their bulletin from 2015 (Vol 64, 1) where they claim that ‘anthropogenic CO2 reacts with water to form an acid’ – when referring to a buffered ocean! Notice also the use of the word ‘anthropogenic’ – additionally misleading to a lay reader.
The WMO then refers to ocean pH measurements during the previous 10 years, and claims that ‘ocean surface pH has decreased during the period of observations at an average rate of -0.0013 per year to -0.0024 per year, depending on the location.’
Let’s hope that they calibrate and check their meters regularly if they’re claiming values this low,
because during my many years spent in medical laboratory science, pH measurements to two decimal places were the norm across all the assay systems in use.
The whole point of a buffer is that it resists changes in pH. The scaremongers are claiming that there’s so much CO2 in the air that the oceans of the world are having their buffer systems overwhelmed by the addition of a few parts per million of CO2. Really? Where’s the bench laboratory experiment for proof of principle? This would be easy to show. Set up a sealed chamber with seawater in it, and add a few ppm of CO2 to the air above Mix well, and then let’s see what happens – or not. If this hasn’t been done as a proof of principle, then why not? Care would of course need to be taken regarding the presence of micro-organisms in the seawater because of metabolic products.
Rainwater is a weak acid (H2CO3) – i.e. it only partly ionises to yield protons (H+). and has a pH of about 5.3 depending on location. Rain has been hitting our seas since time immemorial, and the oceans remain alkaline.
Ocean ‘acidification’ is assuredly a scare with no foundation in fact.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Carbon500
May 22, 2020 11:00 am

And the few locations where there is supposedly demonstrable damage done to the sea life, are locations of upwelling water where old, deep water has been charged with CO2 from the bacterial decomposition of dead organisms. That is, the public is told that the open oceans are declining in pH, (based on a model estimate of historical pH) and told that the process is assigned the scary name of “more acidic,” and then the typical article segues into a story about damage experienced by young bi-valves in coastal areas of upwelling, not the open ocean. It is misrepresentations all the way down!

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 22, 2020 11:43 am

Clyde Spencer – so right. Regarding your comment that the public is told that the open oceans are declining in pH (based on a model estimate of historical pH), lest anyone doubt this, here’s what the IPCC say in ‘Climate Change 2007 – The Physical Science Basis’ (the 4th assessment report) on page 48:
‘The uptake of anthropogenic carbon since 1750 has led to the ocean becoming more acidic, with an average increase in surface pH of 0.1 units’ and also ‘The overall pH change is computed from estimates of anthropogenic carbon uptake and simple ocean models.’
How do they get away with such nonsensical garbage?

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 22, 2020 1:54 pm

Clyde: typo error alert- my apologies; I should have said ‘The uptake of anthropogenic carbon since 1750 has led to the ocean becoming more acidic, with an average DECREASE in surface pH of 0.1 units’, pH values of course becoming lower as hydrogen ion concentration increases.

Reply to  Carbon500
May 22, 2020 5:45 am

No one has ever explained why this catastrophe has never happened in the history of the Earth, despite higher temperatures and atmospheric CO2 in the geological past. It’s almost as if there were powerful negative feedbacks preventing such a runaway.

Steven Mosher
May 22, 2020 4:31 am

what if frogs had wings?

Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 22, 2020 6:18 am

they’d crash into all the flying pigs.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 22, 2020 6:48 am

what if Gorebaloney Warming Believers had brains?

Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 22, 2020 8:02 am

what if frogs had wings?

Then they’d still be able to model future climate states just as well as you can:

“In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. This reduces climate change to the discernment of significant differences in the statistics of such ensembles. The generation of such model ensembles will require the dedication of greatly increased computer resources and the application of new methods of model diagnosis. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive, but such statistical information is essential.”

Section, p. 774

Reply to  sycomputing
May 22, 2020 3:28 pm

Hey Sy, maybe a crystal ball would help??!!

Reply to  Megs
May 23, 2020 2:24 am

Modeling IS the crystal ball, Megs.


Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 22, 2020 8:06 am

What if Mosher made sense?

Reply to  Graemethecat
May 23, 2020 5:11 am


Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 22, 2020 8:21 am

I see mosh has been reduced to drive by snarks again.
Trying to be relevant was just too tiring I guess.

Reply to  MarkW
May 22, 2020 9:25 am

He has moved on to contact tracing…he only has so much time for his giant brain and douchiness

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Derg
May 22, 2020 9:54 am

I shouldn’t laugh… but I did.

Steven Mosher
Reply to  MarkW
May 23, 2020 12:54 am

I’m still laughing at your comments in Feb about US covid testing

Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 23, 2020 2:21 am

If only you’d be so clever we ALL could laugh.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 22, 2020 11:00 am

Wow. That was a good one Mosher. You’re just so darn clever. I mean THAT was a burn. Can I use that one?

Joel Snider
Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 22, 2020 11:22 am
Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 22, 2020 11:45 am

Their ancestors did, pterodactyls.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 22, 2020 7:40 pm

What if Mosh were to write something that was both relevant and made sense?

D. Boss
May 22, 2020 4:45 am

And the real benefit to this current “pandemic” crisis, which ironically is man made via mass hysteria based on completely false modeling and inept “experts”:

This latest crisis has the benefit of showing the illiterate masses just how really bad “modeling” is and how wrong the so called “experts” can be! Once seeing this fake “catastrophe” in action, with reality being nothing at all like the modeling predicted – plus having caused untold pain and suffering for decimating the economy…

Good luck trying to further convince the masses there is a “climate emergency”. When people get seriously burned by false narratives – they are unlikely to be fooled again.

Most of the “damage” done to society by the pandemic fiasco, is due to over-reaction based on fear mongering. I believe even those who remain scientifically and mathematically challenged will sense that the main problem was over-reaction to a minor threat. Copy this “learning” to any future claims of “climate catastrophe” and the draconian measures proposed to allay that fearful script. i.e. people will be loathe to over-react to any fear mongering in the near future.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  D. Boss
May 22, 2020 1:48 pm

“And the real benefit to this current “pandemic” crisis, which ironically is man made via mass hysteria based on completely false modeling and inept “experts”:

This latest crisis has the benefit of showing the illiterate masses just how really bad “modeling” is and how wrong the so called “experts” can be! Once seeing this fake “catastrophe” in action, with reality being nothing at all like the modeling predicted – plus having caused untold pain and suffering for decimating the economy”

Well, the initial estimate of mitigated deaths from the Wuhan virus in the U.S., that President Trump used was an estimate of between 100,000 and 140,000 deaths.

The current number of actual deaths from the Wuhan virus in the U.S. today is over 95,000 and climbing.

Now tell me again how wrong the virus model is.

You obviously don’t know what you are talkng about. Look at the numbers. The numbers say you don’t know what you are talking about.

Imperial College had a problem with their model and because of that, some people want to claim *all* the models are wrong. But just look at the numbers. The model Trump uses is not wrong. It is right on the money.

Go blame your problems on something else, like poor administration of the lockdowns. That’s a legitimate gripe. The virus model Trump uses is not.

oebele bruinsma
May 22, 2020 4:58 am

If one lives in a “Global Warming Bubbbble” it is bound to rise to the top vis a vis the more “sceptic/realistic bubbles” which are by definition cooler. The result is, as politicians do not know very much except how to grab and use power, that the top politicians are more inclined to listen to the “warmistas stories”.

Patrick MJD
May 22, 2020 5:06 am

There is no climate, just a 30 year average of weather!

Van Doren
Reply to  Patrick MJD
May 22, 2020 5:21 am

Climate is a local thing, as is sea level. There is no global climate.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Van Doren
May 22, 2020 11:04 am

Van Doren
Yes, that is why physical geographers recognize climate zones, and not a global climate.

Steven Mosher
Reply to  Patrick MJD
May 22, 2020 6:21 am

There is no climate

weirdly every day I am told that no one denies climate or climate change.

if there is no climate, then it cannot change.

Looks like we found a climate denier.


Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 22, 2020 6:46 am

Climate ≠ global climate
You quote is not correct.

Do you think we have a global weather ???

Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 22, 2020 8:11 am

Mosher — stop the word-naz*sm. “Climate” is indeed an abstraction. Only weather is real — so get real. Weather does indeed change, but no one experiences global weather — individuals experience weather right where they’re at, and only there.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 22, 2020 8:22 am

So tell us Self Anointed One, how does the averaging of 30 years of weather become climate?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 22, 2020 11:11 am

As is all too frequently the case with you, you are being illogical. The implied definition of weather is short-term changes in the state of the atmosphere. If there is no global climate, there is still regional and local weather, which can and does change. Trying to average global weather is not very instructive. If you are going to play the game, you should restrict yourself to averaging the long-term changes in each and every climate zone.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 22, 2020 4:20 pm

Clyde, it beats me how they can average temperatures in Australia. Given that we are more that 7.5 million square kilometres in size and we can have a heatwave in one part of the country and snow in another, the averages are meaningless. Yet they always quote the high temperatures.

They can’t even get our local averages right and they expect us to trust them, what a joke.

John Shotsky
Reply to  Megs
May 22, 2020 4:57 pm

Averaging temperatures is meaningless anyway. Temperature is an intensive variable, and doesn’t lend itself to averaging, as it is totally meaningless in that context. And even though averaging temperatures goes against scientific principles, it is done regularly and to hundredths of a degree. Significant digits, anyone? I just shake my head at the claims.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Megs
May 22, 2020 5:07 pm

“Averaging temperatures is meaningless anyway.”

Exactly, John. I’ve been saying that for years here. The response is often “Well we’re working with anomalies, not temperatures.” So it makes even less sense, IMHO.

Rainer Bensch
Reply to  Megs
May 23, 2020 10:13 am

But even you two state that the LIA was colder than it’s now. How can you do that? (calculate numbers with what unit)

John Shotsky
Reply to  Patrick MJD
May 22, 2020 6:32 am

Yes, 30 years is right. There is a SERIOUS problem with that. The normal climate cycles in roughly 70 years, which can be traced back through history. In fact, you can read the New York Times headlines from the 1800s through today, and see the cycles of warming and cooling being referred to as global warming and coming ice age.
In fact, though the climate can be thought of as a near sine wave of 70 years duration. In other words, we are about where we were 70 years ago, although that’s not precise. Think 1950’s, after the heat spell of the 30’s. The problem is that without understanding that cycle, you can’t understand where on the sine wave you are. If you start measuring at the bottom of the cycle (70’s), then it all looks like warming. That is exactly what has happened. Now, we’re reached the top, the warming has stopped, and we are starting to drop back the other direction. If the period for a climate were defined as 70 years, we would see that climate isn’t even changing.

Reply to  John Shotsky
May 22, 2020 6:47 am

Call it AMO.

Reply to  John Shotsky
May 22, 2020 8:23 am

The 70 year cycle is not the only one, there is evidence of longer cycles in the data.

John Shotsky
Reply to  MarkW
May 22, 2020 12:05 pm

Of course there are other cycles, but this one lasts an average lifetime. People are taken in because they don’t understand that just because it is warming or cooling, means absolutely nothing – Climate was defined as 30 years of weather averaged, long ago. So, the very definition of climate is wrong – if you are going to average it, it needs to be at least as long as one whole cycle. With this definition, it would be warming for 30 years, then cooling for 30 years. People would think climate is changing, but it’s not. The WEATHER is chaning, but not the climate. I believe this was set up in about 1900 through 1929. The last one ended in 2010, if I remember correctly, so we are on 2011 through 2041. Anyone want to be that it won’t be cooling?

Reply to  John Shotsky
May 22, 2020 7:05 pm

I agree entirely and have been saying the same thing for a couple of years.
If you accept the reality that the 30 years definition is utterly meaningless, (which thirty years? Pick any thirty year period in time and tell me that is the climate…) it completely destroys the whole climate change argument instantly.
This is the most important point in the whole saga which is not discussed nearly enough.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  John Shotsky
May 22, 2020 2:34 pm

“In fact, though the climate can be thought of as a near sine wave of 70 years duration. In other words, we are about where we were 70 years ago, although that’s not precise. Think 1950’s, after the heat spell of the 30’s. The problem is that without understanding that cycle, you can’t understand where on the sine wave you are. If you start measuring at the bottom of the cycle (70’s), then it all looks like warming. That is exactly what has happened. Now, we’re reached the top, the warming has stopped, and we are starting to drop back the other direction. If the period for a climate were defined as 70 years, we would see that climate isn’t even changing.”

An excellent description of the movement of the climate, John.

Here’s a comparison of the AMO and a chart of Reykjavik Iceland:

comment image

And here’s the U.S. surface temperature chart (Hansen 1999) for comparison:

comment image

As can be seen, all the charts show the since wave John is referring to: The warm 1930’s, the cool 1970’s and then the warmth of the late 1990’s to today, which is no warmer than 1998.

The fraudlent modern-era Hockey Stick charts that the Alarmists use to sell the human-caused climate change hoax, don’t show this sine wave. They erased the warmth of the 1930’s and the cool of the 1970’s, and made the temperature chart look like it was in a continuous climb to hotter and hotter and hotter temperatures.

Here is a comparison of the Hansen 1999 chart and the bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick chart. You can see that their temperature profiles are completely different. So which is right and which is wrong? Well, all unmodified (actual temperature readings) regional surface temperature charts from around the world resemble the profile of the Hansen 1999 chart, where it was just as warm in the 1930’s as it is today, and shows significant cooling during the 1970’s.

The bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick chart profile does not resemble any unmodified regional chart from anywhere in the world. The Hockey Stick is all by itself. All alone.

So you tell me which one is right and which one is wrong.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 23, 2020 6:12 am

Quoting myself: “Here is a comparison of the Hansen 1999 chart and the bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick chart.”

I forgot the link to the comparison, didn’t I. Here it is:

Reply to  Patrick MJD
May 22, 2020 8:31 am

There is no climate [change], just a 30 year average of weather.

Yes, Earth is a semi-stable chaotic system, with parametric boundaries of 20, 40, even 80 degree temperature cooling, warming, change. However, if you graph the sub-degree anomalies, and view it through rainbow-colored glasses, the prophecy of a [catastrophic] [anthropogenic] change is undeniable.

Van Doren
May 22, 2020 5:20 am

The goal of lefties is to destroy free society, also known as Capitalism, not to fight some climate emergency. Global warming is just a vehicle to achieve a global socialist world goverment, also known as global slavery.

Reply to  Van Doren
May 22, 2020 8:24 am

The goal of lefties is to take other people’s stuff.
They use the excuse of creating a “fairer” world.

Reply to  Van Doren
May 22, 2020 9:26 am

True, but “capitalism” and “capitalists” were word-inventions of the marxists. The correct phrase is “free-market” and “free-marketists”.

May 22, 2020 5:24 am

Each 400-year rotation through the sine wave of Holocene temperature with a slightly lower apex each time, is also seen in direct measure of temp since 1850. Cycles within cycles.

You can see it in this graph of 50 million NOAA (adjusted) temperature recordings:

The peak in the mid 1938 is about .75 degree Fahrenheit higher than the peak of 2000. The bottoms of TMAX are steady or easing down, with 2019 being nearly the lowest ever recorded. NOTE: there is no proxy reconstruction that can reveal this level of detail, and there is no non-US direct measurement for it since station reporting is extremely thin during the 1900-1940 period.

Coach Springer
May 22, 2020 5:49 am

Well, you can’t talk about climate catastrophe without considering a reasonable time perspective of the thing. Dismissing it as old news requires it to be repeated.

May 22, 2020 6:18 am

From the article: “The modern short pulse of beneficial Global warming stopped with diminishing Solar activity, some 20 years ago and recent global temperatures are now stable or declining.”

I am no alarmist, but the above statement struck me as ill-informed and incongruous with the data. Just look at the UAH trends as posted by Dr. Roy Spencer.

comment image

Yes, temperatures are spiky looking at short-term noise, with short-term declines at the monthly level, but the trend is still increasing, not”stable or declining.”

The author, Ed Hoskins, is a retired dentist and architect who has an avid interest in climatology. His blog is a running collection of almost random thoughts taken from many sources. He is welcome to share his views with the world, but posting it here doesn’t add anything new or useful to the discussion/debate.

Reply to  Pflashgordon
May 22, 2020 6:51 am

These observations startzed only in 1979, so no validation for earlier times.

Richard M
Reply to  Pflashgordon
May 22, 2020 1:47 pm

If you remove the effect of ENSO you see no warming trend n the UAH data for over 20 years. Just putting a trend line through noisy data is pretty useless unless you have enough data. I do agree it is wise to mention that this is required to see the lack of warming.

Even if you go back to the start of the satellite data you can see at least half of the warming trend is due to ENSO +volcanoes. The rest is likely due to the AMO.

May 22, 2020 6:35 am

Ja. Ja.
What if everyone is wrong and only I am right. I said back in 2015 that it is cooling.

I think it is only me who used the right method……yet it is so simple to do.

Reply to  Henry Pool
May 22, 2020 9:28 am

Try to convince Stokes Henry…..he believes we will be boiling with his models.

May 22, 2020 6:43 am

YAAAAAAY! Global cooling is in the works. We’re finally starting to head into the next glaciation. Not that any of us will be around to see it. Right on time, but I won’t wait around to see the results.

I’d really overlooked the CO2 exponential saturation effect. It’s in many published papers, but I’ve never seen anyone else effectively present it as a cap on the amount of warming each increment of CO2 can bring. As it nears saturation, the increase in temperature goes closer t zero. This is one aspect of CO2 warming that has to be much more widely publicized.

Of course, we have to be careful. As CO2 saturates all the energy absorbed tends to go higher and higher into the atmosphere. What will excess heat do to the stratosphere? That would be of worthwhile modelling effort(if we could manage to model the atmosphere for shi!!)

Reply to  Philo
May 22, 2020 8:11 am

See my post above. It’s not really saturation. That’s a straw man term that the climate liars made up to dupe people like Loydo and other calculator-dodgers with no grasp as to why the unit of “global warming” is expressed as in a “doubling of CO2” (and they succeeded).

By the way, while I’m on this, does anyone know where the starting doubling unit came from? My understanding is that it’s supposed to be 20ppm for CO2. Was it Arrhenius (1896) or similarly pulled out of someone’s rear end? Or is there a rigorous spectroscopy paper where this was actually measured? Phil dot, you still here?

Reply to  philincalifornia
May 22, 2020 2:23 pm

Yes, it was Arrhenius (1896). Here he is spelling it out in 1908:
“If the quantity of carbonic acid in the air should sink to one-half its present percentage, the temperature would fall by about 4°C; a diminution to one-quarter would reduce the temperature by 8°C. On the other hand, any doubling of the percentage of carbon dioxide in the air would raise the temperature of the earth’s surface by 4°C; and if the carbon dioxide were increased fourfold, the temperature would rise by 8°C.”

Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 22, 2020 7:35 pm

And as Monckton of Brenchley stated:-
”In 1906 Arrhenius – who had by then come across the fundamental equation of radiative transfer, which greatly simplified his calculations and improved their accuracy – recalculated the effect of doubling CO2 on temperature and, in Vol. 1, no. 2 of the Journal of the Royal Nobel Institute, published his conclusion that a doubling of CO2 concentration would increase global temperatures by about 1.6 Celsius degrees (<3 Fahrenheit degrees).
Yet the Gorons continue to cite only Arrhenius’ 1896 paper, with its less accurate and more extreme conclusion. I wonder why.''

Reply to  aussiecol
May 22, 2020 9:43 pm

Monckton of Brenchley is totally wrong. Arrhenius did not do that.

The 1908 quote I gave above clearly restates the conclusion of his 1896 paper. The history is set out here.

Reply to  aussiecol
May 23, 2020 10:12 pm

I’m sure the good Lord would beg to differ Nick.

Reply to  Krishna Gans
May 22, 2020 1:11 pm

Thank you. Yes, this, especially the 2010 post is how I remembered it. I will read and get back to you with comments but, obviously, the calculator-dodgers don’t want to do those horrid exponentials. In fact, they’re incapable of doing simple multiplication and division and don’t even know how to work the back of an envelope and a pencil, and that would appear to include the scientific dufuses that are Mann, Trenberth, Hansen, Jones and the other assorted f-wits.

They live in a British Christmas pantomime world.

It’s a trace beneficial gas

Oh no it isn’t

Oh yes it is

Oh no it isn’t

This household believes in science, ner ner

Coeur de Lion
May 22, 2020 6:43 am

I worry about a Younger Dryas. Brought on by a Thunbergian experiment in the early 21st century! AAARRGH!

May 22, 2020 6:43 am
Nick Schroeder
May 22, 2020 7:17 am

The sun heats the terrestrial surface.
The terrestrial surface heats the contiguous atmospheric molecules.
Just like those gas fired IR heaters over the check out counters at Home Depot.

The elliptical orbit, tilted axis and albedo control the net ISR to the terrestrial surface.

net Q = U A dT controls the the surface temperature.

Chaos and the laws of physics control the weather.

May 22, 2020 7:35 am

The emergency is right in front of our noses — government overstepping trending toward totalitarianism. Climate “emergency” is a laughably obvious diversion.

Another Scott
May 22, 2020 11:16 am

More people should be aware of his point that below 200 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere we are in danger of extinguishing life on Earth. People out there think that CO2 is a dangerous poison.

Richard M
May 22, 2020 2:13 pm

I am curious where the graph showing the “effectiveness of CO2 as a warming Greenhouse gas” comes from. Does it just measure CO2 as if it existed by itself in the atmosphere? If so, it doesn’t really tell us much. As indicated elsewhere water vapor is by far the most effective greenhouse gas. It must be considered in defining the effectiveness of CO2. If water vapor provides 95% right off the top, then CO2 can at most provide an additional 5%.

With this in mind you are really closer to 98% at 200 ppm and 99% at 400 ppm. There is almost no room for any more warming effect. Keep in mind that the numbers should be even lower when clouds are factored in.

I realize that the overall effect did take water vapor into the computations, however, I think it becomes clearer to look at all the “heat trapping” gases together to make the better point.

Guy Senese
May 22, 2020 2:55 pm

As I read the above, yet another collection of logical and rational violations of BOTH common sense and scientific knowledge, I fear for the way this world is going. Just two examples: 1. the author’s digging through the holocene is OK I suppose, but doesn’t find anything “relevant” like the well known spike chart which shows the direct, and I mean direct correlation between Co2 tremendous spike from the last 20 years. This indicates not an anomaly, but the scientifically predicted multiplier effect, where exponential rise in heat can be and has been predicted, and is simply, well….true. I hear the term “climate change denier” and I have to think that denial is the operational term. It is mere psychological denial of such a clear threat. They are not confined to the scientific journals, or the newspress. You all have een with your own eyes, the disappearance of the winter snow you played in; the increasing heat, shortened seasons, (or lengthened) . You’ve see the evidence because you have felt it. And if they did not affect you, nobody can hide from the way huge heat bubbles are blocking the normal weather systems in the North East. People will go into simple denial when facing frightening news. Its a defense mechanism that is so common. I am a little guilt of it too, for the opposite reason. I am in a little bit of denial that there are so many people reading and believing, and supporting a movement which is threatening ANY common effort to use our ingenuity to solve this problem, the way we have for other efforts.

Reply to  Guy Senese
May 22, 2020 4:03 pm

The ingenuity we have at our disposal to “solve this ?problem?” (and many other ‘problems’) is nuclear power generation.

Made safe as houses by our ingenuity.

But what are we doing? – kidding ourselves that unreliable solar & wind generation (coupled with no sort of viable energy storage technology) will serve our present & future needs.

As I said yesterday – we are living in an age of unreason.

Reply to  Guy Senese
May 22, 2020 6:17 pm

Guy you really need to do some research.

I don’t know where you live but they’ve had quite a long snow season in Canada and the Northern parts of the US. I believe it was longer than usual last year too.

I live in Australia, which is a similar size to the US not including Alaska. Most places in Australia have never seen snow, we do have some ski runs in the alpine regions of NSW and Victoria. We were told in the 1990’s that by the year 2000 our children would never see snow again. It hasn’t happened, our snow season is longer now! It’s even snowing more in places that rarely saw snow!

Despite the rhetoric about Australia’s droughts and bushfires, they are not new! I migrated to Australia in 1961, I remember the heatwaves and long periods without rain, and the flooding that followed. We have always had bushfires too, and in the early 1970’s Darwin was completely destroyed by Cyclone Tracy. There are poems and bush ballads about the droughts, floods and bushfires that date back to the 1880’s. Because of our size there is always going to be a weather event happening somewhere, and sometimes it will be extreme. It’s just weather and it’s not new, in this modern era news travels the globe in a nanosecond. In years gone by Australia was pretty much considered a tinpot town and most people didn’t even know where it was let alone how big it is. These days, we are spotlighted whenever an extreme weather event occurs!

CO2 is not a problem, you exhale it with every breath, it is not a poisonous gas. Yes it is rising, do you even know the percentage of CO2 that is created by humans? Look it up it’s very small. Or the percentage of that amount that is supposed to be raising CO2 to catastrophic levels? Humans, in the scheme of things have not been around for very long at all. CO2 levels have been much higher than now at different times in the past, if humans weren’t around then, what caused it? Another issue you need to consider is that rising levels of CO2 does not correlate with rising temperatures, it’s not an automatic thing.

We don’t ‘need’ to do anything, CO2 is not going to kill us. The biggest environmental problem we face today is the introduction of wind and solar. If you have thought through how they come about and where they are going at the end of their useful life (that’s an oxymoron) then you are simply happy to believe all the leftist lies you are being fed.

They feed you fearful stories because they want you to be afraid. You want to do all that you can to help save a world that isn’t in any need of being saved because you believe it is the right thing to do. You have been duped, renewables are a scam that is making very rich people even more rich. Science has been bought out by politicians to a point that it is no longer true science, it’s called ‘consensus science’. If a scientists dares to present a view that is contrary to the agenda they will loose their funding and potentially their reputation too. So those ‘scientists’ you so believe in are delivering the ‘facts’ that the politicians and environmentalists want you to hear. Figures have been fudged and remodeled so many times that they no longer resemble the truth. There are in fact very many scientists who still practice the scientific method and who have integrity, but like free speech they have been shut down. If proper scientific practices were still in place this CAGW nonsense would have been disproved long ago, but it just doesn’t fit the true agenda.

In fact it’s not even about climate in reality Guy, it’s about fear and control. It’s about a socialist push and if you don’t question what you are being force fed you will be miserable for the rest of your life. If humans ceased to exist tomorrow, CO2 would continue to rise and the world would be fine. The world is not static, it changes, with or without us.

Have a look at the movie/documentary by Michael Moore, Planet of the Apes. Now he considers himself an environmentalist and he is definitely a leftist but even he knew there was something about renewables that just didn’t fit and he’s put the truth out there. Here’s the link.

Reply to  Guy Senese
May 22, 2020 10:58 pm

“You all have seen with your own eyes, … the increasing heat. You’ve see the evidence because you have felt it.”

Right now I’m feeling the record cold temperatures for May in Brisbane.

My own experience in Brisbane is that it feels colder every year. This may be because I moved back to Australia after many years in the Northern Hemisphere and am getting re-acclimatised, but if you are appealing to personal experience, mine certainly doesn’t fit the warming model.

And I’m an old lefty with solar panels!

And I’m an old-fashioned lefty with solar panels!

Michael Hammer
May 22, 2020 4:58 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”.

I keep reading this claim and it makes me angry because it is utter rubbish. The atmosphere converts some of the received solar energy into mechanical work (wind falling rain). That makes it a classic heat engine obeying Carnot’s laws. These laws dictate that a heat engine must have a hot junction where thermal energy is input (earth’s surface mainly at the equator in this case) and a separate cold junction where heat energy leaves the system. Maximum efficiency is (Thot-Tcold)/Thot. The working fluid (in this case the atmosphere) cycles between the hot and cold junction doing mechanical work in the process. So where is Earth’s cold junction? You might be tempted to say the poles but that is not possible because due to Earth’s rotation the atmosphere cannot travel from equator to pole (which is why we have 3 circulations Hadley, Ferrel and Polar instead of one). The cold junction is in fact the tropopause (the coldest part of the atmosphere) where energy is lost to space via radiation. But this radiation only happens because of green house gases. After all, the very definition of a green house gas is one that can absorb and radiate in the thermal infrared portion of the spectrum. So if there was no greenhouse effect there would be no energy loss from the tropopause thus no cold junction. Warm rising air could not cool down and thus could not descend again so convection would stop. In short there would be no atmospheric heat engine and that means no weather, no rain( falling rain represents mechanical work) hence no water evaporation from the surface no clouds, no wind. Actually there could be some slight evaporation as the surface warms during the day balanced by some dew at night but a very minor effect since at night there would be a temperature inversion so no convection. Thus only conductive heat transfer which is extremely slow in still air. Without clouds and atmospheric dust (no convection to keep it suspended) the equator would be absorbing about 437 watts/sqM average over 24 hours and 1370 watts/sqM peak. Average temperature in the tropics would be 296K (23C) but for low thermal mass surfaces (think of the sand at the beach on a hot day) the peak surface temperature could get to 394k (120C). The entire atmosphere at least at the tropics would eventually rise to the highest surface temperature. The atmosphere at least in the tropics would be far far hotter than it is today and without rain there would be no rivers or lakes and no life on land.

The 33C claim is based on an absurd extrapolation of one equation while ignoring virtually every effect of not having greenhouse gases. So now something to think about. With NO greenhouse gases the above shows the atmosphere (at least in the tropics/temperate regions) would be far hotter than today. So some atmospheric greenhouse gasses actually lowers temperatures and makes life on land possible. If the total impact of increasing CO2 raises temperatures then the plot of GHG concentration vs temperature must have a point of inflexion (which is possible). So the question is, what is the ghg concentration at the point of inflexion and which side of this point are we currently on?

John Shotsky
Reply to  Michael Hammer
May 22, 2020 5:09 pm

I liken what the sun does for earth’s temperature as ‘rotisserie earth’. The sun is always shining, and earth is always rotating at the same speed. Heating takes place faster than cooling, because at night only radiation is present to lose heat, while in the day convection and radiation work together.
We are on a rotisserie, folks, and the reason it is 33 degrees warmer than the black body temperature is simply because we can’t cool off that fast at night. It would take some LONG nights, like seen at the poles in their winters. THEY get WELL BELOW the black body temperature of the earth. The rotisserie is OFF during that time. At some point, common sense should overtake this whole Co2 thing!! It is NOT ABOUT GASES, it is about being on the rotisserie.

Ulric Lyons
May 22, 2020 7:01 pm

You can’t use GISP2 as a measure of global temperature, the three coldest periods at 6,200 BC, 2700 BC, and 775 AD were among the warmest periods in the mid latitudes. The warmer spikes in GISP2 are the centennial solar minima, the big one around 1250-1190 BC was what finished the Minoans off along with several other civilisations, and the one from around 1000 AD which is often seen as evidence for the Medieval Warm Period, was the Oort solar minimum. Increased negative North Atlantic Oscillation states brings colder weather into Europe during a solar minimum, but makes Greenland warmer, and drives a warm North Atlantic ocean phase, and increases El Nino conditions. Which is the ultimate reason for why there can never be a climate emergency, ocean phases are cooler when the solar wind is stronger, and warmer when the solar wind is weaker.
That academia has failed to see the beauty of the natural means of climatic stability and through ignorance promotes an apocalypse of irrational and impossible tipping points, is a great scientific travesty, and has huge implications for the sanity of the population at large. In part directly through fear, and also by confounding their own intuitive senses of how the natural world functions, then they may be prey and prone to any manner of fake news.

comment image

Mike Dubrasich
May 22, 2020 8:10 pm

There is a climate emergency: Planet Earth is cooling into another glacial stadial. As the Earth cools plant and animal species will be stressed and many driven into extinction. Agriculture will fail in many places in many years. Long term droughts will ensue. Human cultures will collapse. There will be mass migration to Equatorial regions.

The IPCC has it bassackwards. They should be alarmed at the coming cold. I doubt Clive Best’s prognostication (cited by the author) that we have another 12,000 years of Holocene warmth. That denies the much-researched climate history of the Pleistocene. Glacial stadials are the norm. Inter-glacials have been short-lived. There is no rational scientific reason to deny neoglaciation: all reputable evidence supports it.

CO2 alone cannot stave off neo-glaciation. Humanity can and must take radical steps to forestall cooling such as albedo reduction and mass transfer of polar ice to warm waters. To the extent that CO2 can aid this effort (very little IMHO) we should pump as much CO2 into the atmosphere as we can.

Warmer is undeniably Better. Anti-Warmists threaten the very existence of Life Itself. Anti-Warmists should be censored and de-platformed immediately and without regrets. So-called scientists who are Anti-Warmists should be fired and silenced. There should be no debates on this subject — the real science is settled.

May 22, 2020 10:48 pm

We’re all gonna freeze!

We’re doomed!

May 23, 2020 4:45 am

Here is an idea so that we won’t freeze up. The problem is the ice and snow. The more ice and snow, the more light is deflected off from earth. All we have to do is cover the (extra) snow and ice with…… you guessed it: carbon dust!!!

In fact, looking at Moore’s movie, I noticed all these boats with trees passing through the atlantic from USA to EU. I suspect that they use the dirtiest oil possible, for fuel, which actually puts a lot of same carbon dust in the air. Where does it settle? Mostly in Greenland and the arctic….. Hence the ice melt there……whole villages erected by the Vikingers in Greenland have now become visible after being covered for centuries
with snow and ice.

Makes you think, does it not?

Those interested in the climate conditions for the decade: you can click on my name and read my report there. [The dry spell in EU has already started]

May 23, 2020 7:38 am

Michael Hammer

I think you are right. I also doubt this nonsense of GH gases making the atmosphere warmer. I think the net effect of [more] GH gases in the atmosphere is [more]cooling during the day and [more] warming during the night. Is that also what you say?

Note that the warming of the oceans has been identical to the warming of the atmosphere

After all these years here, do you honestly still believe it was the 100 ppms CO2 in the air that did it?

The increase in CO2 over the past 60 years was 0.01% by volume and this represents ca. 8 x 10^13 kg. Compare this to the total of the mass of the oceans of 1.4 x 10^21 kg + the mass of the atmosphere of 5.1 x 10 ^18 kg. Do you see that it is simply physically impossible for such an amount of CO2 to ‘heat’ the oceans and the atmosphere to the extent that they did warm up?

The oceans have been the driver of the warming of the atmosphere. It cannot be the other way around? Now, the tougher question. What has been warming the oceans? That is the question you must answer, Mosher

Michael Hammer
Reply to  Henry Pool
May 23, 2020 3:26 pm

Hi Henry; Thanks for your comment. No I do not believe more GHG means more cooling during the day. From my knowledge of spectroscopy I know that the action of GHG’s is to transfer emission at the GHG wavelengths from the surface to the top of the GHG gas column – essentially the tropopause. Since the tropopause is colder than the surface, net emission to space is reduced so that will reduce earths energy loss to space. As the GHG concentration increases this transfer will occur over a slightly greater range of wavelengths (that’s where the logarithmic response comes from-each doubling gives about he same increase in wavelength range) so the direct impact of more CO2 will be to slightly reduce earths energy loss to space. My calculations suggest a direct impact of about 1C per doubling of CO2 (from 280 to 560 ppm) which is very much in line with all the estimates I have seen on the web. However I am convinced the feedbacks are negative not positive so that after feedback the total impact is well under 1C per doubling.

More specifically, my analysis suggests that water vapour feedback is logarithmically warming while clouds are linearly cooling. The action of the two together is to create a setpoint for earths climate which is maintained by very strong negative feedback. This is a quite classical situation in control theory .

May 24, 2020 8:12 am

Michael Hammer

In winter here, we have few clouds. If they do come, I notice that Tmin can go up by 4 or 5K, on the day, easily. Similarly, in summer, I notice Tmax going down by about 4 or 5K if clouds make their appearance….
That is just clouds. I also notice that H2O g and CO2 g have absorption in the sun’s spectrum, which also deflects light & energy to space. We can actually measure this coming back to us via the moon…
All of this has never formally been allocated correctly in any ‘calculation’ of warming or cooling caused by GHG’s – that I have seen.

In fact, if what you are saying is true, could you please answer the question that I asked S. Mosher? It looks like he left us with his tail between his legs.

How did same extra warming of the atmosphere get into the oceans? Note that the slope of the red line (oceans) is exactly the same as that of the green line (atmosphere).
The oceans have been the driver of the warming of the atmosphere. It cannot be the other way around? Now, the tougher question. What has been warming the oceans? That is the question….

Michael Hammer
Reply to  Henry Pool
May 26, 2020 12:41 am

Henry; your observation that clouds reduce maximum temperature on hot days and increase minimums on cold days is accurate but hardly novel. I suspect most observant people would have found this. Clouds increase albedo so reduce incoming solar energy cooling hot days. They also block outgoing long wave radiation so reducing energy loss on cold days. CO2 does not have any significant absorption bands in the solar spectrum. The first band is at 2.7 microns and there is little solar energy at that wavelength. Solar energy peaks at about 550 nm and has fallen to very low levels by 2.7 microns. Water vapour does have some near infrared absorption and will absorb some of the incoming solar energy but not a lot.

I am not sure why you think that what I said implies energy transfer from the atmosphere to the oceans. Some of the back radiation from the atmospheric GHG’s would obviously be absorbed by the oceans but I cant see why that would be any different from what happens on land. To the extent that the oceans are warming my opinion would be that they are absorbing more solar energy. Why? Because if you look at historical measurements of cloud cover it has been slightly falling in recent decades so albedo is reducing and that means more received solar energy. Of course that begs the question of why cloud cover is reducing. One possible answer of course is Svensmarks theory that it is being modulated by cosmic rays (high solar activity= high solar magnetic field = less cosmic rays = less cloud seeding). But its still just a theory. Sorry I dont have a definitive answer for you on this and I suspect no one else does either.
You say “the oceans have been the driver of warming of the atmosphere”. Why? I suspect both are warming from the same underlying cause not that one is causing the other. Dont know if it helps but its the best I have to offer.

Henry Pool
May 26, 2020 2:19 pm

Sorry. I did read your comment and I want to get back to you but did not get time today. Hopefully tomorrow.

Reply to  Henry Pool
May 27, 2020 1:57 am

Hi Michael

Back in 2018, I analysed the results of 10 weather stations here n South Africa going back by 40 year.
Here are the results:

Note that essentially temperatures remained the same where as minimum temperatures dropped. We had a dry spell for the last 5 years or so,
so it makes sense to believe that minimum temperatures dropped due to to less clouds. However, since Tmin is increasing in the arctic areas, one could also be inclined to believe that Tmin dropped here due to the movement of the magnetic south- or north pole.

Either way, do you agree that my observations are not consistent with AGW (by CO2)?

Michael you say:

CO2 does not have any significant absorption bands in the solar spectrum

That is not consistent with the Turnbull report, who also report absorption between 1 and 2 um. See green line fig 6 bottom. In fact, as far as I remember there is also absorption by CO2 in the UV which is why we can measure it quantitatively on other planets.
This means that CO2 also causes cooling. My results suggest that there is no significant warming caused by CO2. (Click on my name to read my report)

%d bloggers like this: