The Rational Climate e-Book

By Andy May

Patrice Poyet has just published a new 431-page eBook entitled, The Rational Climate e-Book, it is free to download here. Dr. Poyet studied geochemistry, remote sensing, and computer science at Ecole des Mines de Paris / Nice University. He received his doctorate in 1986. As an expert computer modeler, he spends much of the book evaluating climate computer models and uncovers their often-unstated underlying assumptions.

English is not Poyet’s first language and some of his phrasing is awkward, but even so, the narrative is compelling and interesting. You stop noticing the odd sentence structure very quickly.

Poyet declares that climate science is now the religion of our time. He then notes that cooling is far more hazardous than warming and quotes a passage from Trevelyan’s A Shortened History of England:

“The last half dozen years of Williams’s reign (i.e., the 1690s) had been the ‘dear years’ of Scottish memory, six consecutive seasons of disastrous weather when the harvest would not ripen. The country had not the means to buy food from abroad, so the people had laid themselves down and died. Many parishes had been reduced to a half or a third of their inhabitants.” (Trevelyan, 1942, p. 432).

This was the coldest period of the Little Ice Age. During this time people not only died due to cold and drought in Scotland, but also in China and many other parts of the world (May, 2020c, pp. 26-27). Poyet, notes as many others have, that the climate models used to supposedly “prove” humans are controlling the global climate have not successfully predicted anything. The lack of predictive skill invalidates them.

Chapter 2 reviews atmospheric physics and the carbon cycle. Here he does an interesting calculation that shows that only 6% of the CO2 entering the atmosphere is from fossil fuels. The additional CO2 from both nature and fossil fuels has encouraged more plant growth. Net primary productivity of plants has increased 33% since 1900 and continues to increase with additional CO2. We put about 5 ppm/year (molecules per million) into the atmosphere using fossil fuels. Recent warming has increased out-gassing of CO2 from nature to about 80 ppm/year, for a total add of 85 ppm per year. The net increase in the Mauna Loa records each year is less than 2 ppm. We cannot tell which CO2 molecules are taken up by plants and which are not, but plants prefer the carbon isotope 12C over 13C and fossil fuels have more 12C per unit volume than the atmosphere, so fossil fuel CO2 is preferred by plants.

The 13C to 12C average ratio in coal, oil, and natural gas relative to the atmosphere is about -29 ‰ (parts per thousand). Monitoring the change in the isotopes in the atmosphere through time allows us to show that the average residence time of a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is four to five years. This is dramatically different than what the IPCC reports in AR5, where they say:

“About half of the [fossil fuel] emissions remained in the atmosphere (240 ± 10 PgC) since 1750.” (IPCC, 2013, p. 467).

They also say:

The removal of human-emitted CO2 from the atmosphere by natural processes will take a few hundred thousand years (high confidence). (IPCC, 2013, p. 469).

Neither of these statements fit the Mauna Loa CO2 observations. Using Poyet’s calculations, the ratio of 13C to 12C has declined by 7 ‰. The above statements would require a drop of 13 ‰ or more. Hermann Harde came to the same conclusion in 2019 (Harde, 2019). He examined the components of the IPCC calculations and concluded that humans are not the primary cause of the recent increase in CO2, the dominant cause is recent warming. Harde shows that human fossil fuel emissions contributed no more than 17 ppm (15%) of the estimated CO2 increase of 113 ppm since 1750. As Poyet says, the IPCC calculation is both inaccurate and deceptive.

The IPCC focusses on the amount of CO2 that is stored in rocks, especially carbonates, over geological time and ignores intermediate storage. The atmosphere only contains about 2% of the total surface CO2. We define surface as from the ocean floor to the top of the atmosphere. Most of the rest is in the oceans and in the muddy sediments below the ocean water, which we include in the surface if the mud is in full communication with the ocean water above it.

Poyet shows that his calculation of a 5-year CO2 atmospheric residence time can be integrated easily to show that, over the period from 1959 to 2018, where we have good data, only 52 Gt-C (gigatons of carbon) or 6% of total atmospheric CO2 and 14% of the CO2 emissions are left at the end of 2018, using emissions according to

A note on units. Poyet uses Gt-C which is gigatonnes of carbon. uses millions of tonnes of CO2, divide their values by 3,664 to get values comparable to Poyet’s.

Poyet explains why the IPCC models of human CO2 emissions make no sense. The IPCC Bern function assumes an initial static equilibrium between the four main reservoirs of CO2, the oceans (39,000 Gt-C), soils (3,700 Gt-C, including permafrost), atmosphere (869 Gt-C), and terrestrial vegetation (600 Gt-C). This assumption completely ignores the huge and variable flow of CO2 from the upwelling deep-ocean waters in the Southern, Pacific and Indian Oceans. See this post for a description and map of the upwelling regions.

A map of CO2 emissions from the oceans, the red and yellow areas show the highest emissions, many of these are deep-water upwelling areas.

In this context, humans emitted ~10 Gt-C in 2018. In the same year, upwelling deep water in the Southern Hemisphere oceans emitted ~275 Gt-C, this value is not constant, it depends upon climate over 1,000 years ago when the water was taken to the deep ocean, the climate, animal, and plant activity as the water was transported around the world to where it ultimately was brought to the surface in the southern oceans, and on the surface temperature and water composition when it reaches the surface. Human emissions are less than 4% of surfacing deep-water emissions, well within the error of the estimated deep-water emissions. The surface ocean emits 100 Gt-C per year, another number that is highly dependent upon animal and plant activity as well as temperature and salinity. Even terrestrial plants and soils emit 75 Gt-C per year, over seven times human emissions. The soil emissions depend upon precipitation, temperature, and soil composition. Ignoring these variable emissions and assuming they all cancel to an equilibrium state prior to the technology age is an unwarranted over-simplification. As Poyet makes clear the Earth is never in a steady state, it is always adapting.

Poyet’s book goes on to discuss many other climate model calculations and assumptions. The author is a former computer modeler and appreciates Poyet’s perspective and the way he shows how each calculation must be programmed, which highlights the implicit assumptions in the calculation. These are assumptions that are not always obvious at first glance. But, when they are properly explained, the reader has an immediate “facepalm” moment and utters “OMG” or worse under his breath.

Section 4 of Chapter 2 is an overview of the idea that a dominant factor in the Earth’s surface temperature is the air pressure at the surface. In this discussion, he believes that convection carries most of the thermal energy absorbed by the surface to higher altitudes, where it can be radiated to space more easily. The point in the atmosphere that determines the surface temperature is the point where radiation emitted primarily by water vapor is more likely than not to make it to space in one hop. This is the height where Earth’s cooling begins, Poyet labels this height TOA, or top of atmosphere. The warming begins here and increases as we approach the surface with what Poyet calls the gravitational lapse rate. Water vapor is the major greenhouse gas and the height where it mostly disappears is critical. Poyet believes that CO2 is an insignificant contributor to surface temperature, and that water vapor content and pressure are far more important.

Poyet is probably correct. Most emissions of infrared radiation (OLR) to space from the troposphere are from water vapor, this is apparent from the fact that Earth’s OLR is linear with surface temperature. If the air were dry, the response would be nonlinear according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law, as explained by Daniel Koll and Timothy Cronin (Koll & Cronin, 2019). In the stratosphere, where the air is dry, most OLR emissions are from CO2.

This is an interesting and controversial section. Many people (skeptics and alarmists alike) often recoil at the idea that surface air pressure and convection dominate the Earth’s surface temperature. They ridicule the so-called “sky dragons” and their ideas. This writer is undecided, their arguments, while not fully developed, perfect or proven, are grounded in physics and must be seriously considered, at least with regard to the popular CO2 portion of the greenhouse effect. The CO2 warming effect, man-made or natural, has never been measured in nature, some have used observations to estimate the maximum CO2 effect (Lewis & Curry, 2018), but that only brackets the effect on the high side, it could be less. In the meantime, no one has claimed that the gas laws do not apply to atmospheres.

The height and density of the atmosphere, especially the height to the OLR emission layer at roughly 300 mb (~30,000 ft or ~9 km on average, but the altitude varies a lot) and the surface air pressure must affect the surface temperature. The speed and efficiency of latent heat transport (evaporation), as well as cloud cover are also important. As Poyet makes clear, it is hard to see how the CO2 concentration matters very much in the lower atmosphere. Downwelling infrared radiation from greenhouse gases exists, especially from clouds, but how much is due to CO2 and how much is emitted by water vapor and condensing water vapor? For more discussion of this idea, with reference to Venus, see here.

Section 6 deals with climate sensitivity, Poyet is in line with Lindzen and Choi (Lindzen & Choi, 2011) and Ferenc Miskolczi [(Miskolczi, 2014) and (Miskolczi, 2010)] that any effect from doubling the CO2 concentration will be small and might even be negative when all feedbacks are factored in. He also found, as have many others, that high-altitude specific humidity has been falling since the 1950s, especially at the critical altitude where net infrared radiation emissions (OLR) to space begin, above 20,000 feet (6,100 meters or 400 mb). If true, it means higher altitude atmospheric water vapor content is not increasing with surface temperature. This negates a critical assumption in the current climate models. Changes in water vapor at 500 mb (18,000 feet) to 300 mb (30,000 feet) altitude have 29 times the effect on OLR as the same change would have on the surface. As noted above, OLR is consistently linear with surface temperature, so the model assumption is probably incorrect.

Section 7 is appropriately entitled “The Greenhouse Mess.” As Poyet and others (Gerlich & Tscheuschner, 2009) have noted, the “greenhouse effect” seems to be whatever the author of the current book or article wants it to be. It seems, with only a very slight exaggeration, that every author has a different definition. Some assume no convection and no scattering of radiation, some assume that the atmosphere or large portions of it are in thermodynamic equilibrium, and still others assume that emissivity equals absorptivity, none of these assumptions are even close to reality. None of the models consider clouds, which have a climate forcing ten times larger than a doubling of CO2. They also mostly ignore the effect of the huge amount of circulating thermal energy in the oceans.

He discusses the importance of water vapor also. The surface of the Earth is nearly opaque to infrared radiation, if it weren’t for water evaporating from the surface, we would all cook. Only 17 meters of tropical air is required to block 80% of the IR emitted from the ground or ocean surface. The escape route for this thermal energy is evaporation and the resulting convection. The convection starts spontaneously because water vapor has a lower density than dry air and rises. Water vapor and condensing water vapor are the primary radiators of thermal energy, they emit some 90% of the Earth’s OLR to outer space.

The next section of the book discusses climate history over geological time. As Poyet makes clear we are living in one of the Earth’s colder times, one of four major ice ages in the past 600 million years. He later discusses sea level, ocean oscillations, like ENSO, glaciers, extreme weather and the myth of ocean acidification. He wraps up Chapter 2 with a discussion of the effect of volcanic eruptions and tectonics on climate.

Early in Chapter 3, the chapter on computer climate models Poyet writes:

“The only certainty I have is: don’t take your computer program for reality and this applies to ‘climate science’ as well.” (Poyet, 2020, p. 222).

As a former computer modeler, this author agrees completely. After working on a computer model for many years, it is easy to trust its results, it is your “baby” after all. Then, it fails you, it comes as a crushing blow, you doubt the observations, you are convinced those telling you that you failed are lying. But, no, it is the model that failed. You must accept this fact, examine the model and try to fix it. The data and observations are the reality and cannot be fixed. This is the lesson that all computer modelers must learn. Poyet provides numerous examples of failed climate modelers claiming the observations are wrong and their models are right. This sort of juvenile behavior never worked for me and it will not work for them.

In this chapter we learn that understanding the movement of water and water vapor are the keys to understanding climate. Unfortunately, climate models cannot calculate the vertical movement of water and water vapor, nor can they predict cloud formation or cloud cover. They also cannot predict or model thunderstorms, which move enormous amounts of thermal energy from the surface to the stratosphere. These unpredictable events are crucial to modeling both climate and weather (Poyet, 2020, p. 223).

It is well known that weather and climate are chaotic systems, which means either weather and climate are chaotic or that the equations we used to describe them are inappropriate or both. Therefore, weather forecasts beyond two weeks are useless. Averaging multiple forecasts does not extend this time limit, the same is true of climate forecasts. The IPCC disagrees with this principle and uses averages of poor models to predict the climate decades into the future, but averaging garbage creates average garbage, not better predictions. Kip Hansen wrote very much the same thing in 2016 (Poyet, 2020, p. 225):

“Averaging 30 results [of models of] chaotic behavior … does not do anything even resembling averaging out natural variability. Averaging 30 chaotic results produces only the average of those particular 30 chaotic results.” (Hansen, 2016)

The IPCC tries to claim that climate predictions are somehow different than the integral of weather over time, but they are not, climate is the integral of weather over time – averaging does nothing to change that. The lack of predictive skill in modern climate models is shown by the UK MET office which has tried to make seasonal forecasts with their model and failed miserably (Poyet, 2020, p. 226). The IPCC, in AR5, claims that the models are correct, even though recent predictions have all failed:

“Projections from previous IPCC assessments can also be directly compared to observations, with the caveat that these projections were not intended to be predictions over the short time scales for which observations are available to date. Unlike shorter lead forecasts, longer-term climate change projections push models into conditions outside the range observed in the historical period used for evaluation.” (IPCC, 2013, p. 825).

In other words, we failed to predict the near-term change in climate, but our predictions for 100 years from now are accurate. Poyet rightly ridicules this nonsense.

Poyet shows us, as have many others, that the “discretization” done to allow the climate models to run on the computer using a global set of “cells” or grid boxes is problematic. These boxes are 100 kilometers on a side and can be over a kilometer thick. Properties and weather in these huge boxes are constant, yet one or two thunderstorms could easily fit inside one of them. Many critics have noted that these boxes are a form of boundary condition on the differential equations being solved and when solving differential equations, the boundary conditions matter much more than the equations themselves (Poyet, 2020, p. 245). Anyone who has walked from the shade of a tree into sunshine, near a lake, knows that the meteorological properties are not uniform across one of these boxes.

Poyet, as well as others, have noted the importance of clouds and water vapor in determining our climate. But neither are well characterized in climate models, as Dr. Mototaka Nakamura (climate modeler, PhD MIT), has written:

“Accurate simulation of cloud is simply impossible in climate models, since it requires calculations of processes at scales smaller than 1 mm. So, clouds are represented with parametric methods in climate models. Are those methods reasonably accurate? No. If one seriously studies the properties of clouds and processes involved in cloud formation and dissipation and compares them with the cloud treatment in climate models, one would most likely be flabbergasted by the perfunctory treatment of clouds in the models. The parametric representations of clouds are ad hoc and are tuned to produce the average cloud cover that somewhat resembles that seen in the current climate. Can we, or should we, expect them to simulate the cloud coverage and properties in the “doubled atmospheric carbon dioxide” scenario with reasonable accuracy? No.” (Nakamura, 2018) the original is in Japanese, this is from an English version also by Nakamura.

Dr. Nakamura has correctly written that climate “models are Mickey Mouse mockeries” of the real world.

Politicians are interested in climate models since they can use them to frighten the public into giving up their individual freedoms and prosperity. Politicians are not interested in the truth, only persuading or intimidating people into supporting their views. Unlike in science, consensus matters to a politician. Poyet quotes Mahatma Gandhi near the end of his book:

“Many people, especially ignorant people, want to punish you for speaking the truth, for being correct, for being you. Never apologize for being correct, or for being years ahead of your time. If you’re right and you know it, speak your mind. Speak your mind. Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is still the truth.” Mahatma Gandhi

This is science. One scientist, with the right data and proper analysis will prevail, even if everyone else disagrees. Science is not consensus and consensus is not science.

Despite the odd sentence structure and occasional awkward phrasing, we recommend the book, and it is free. Add it to your digital library as a reference on climate model interpretation and basic atmospheric physics. I did not check every calculation in the book by any means, but I did thoroughly check the sections discussed in this post and found no problems. Download the book here (Poyet, 2020).

Writing about climate science, especially the “greenhouse effect,” is a minefield. The term is misnamed, the atmosphere does not work like a greenhouse, and the phrase is poorly defined as discussed by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf Tscheuschner in 2009 (Gerlich & Tscheuschner, 2009). Poyet walks the minefield carefully, and accurately in my opinion.

Download the bibliography here.

4.8 22 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
January 18, 2021 2:26 pm

Thanks a lot for that expert review !
It seems, that climate science still exists 😀

Last edited 1 month ago by Krishna Gans
January 18, 2021 2:48 pm

Pressure differentials certainly influence temperature differentials, but not so much the absolute temperatures. Absolute average temperatures are the causal effect of solar energy alone. Consider that the same air pressure exists at the equator and the poles, yet the temperatures could not be any different.

What’s most important about air pressure is that there’s a constant amount of air and that low pressure regions must always and at all times be perfectly offset by high pressure regions and that the differentials between them drives the self organization of the atmosphere by clouds into an energy optimized average behavior.

Reply to  Andy May
January 18, 2021 7:34 pm

The lapse rate is just that, a rate. It’s sign and where it starts from is the issue, but it’s not just one way or the other. On Earth, the lapse rate is negative and starts at the surface. On Venus, the lapse rate is positive and starts from the clouds. In both cases, the lapse rate starts from the matter in direct equilibrium with the SUN and that’s also the direct source of the energy heating the matter whose temperature is quantified by the lapse rate. On Earth the direct source of the Joules heating the the atmosphere is the surface, not the Sun.

Consider an Earth with no GHG’s or water. Higher altitudes will still have a lower temperature than lower altitudes, but the emissions consequential to those temperatures and averaged across all altitudes will be the same as what’s arriving from the Sun which is also the same as a constant altitude surface would emit. If there was no atmosphere at all, the altitude of the surface would have no influence on the temperature. In either case, the average temperature of the surface would be the same whose average emissions are limited by the average energy arriving from the Sun, and nothing else.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
January 18, 2021 11:01 pm

The Sun must be heating the atmosphere at least somewhat. Look at all the energy that the atmosphere absorbs that causes it to glow blue.

Last edited 1 month ago by PCman999
Reply to  PCman999
January 19, 2021 9:17 am

“Look at all the energy that the atmosphere absorbs that causes it to glow blue.”

It’s such a tiny amount, it can be ignored. Besides, the part of the atmosphere that absorbs the most solar energy is the water in clouds, which is tightly coupled to the Earth’s surface via the hydro cycle making the clouds and the oceans part of a single, coupled, steady state thermodynamic system.

This is in contrast to Venus where its clouds are a thermodynamic system whose matter is completely decoupled from the surface below.

Reply to  Andy May
January 19, 2021 9:41 am

The sign of the lapse rate differs between the Earth and Venus owing to the location of the matter in thermal equilibrium with the Sun and from which the lapse rate starts.

Yes, the lapse rate does start at different altiutudes. On Earth, it starts at the surface and goes up. On Venus, it starts at the clouds and goes down. In both cases, it starts from the matter in direct thermal equilibrium with the Sun and that supplies energy to the matter upon which the lapse rate applies.

The Venusian surface has no water, but its clouds have plenty and the two thermodynamic systems comprising the clouds and the surface could not be more separated while on Earth, they are one and the same. This is the crucial difference.

Reply to  Andy May
January 19, 2021 6:00 pm

The amount of matter above 10km is such a tiny fraction of the thermal mass in equilibrium with the Sun, it can have no possible causal influence on the surface temperature.

There’s nothing special about a radiant equilibrium at 10km anyway. If the atmosphere was not in radiant equilibrium at all altitudes, the matter in those parts of the atmosphere not in equilibrium would heat or cool without bound.

The bottom line is that you can’t use the same model for Earth, whose atmosphere is chaotically self organized by clouds and Venus, where clouds are static and more like Earth’s surface while the dense CO2 between the clouds and the solid surface below is more like Earth’s ocean. The Venusian solid surface is then as decoupled from the Sun as the Earth solid surface beneath the deep ocean.

Reply to  Andy May
January 19, 2021 6:54 am

“The pressure gradient (or gravity) sets the lapse rate.“

Lapse rate is – g/Cp

Gravity which is does not change does not determine lapse rate. Specific heat (Cp) of dry air does.

I don’t know the updated Cp of dry air now that we are at 415 ppm CO2 but it is possible that the change offsets the any change in OLR.

Reply to  Andy May
January 19, 2021 3:11 pm

Andy, I think your declarative sentence, which I quoted, was inaccurate. In fact your quote from Poyet’s book proves my point.

He shows the wet lapse rate of 6.5 C /km and the dry lapse rate is 9.8 C/km. Even though gravity stayed the same the Cp of dry air is different than saturated air so you will end up with a different surface temperature.

Ben Wouters
Reply to  Andy May
January 23, 2021 10:55 am

Seems both of you are misunderstanding the Dry Adiabatic Lapse Rate
– g/Cp = ~9,8 K/km
This is the change in temperature of rising (or sinking) air that moves vertically in an atmosphere that is in Hydrostatic Equilibrium against gravity.
The Environmental (normal) lapse rate (~6,5 K/km on average) is determined by the HE and many other factors (eg warmer/colder air moving in horizontally etc etc.)

Reply to  co2isnotevil
January 18, 2021 3:21 pm

Don’t forgot the impact of water vapor and its ability affect pressure and heat content.

Jean Parisot
January 18, 2021 2:59 pm

“He also found, as have many others, that high-altitude specific humidity has been falling since the 1950s, especially at the critical altitude where net infrared radiation emissions (OLR) to space begin, above 20,000 feet (6,100 meters or 400 mb). If true, it means higher altitude atmospheric water vapor content is not increasing with surface temperature. This negates a critical assumption in the current climate models.”

I think it’s more important than “a critical assumption”, this interim output disproves the entire theory. Even if we were to dramatically warm, with this dry air the CO2 mechanism would have to be abandoned.

Reply to  Andy May
January 19, 2021 4:54 am

Humidity data is easily available at

Richard M
Reply to  Jean Parisot
January 18, 2021 6:28 pm

This was the key point used by Dr William Gray to refute climate science nonsense. It’s a major negative feedback that completely swamps any other water vapor feedback. The IPPC simply ignores the data.

January 18, 2021 3:00 pm

How come we keep finding scientists not in the 97%. That 3% of dissenters is probably hundreds of thousands of scienstists, I might say.

Reply to  Pauleta
January 19, 2021 3:23 am

What is the definition of the “consensus”? If you ask 97 climate scientists to define the consensus, you might get 97 different answers.

January 18, 2021 3:01 pm

Many people (skeptics and alarmists alike) often recoil at the idea that surface air pressure and convection dominate the Earth’s surface temperature.

The commonly published energy budgets show relatively small amounts of energy transferred upward in the atmosphere due to convection. The problem is that almost all the movement of energy from the equator to the poles is due to atmospheric and oceanic convection.

The Earth’s energy budget would be totally different if not for convection but you wouldn’t know it based on the usually published numbers.

Off topic a bit:
Someone pointed out this two hour interview with Alex Epstein.

Alex Epstein is a philosopher and “energy theorist” whose book The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels cuts against all the conventional wisdom on energy policy and climate change but presents the most persuasive argument I have seen on the issue.

How is it that I hadn’t heard of him?

Last edited 1 month ago by commieBob
Reply to  Andy May
January 18, 2021 3:39 pm


I’ve done a little thought experiment.

The temperature on the Moon is about 400 K on the sunny side and 100 K o the dark side.

Because the Earth has an atmosphere that moves the heat around, there aren’t those extremes of temperature.

Suppose that there is a heavenly body orbiting the sun which has convection so effective that all points on the object are exactly the same temperature. Also assume that, for ease of arithmetic, it is a flat plate. Furthermore assume that it’s just the right size that it’s radiated energy, er = Ta^4.

If our heavenly body didn’t have convection and it behaved like the Moon, it’s daily radiated energy would be: er = 12 x 400^4 + 12 x 100^4 = 308400000000

We can calculate the average temperature required to radiate the same daily energy: Ta = (er / 24)^0.25 = 337 K = 64 C

So, it doesn’t seem necessary to invoke greenhouse gasses to explain the warmth of the Earth. Convection could do the job all by itself. And yes, I do realize that my math is way over-simplified.

Reply to  commieBob
January 18, 2021 4:59 pm

Oh fer crying in the sink. its not it’s … twice!

Alexy Scherbakoff
Reply to  commieBob
January 18, 2021 5:09 pm

The temperatures of the moon surface are due to rotation, not lack of atmosphere. You are implying that the atmosphere heats the surface, rather than the other way around.

Reply to  Alexy Scherbakoff
January 18, 2021 5:42 pm

The temperature at the Earth’s poles is absolutely balmy when compared with the temperature at the Moon’s poles. link

How do you explain that?

Last edited 1 month ago by commieBob
Alexy Scherbakoff
Reply to  commieBob
January 18, 2021 6:26 pm

Rotation. Earth poles receive sunlight annually, continuously for many months. Mars has a rotation similar to Earth and surface temperatures range from 130K to 308K and there is little atmosphere to speak of. Earth temperature ranges from around 184K to 330K. Absolute temperatures for Earth and Mars are different (obviously), but the difference between Min and Max is similar (178K to 146K). The main player is rotation and not an atmosphere.

Reply to  Alexy Scherbakoff
January 18, 2021 6:37 pm

How about Venus?

Alexy Scherbakoff
Reply to  commieBob
January 18, 2021 6:55 pm

Doh! 90 atmospheres pressure. I am sure 1 cubic metre would have a high heat capacity. That atmosphere is a major player in heat transfer to or from the surface.

mike macray
Reply to  commieBob
January 19, 2021 5:58 am

How about Venus?..

  • According to my slide rule, the solar radiant energy landing on Venus is more than twice that arriving at earth.
  • seems like that alone should explain why it’s much hotter.
Richard M
Reply to  commieBob
January 18, 2021 6:34 pm

CommieBob, you forgot the clouds ;)) All the people who claim the Earth is warmed 32 C assume the albedo would be the same with or without an atmosphere.

Now, in their defense the real Earth really doesn’t get that reflected radiation so it’s not really fair to use it to compute a temperature.

Reply to  Andy May
January 18, 2021 5:16 pm

example energy budget
It’s absolutely true the only way heat eventually leaves the Earth is by radiation. On the other hand, if you ignore how convection moves heat around, your calculation of the surface temperature will be very wrong indeed. I also note that the conventional energy budgets give short shrift to latent heat.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Andy May
January 19, 2021 1:11 pm

Correct me if you think I’m wrong, but I think you are missing one important piece of convection. N2/O2 are heated by conduction along with water. They also participate in convection. As they rise due to translational forces or buoyancy forces they cool adiabatically due to the lapse rate. Adiabatic does not mean isothermal. It only means no heat given/taken. This does supply non-radiative cooling.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Andy May
January 19, 2021 3:31 am

Alex has a new book out now.

Reply to  commieBob
January 18, 2021 4:00 pm

“Many people (skeptics and alarmists alike) often recoil at the idea that surface air pressure and convection dominate the Earth’s surface temperature.

Odd isn’t it.

You would think basic every-day observation of winds etc would show that.

The idea that bulk air transfer CONTROLS the Earth’s atmosphere should be fundamentally OBVIOUS. !!

Last edited 1 month ago by fred250
Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  commieBob
January 19, 2021 3:30 am

here’s Alex Epstein’s YouTube channel:

Tim Gorman
January 18, 2021 3:17 pm

climate is the integral of weather over time”

Which is why I keep advocating for the use of degree-days as a far better proxy for climate than daily temperature midpoints (max-min divided by two is *not* an average of a temperature profile that approaches a sine wave). Degree-days *are* the integral of weather over time, at least insofar as weather does impact the temperature profile on a daily basis.

I simply do not understand why climate scientists refuse to move away from temperature mid-points to degree-days which is far better related to actual climate. I suspect it is because of political agendas. Degree-days simply wouldn’t be as useful in scaring people. Nor do I understand why they don’t move to using enthalpy (heat content) instead of temperature. Temperature by itself is a poor, poor proxy for heat content since it ignores things like humidity, pressure, etc. It’s why a specific temperature in Denver “feels” different from the same specific temperature in Florida – different heat content in the two locations. Using temperature by itself totally misses this. Temperature alone, especially temperature *anomalies*, would seem to indicate the two locations have the exact same climate – but they don’t.

Reply to  Tim Gorman
January 18, 2021 6:37 pm

Why use “mid-points” instead of degree-days? Because the data on max and min temperatures are available at some points on earth for a century or more. Properly “averaged” and “adjusted” these data can produce very scary results. The data for integral “degree-days” is much rarer and cannot evoke sufficient terror.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  hiskorr
January 18, 2021 7:12 pm


So the answer is to use bad data just because it is old while ignoring good data? That’s an argumentative fallacy known as Argument to Age.

There is no way to properly “average” and “adjust” temperature data to tell you anything about the climate, especially the “global climate” which doesn’t exist anyway!

There are lots of stations around the globe whose data can be used going back 20 years or more to calculate degree-days. The USCRN provides 5 minute data I believe starting in 2006. That data can be used as a validation against the climate models and temperature data sets. If the climate models and temperature data sets do not match the trends given by the past 15 to 20 years of degree-day data then something is amiss.

The climate models basically show a linear increasing temperature, e.g. an mx+b equation, especially after ten years out. An extrapolation of most of the temperature data sets does the same. Yet I have checked cooling degree-day data for the past twenty years at stations in various places like Brazil, Siberia, US, China, India, and central Africa. Almost all of them show a downward trend, a direct indication that maximum temperatures around the globe are *not* increasing. If they were increasing the integrals of the temperature profiles would show the cooling degree-days going up. I haven’t done the same for heating degree-days but I will probably do so as I get time.

Degree-days are used by architectural engineers and HVAC engineers all over the world to size heating and cooling equipment for large and small buildings for both the present and the future. These engineers need something that tells them about climate reality, again both for the present and the future, their livelyhood and reputations depend on it. Climate models are basically useless for that purpose.

I agree with you about the “scary” part. It’s part of the psyche of the Bureaucratic Hegemony we live under – scare the people in order to gain more power over them and their lives.

Reply to  Tim Gorman
January 20, 2021 12:56 am

So the answer is to use bad data just because it is old while ignoring good data? That’s an argumentative fallacy known as Argument to Age.”

I think your sarcasm detection skills may need a bit of work 🙂

Reply to  hiskorr
January 18, 2021 7:22 pm

Hey, that’s why we have stats. Need to polish the bad data to make it shine.

Reply to  Pauleta
January 18, 2021 11:57 pm

You can’t polish a turd

January 18, 2021 3:37 pm

For those people overwhelmed by such a huge book, I recommend that you start reading on page 337, until the end. I intended to skim through the book for 10 minutes to get an idea of what was there and then was tempted to started reading at page 337 … until the end. My first impression is the author is a very smart man interested in truth, not money, not attention in the media, not consensus opinions, and he’s certainly not interested in wild guesses about the future climate. I didn’t notice any predictions of when the world would end from climate change.

I recently gave a younger person a summary of the climate change religion:
— The climate was perfect on June 6, 1750 at 3:06pm
— Any changes from that “perfection” are a climate crisis
— The future climate can only get worse than today
— The future climate will be warmer, unless it gets colder
— Which one do you prefer?
Answer: “I prefer warmer”

Reply to  Richard Greene
January 18, 2021 5:03 pm

Yes, that’s possibly a good place to start. I was shocked to learn that the young skeptic Naomi Seibt (sp.?) had been muzzled by the German courts and had to take down YouTube videos questioning AGW.

Reply to  Alastair Brickell
January 18, 2021 5:50 pm

Seems like the high priests in Germany don’t tolerate heresy.

Was the question, is climate science a religion?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Alastair Brickell
January 18, 2021 6:13 pm

It would seem that the Germans have not learned their lesson.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
January 19, 2021 4:07 am

Book burning isn’t far away anymore…

And, what else they didn’t learn:
Germany: Quarantine Violators Will Be Sent To Refugee Camps And Detention Centers“In Germany, refusing to quarantine for suspected COVID-19 exposure could result in forced detainment in a detention center or refuge camp.”

And their new sign to wear will be that:

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Alastair Brickell
January 18, 2021 7:43 pm

Doesn’t matter at this point. YouTube, Facebook, Twitter. They’ll just take down anything they don’t like. They seem to answer to no one now.

January 18, 2021 4:11 pm

So much focus on CO2 gives the impression it has meaning beyond the religion that demonises the gas.

Earth’s temperature is thermostatically controlled and will be where it is now for at least the next millennia until there is an orbital shift that causes glaciation. May even miss the next minimum because the eccentricity is very low.

Look at any tropical ocean and the maximum temperature in open water is 30C to 31C. Three largely separate and disparate oceans yet all manage to have the same maximum surface temperature across large expanses of water. Anyone who thinks that is the result of some delicate radiation balance needs to grow a brain.

Reply to  RickWill
January 18, 2021 4:44 pm

The Western Pacific.

Screen Shot 2021-01-19 at 11.40.41 am.png
Reply to  RickWill
January 18, 2021 4:45 pm

The Tropical Atlantic.

Screen Shot 2021-01-19 at 11.43.18 am.png
Reply to  RickWill
January 18, 2021 4:46 pm

The Indian Ocean.

Screen Shot 2021-01-19 at 11.41.14 am.png
January 18, 2021 4:31 pm

The most significant factors in Earth’s thermostatic control are formation of sea ice to limit ocean heat loss and cloudburst that takes net heat uptake negative above 30C SST.

The attached chart puts the “significant” of CO2 into perspective. Look hard for the red curve. It shows the total assumed heat input for doubling of CO2 applied to the US Standard atmosphere across the entire surface. The other curves are heat rejected, both long wave and short wave from the ocean surface across longitudinal bands for the range of SST.

Note that the heat rejected is approaching 30C asymptotically. That is due to the cloudburst response to rising SST. Net heat input goes negative above 30C in open water; making 30C the maximum apart from isolated locations like the Persian Gulf where the cloudburst cycle is disrupted by the dry air from the north.

Screen Shot 2021-01-17 at 9.05.53 pm.png
Reply to  RickWill
January 18, 2021 4:38 pm

To reasonably model cloudburst above tropical oceans, a climate model would need a vertical resolution of around 100m from 3000m to 9000m. Until they can do that, they are worse than useless because they waste so many resources that could be doing more useful work.

Screen Shot 2021-01-15 at 10.10.11 am.png
January 18, 2021 4:33 pm

What is the ideal temp of earth?….and the ideal CO2 level? How often has the earth been at these ideal levels…at the same time….in the past?

Reply to  T. C. Clark
January 18, 2021 6:02 pm

You need to like the temperature as it is now because that it how it will be for the next millennia or so.

Forest productivity has become a problem in some regions possibly due to increasing CO2. Forest fuel loads need to be better managed.

Reply to  RickWill
January 18, 2021 6:26 pm

You offer no “numbahs? either? There are locations in the Andes mountains along the equator at certain altitudes that offer very stable mild year round temps …I have read….but I am not that obsessed with temp and I am currently having day and night temps about 30 F apart.

Reply to  T. C. Clark
January 19, 2021 4:06 pm

Any temperature that allows plant growth.

Ditto for CO₂.

Which means both temperature and CO₂ have been in their ideal zones for over a half billion years.

Last edited 1 month ago by ATheoK
January 18, 2021 4:42 pm

“Chapter 2 reviews atmospheric physics and the carbon cycle. Here he does an interesting calculation that shows that only 6% of the CO2 entering the atmosphere is from fossil fuels.”
This agrees well with Harde , Salby, and Berry. It is, in my opinion, the most important fact realists should be pushing. If humans don’t change the CO2 content much they can’t make any difference with wind mills.
Andy thanks for the excellent book review. You might consider one on Ed Berry’s Climate Miracle. It is only about as long as one chapter in Poyet’s book but addresses the carbon cycle and IPCC erroneous assumptions.

Richard M
January 18, 2021 6:46 pm

I agree with many of the points attributed to the book. In fact, I’ve used many of them in online debates for the past 15 years.

I don’t agree that air pressure can change the average temperature of the planet. It is essentially a constant over the time periods we are worried about. I will need to look at what is being said.

The adiabatic lapse rate is the reason the surface is warmer but you need to get energy into the atmosphere in order to lift the average radiation height to a point where lapse rate comes into play. This is where atmospheric gases’ radiation absorption is needed.

Richard M
Reply to  Richard M
January 18, 2021 7:40 pm

As I suspected this article will get attacked by this statement …

“the surface temperature does not result from radiative phenomena in thermal infrared but quite simply from atmospheric pressure on Earth as on Venus”

The problem is there is no way to get enough energy into the planet’s atmosphere without “radiative phenomena“. It would simply radiate from the planet’s surface to space. So, basically he has already accepted the radiation is active but then dismisses it.

My own view is that the GHGs work in combination with the water cycle to keep the planet’s temperature within a fairly small range.

In fact, he mentions one of the key feedbacks when he mentions the high altitude water vapor. If the atmosphere absorbs more energy through adding more CO2/CH4, convection is enhanced which carries water higher into the atmosphere. Since that is colder more of the water vapor gets condensed out which is why the specific humidity decreases. With less high altitude water vapor the overall GHE is reduced.

Richard M
Reply to  Andy May
January 19, 2021 6:30 am

Andy, the quote is from page 40 of the paper you presented. From what I can tell so far the paper is very interesting and covers many valid problems with AGW. However, having statements like the one quoted will lead to it being dismissed out of hand.

Tom Abbott
January 18, 2021 7:45 pm

From the article: “If you’re right and you know it, speak your mind. Speak your mind. Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is still the truth.” Mahatma Gandhi”

Exactly so.

Tombstone Gabby
January 18, 2021 7:48 pm

The above book “download” is about 33MB.

Looking at reported weather events in England from 1640 to 1690 I was surprised so see reports of tornados. The Gulf Stream interacting with a cold atmosphere?

The document (1,400 pages) is available

The author covers from 2 AD to 1900 AD. Chinese records make up a significant portion of the report.

sky king
January 18, 2021 9:53 pm

Awesome book! I wish it could be reduced to a bumper sticker that matches the public’s attention span and cognitive abilities.

Peta of Newark
January 18, 2021 9:57 pm

Whatever happened to the idea of Keep It Simple Stupid?
Why are folks explaining this so desperate to race off into irrelevant trivia?
e.g. Oh look, there’s A Squirrel. Squirrels, in the case of Earth’s climate being Mars, Venus, Blackbodies not least

How can A Scientist tell us that Stefan’s Law is non-linear?
OK, when you plot the Stefan thing on a piece of paper or computer it is not A Straight Line but that DOES NOT MEAN is is Non-Linear

‘Linear’ means the thing follows A Line and can be calculated at all points along that line.
Shock Horror, even sine-waves are linear

Things that are = Non-Linear have break-points in them – places where you cannot calculate the output for a given input.
Classically and almost always where you are required to divide-by-zero = Singularities.
Where accelerations or Rates-Of-Change are required to be infinite.

Folks imagine that the freezing and boiling points of water are non-linear = Singularities.
i.e. Something major happens to the water while the temp remains the same.

As regards temperature, yes it is non-linear BUT, temperature is a dimensionless thing so it is perfectly free to be Non-Linear ##

But as far as freezing/boiling water go, in The Real World, no singularity occurs because water is governed by its energy content.
At the freezing/boiling points, no singularity occurs in the energy content.
Water is linear. Stefan is linear.
Thus, Climate is linear. Chaotic yes – non-linear no.

## Hopefully now we see why computers and models will never calculate The Climate while they fixate on Temperature.
Temperature is not a real physical thing so the output of models can never reflect reality.
Its really is that simple.

Andy May: On your website, how the fook is it possible to compose a huge page of explanation on the GHGE, without once, not once, using the word ’emissivity’
Simply incredible.
I know, someone distracted you with a squirrel sighting. Silly me. Silly you.

If you want to get a grasp on the significant and important workings of Earth’s Climate, 3 very simple and utterly basic things are required to be understood.

1) Emissivity. Just as important to Stefan’s Law as the “T-to-the-Power 4” part yet so totally overlooked. Yes Andy May, I’m looking at you!

2) That Earth Climate is determined by the energy content of the major players.
And that’s not difficult – there are only TWO major players. Everything else provides the vehicle or means by which they do what they do.
And one of those players, El Sol is constant so can effectively be disregarded

3) Have a clear grasp of the significant difference(s) between the Troposphere and the Stratosphere.
Again, perfectly simple, There only is one difference.
One is wet, One is dry
And neither of them contain any active squirrels.

No, sorry. Not even CO2, Methane, NOx, Ozone etc etc count as Squirrels – because and especially as the biggest squirrel, CO2 has Zero Emissivity at the temperatures involved.Zero emissivity, zero effect

Don’t allow yourself to be distracted by trifling minutiae.
And we all know who constantly does that. Climate Scientists
The childishness of these ‘people’ is simply epic, because if you don’t allow yourself to be distracted by their self-declared intelligence, you become a denier and the Politics Of The School Playground are employed against you.

Thus: Buy into or build yourself a solid, robust and free-standing (as example) ‘Christmas Tree’ BEFORE you start decorating it with trifling shiny, irrelevant, purposeless baubles.
Such baubles being the squirrels that are = Green House Gases

Last edited 1 month ago by Peta of Newark
Peta of Newark
Reply to  Peta of Newark
January 18, 2021 10:29 pm

I missed one VERY important property of the Baubles didn’t I just?
I’m sure you all saw it, it is 06:23 here right now and only on my first coffee.

[I’m all excited about a Big Phat Load Of Climate that’s due to arrive here shortly, and who wouldn’t be?
Ok ok, nobody except Peasants could get that excited about a drop or two of rain, probably, but that’s me. (Now = ex) peasant]

Yeah, Got the missing property?

Shiny baubles are hideously expensive
(and children love them)

Last edited 1 month ago by Peta of Newark
Chris Nisbet
January 18, 2021 10:09 pm

When I read that weather/climate is ‘chaotic’, I instinctively assume this means unpredictable, and therefore that it’s not possible to model.
I’ve heard from a few sources that weather predictions aided by computers aren’t reliable beyond a few days into the future. It seems to me that they’re often not even that good.
Anyway, does ‘chaotic’ mean the same as ‘not possible to model’, or just that modelling is difficult?

Jay Willis
Reply to  Chris Nisbet
January 19, 2021 1:57 am

Chris, that’s a good question. I’m reminded of a quote from a dutch modeller (apologies I forget the name), “If you make a sufficiently complex model of a river you only have two things you don’t understand: the model and the river”. So yes you can model chaotic systems but your predictions derived from those models are not useful.

Christopher Nisbet
Reply to  Andy May
January 19, 2021 12:11 pm

Thanks. I suppose that climate modellers believe that this chaotic behaviour in the climate doesn’t become dominant for a century or so, given that they’re predicting global temperatures to within some smallish range over that period of time.
A simple guy like me instinctively has my doubts about their levels of confidence.

John Schäfer
January 18, 2021 10:16 pm

About CO2 in the athmosphere: there is Connolly 2014 study Balloons in the air. Data from weather Balloons, satellites and ground stations, which is a real empiric study in the Atmosphere. Result: CO2 has no role! Check it out Connolly, climate warming solved. Still indeniable!

January 19, 2021 3:42 am

This is the tricky bit…

Neither of these statements fit the Mauna Loa CO2 observations. Using Poyet’s calculations, the ratio of 13C to 12C has declined by 7 ‰. The above statements would require a drop of 13 ‰ or more. Hermann Harde came to the same conclusion in 2019 (Harde, 2019). He examined the components of the IPCC calculations and concluded that humans are not the primary cause of the recent increase in CO2, the dominant cause is recent warming. Harde shows that human fossil fuel emissions contributed no more than 17 ppm (15%) of the estimated CO2 increase of 113 ppm since 1750. As Poyet says, the IPCC calculation is both inaccurate and deceptive.

The human contribution to the annual sources could be as low as 3% but we have moved something like 550 GtC worth of carbon from the geological carbon cycle into the active carbon cycle. We’ve increased the total volume of CO2 being exchanged between the oceans, biosphere and atmosphere. We don’t know how long it takes for CO2 to go back into the geological cycle. The IPPC put it at 100’s of thousands of years. It could be just a few hundred or tens of years. We also don’t understand the natural components of the cycle to calculate a true material balance.

Without knowing all of the variables, it’s not possible to calculate what the d13C should be.

Reply to  Andy May
January 19, 2021 7:00 am

CDIAC has it at 468 GtC since 1700. 550 was the number in my head for some reason.

I agree that the sensitivity is low, probably 1 C (+/-0.5).

By increasing the total pool of CO2 being exchanged, we’ve caused much of the rise in atmospheric CO2, even if only 15% of the physical molecules currently in the air came directly from fossil fuel combustion. I don’t think an accurate material balance is possible because we don’t know the natural components, reservoirs and exchange rates in sufficient detail.

d13C isn’t particularly diagnostic (either way) because plants preferentially take up 12C.

Reply to  David Middleton
January 20, 2021 11:34 am

I think the point Poyet makes regarding C13 is that the residence time is somewhere between C12 and C14, since C14 is even less preferred than C13. He uses it as a piece of evidence in his claim that residence time in the atmosphere is approximately 5 years.

Honestly, I’m as much interested in this discussion as in any of the other points, since I’ve seen very little actual evaluation of the claim that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is mostly anthropogenic. Most seem to simply accept it. But maybe that’s because, as with so many other things, all the serious discussion happened a long time ago, and all the “new” arguments are just re-hashing the same points settled previously. Idk.

Anders Rasmusson
Reply to  Andy May
January 19, 2021 8:54 am

Andy May : “….. fossil fuel emissions since 1900 are 428 GtC, that should be fairly accurate. That is less than natural sources emit in one year (450 GtC) ……”

Yes, the natural CO2 flow through the atmosphere is very big, not fully known and fluctuate a lot resulting in the atmospheric CO2 concentration fluctuations on top of the steady increase.

The CO2 balance for the atmosphere verifies though, from the Mauna Loa measurements, that there is a net transfer from the atmosphere to the land and oceans, because the anthropogenic CO2 flow have been, and is, bigger than the accumulated CO2 in the atmosphere.

Kind regards
Anders Rasmusson

Reply to  Anders Rasmusson
January 19, 2021 9:59 am

Assuming this is correct…

1 ppm by volume of atmosphere CO2 = 2.13 Gt C

The total emissions equal 1.65x the rise in atmospheric CO2.

ppm GtC
2020 410 2.13 873
1700 277 2.13 590
delta 133 283
Emissions 220 468

Total emissions are from CDIAC. 1700 CO2 is from Law Dome.

Anders Rasmusson
Reply to  David Middleton
January 19, 2021 10:19 am

….. correct, thanks.

/ Anders

Reply to  Andy May
January 20, 2021 1:56 am

The recent work by Koutsoyoannis showed that from recent data, temperature causes CO2 not the other way round.

The clearance of CO2 from the atmosphere has a 16 year half life as shown from the bomb tests. That is where the science on CO2 clearance ends. Everything added to that is moonshine. The disastrists can’t cope with a short half life since it means that the CO2 problem fixes itself quickly when fossil fuels run out. It needs to be more dire and more long term than that thus cyclical contrivances to extend CO2’s life in the atmosphere to almost infinity. What religious use is a Satan who dies?

Jim Ross
Reply to  David Middleton
January 21, 2021 8:50 am

Once you realize that all of the additional atmospheric CO2 since 1750 (or thereabouts) has had a constant net 13C/12C ratio, it’s very easy to calculate what the atmospheric δ13C “should be”.
There are a number of ways to demonstrate this point, but here is just one example that is easy for readers to cross-check. Assuming, based on ice core data, that the appropriate values for atmospheric CO2 and δ13C in 1750 are 280 ppmv and -6.4 respectively, it is possible to determine the level of atmospheric δ13C for any future time simply from the current atmospheric CO2 level and the assumption of a constant δ13C of -13 per mil for the additional CO2. Note: the following measured values are from Scripps CO2 program ( for the South Pole, with the seasonal cycle removed (by Scripps).
In January 1980, atmospheric CO2 was 336 ppmv. From that, I calculate that atmospheric δ13C would be -7.50 per mil. Scripps measure it as -7.50 per mil.
In January 2000, atmospheric CO2 was 367 ppmv. From that, I calculate that atmospheric δ13C would be -7.96 per mil. Scripps measure it as -8.00 per mil.
In January 2019, atmospheric CO2 was 406 ppmv. From that, I calculate that atmospheric δ13C would be -8.45 per mil. Scripps measure it as -8.44 per mil.
Here is the calculation for 2019: (280*-6.4 + (406-280)*-13)/406 = -8.45 per mil.

Julian Flood
January 19, 2021 4:21 am

Surely the oceans dominate carbon fixation and carbon dioxide emissions. Other effects — for example, are pan evaporation rates still falling worldwide? — cannot match the sheer scale of increased C13 pull down* if diatoms with their C4-like fixation process become more abundant. Mass plankton die-offs with their lipid release suppressing wave action and thus salt CCNs will stop stratocumulus formation over huge areas of the ocean with obvious effects on warming.

Marine ecology with particular emphasis on plankton studies should be given a huge increase in funding and importance.

*Explains the light C isotope “signal” in the atmosphere.

Stephen Philbrick
January 19, 2021 8:10 am

Kudos for the extensive review.

January 20, 2021 1:43 am

This new e-book by Patrice Poyet is excellent, thanks for the thorough and helpful review.
The book beings a much needed fresh look at climate from scientific principles only, without prior agendas of CO2 or even solar cycles. Poyet boldly ignores taboos from many directions, such as on gravity and density (we’re allowed to believe in gravity again!), Miskolczi’s work etc. I hadn’t realised Miskolczi’s position was so close to that of Lindzen.

This book speaks with scientific authority which will not be diminished by establishment-alarmist cries of “it’s wrong because it’s wrong”.

January 20, 2021 11:14 am

I love omnibus style reviews of the science, such as this. Last year on the recommendation of Judith Curry, I read through the American Physics Society’s statement on climate change. This was a 600+ page transcript of day long conference with presentations, questions, rebuttals and etc. Was really good.

I’m only 30 odd pages into this, but I’d say that so far it’s great. Money quote so far,

“It’s not a geochemical discussion any longer here that prevails, it’s the realm of cognitive psychology filled with cognitive dissonances and confirmation bias that prevent even clever people to depart from dogmatic self-assurance and self-reassuring beliefs.”

<<page 32, last sentence>>

Reply to  ripshin
January 20, 2021 2:34 pm

How do you think that the intelligensia of the world’s wealthiest nations defended creeds of religious theology and irrational creation myths of many kinds, for millenia. They were no less intelligent than people today.

%d bloggers like this: