What climate science tells us, what it doesn’t & why it matters

From The GWPF

Date: 18/04/21

Holman W. Jenkins, Jr., The Wall Street Journal

After a stint at the Obama Energy Department, Steven Koonin reclaims the science of a warming planet from the propaganda peddlers.

Barack Obama is one of many who have declared an “epistemological crisis,” in which our society is losing its handle on something called truth.

Thus an interesting experiment will be his and other Democrats’ response to a book by Steven Koonin, who was chief scientist of the Obama Energy Department. Mr. Koonin argues not against current climate science but that what the media and politicians and activists say about climate science has drifted so far out of touch with the actual science as to be absurdly, demonstrably false.

This is not an altogether innocent drifting, he points out in a videoconference interview from his home in Cold Spring, N.Y. In 2019 a report by the presidents of the National Academies of Sciences claimed the “magnitude and frequency of certain extreme events are increasing.” The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is deemed to compile the best science, says all such claims should be treated with “low confidence.”

In 2017 the U.S. government’s Climate Science Special Report claimed that, in the lower 48 states, the “number of high temperature records set in the past two decades far exceeds the number of low temperature records.” On closer inspection, that’s because there’s been no increase in the rate of new record highs since 1900, only a decline in the number of new lows.

Mr. Koonin, 69, and I are of one mind on 2018’s U.S. Fourth National Climate Assessment, issued in Donald Trump’s second year, which relied on such overegged worst-case emissions and temperature projections that even climate activists were abashed (a revolt continues to this day). “The report was written more to persuade than to inform,” he says. “It masquerades as objective science but was written as—all right, I’ll use the word—propaganda.”

Mr. Koonin is a Brooklyn-born math whiz and theoretical physicist, a product of New York’s selective Stuyvesant High School. His parents, with less than a year of college between them, nevertheless intuited in 1968 exactly how to handle an unusually talented and motivated youngster: You want to go cross the country to Caltech at age 16? “Whatever you think is right, go ahead,” they told him. “I wanted to know how the world works,” Mr. Koonin says now. “I wanted to do physics since I was 6 years old, when I didn’t know it was called physics.”

He would teach at Caltech for nearly three decades, serving as provost in charge of setting the scientific agenda for one of the country’s premier scientific institutions. Along the way he opened himself to the world beyond the lab. He was recruited at an early age by the Institute for Defense Analyses, a nonprofit group with Pentagon connections, for what he calls “national security summer camp: meeting generals and people in congress, touring installations, getting out on battleships.” The federal government sought “engagement” with the country’s rising scientist elite. It worked. […]

Mr. Koonin still has a lot of Brooklyn in him: a robust laugh, a gift for expression and for cutting to the heart of any matter. His thoughts seem to be governed by an all-embracing realism. Hence the book coming out next month, “Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters.”

Any reader would benefit from its deft, lucid tour of climate science, the best I’ve seen. His rigorous parsing of the evidence will have you questioning the political class’s compulsion to manufacture certainty where certainty doesn’t exist. You will come to doubt the usefulness of centurylong forecasts claiming to know how 1% shifts in variables will affect a global climate that we don’t understand with anything resembling 1% precision.

His book lands at crucial moment. In its first new assessment of climate science in eight years, the U.N. climate panel—sharer of Al Gore’s Nobel Peace Prize in 2007—will rule anew next year on a conundrum that has not advanced in 40 years: How much warming should we expect from a slightly enhanced greenhouse effect?

The panel is expected to consult 40-plus climate computer simulations—testament to its inability to pick out a single trusted one. Worse, the models have been diverging, not coming together as you might hope. Without tweaking, they don’t even agree on current simulated global average surface temperature—varying by 3 degrees Celsius, three times the observed change over the past century. (If you wonder why the IPCC expresses itself in terms of a temperature “anomaly” above a baseline, it’s because the models produce different baselines.)

Full article here.

4.7 28 votes
Article Rating
140 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Scissor
April 18, 2021 2:11 pm

Reclaiming the science from the propagandists will be more difficult than this article makes it sound.

John Dueker
Reply to  Scissor
April 18, 2021 7:04 pm

Plus unless the book has more information he still thinks co2 is a bad thing and ignores the solar cycles.

Simon
Reply to  Scissor
April 18, 2021 7:22 pm

Reclaiming the science from the propagandists will be more difficult than this article makes it sound.”
It will all the time the planet keeps warming.

Duker
Reply to  Simon
April 18, 2021 10:23 pm

You are thinking the models saying the temperatures will increase are the same thing. They had some extreme climate change ‘during’ the last ice too on a millennial scale…funny that, what happened previously has so much unknown but having climate models makes future predictions much easier. Doesnt help that no one will advance their career by finding out how natural events cause warmings

Last edited 3 months ago by Duker
Simon
Reply to  Duker
April 18, 2021 11:32 pm

Doesnt help that no one will advance their career by finding out how natural events cause warmings”
I think if someone can prove the recent warming is “not” mainly caused by increased CO2 then they would make a shit load of money. I can think of one industry that would throw any amount at them.

Duker
Reply to  Simon
April 18, 2021 11:56 pm

It’s become a theology , where faith has taken over, and child saints proclaim the next coming and an august body has been given infallible status.

fred250
Reply to  Simon
April 19, 2021 1:05 am

Try again, ignorant little simpleton.. you remain EVIDENCE FREE.

1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human released CO2 causation?

Or you could just regurgitate Mills and Boon for the rest of your simplistic irrelevant puerile existence.

Martin Mason
Reply to  Simon
April 19, 2021 1:48 am

The burden of proof is absolutely on the warmists. You have to prove that the very insignificant recent warming is not due to natural cycles as change always has been.

Newminster
Reply to  Martin Mason
April 19, 2021 2:02 am

Koonin also makes the point that the records being set are not “more hot” but “fewer cold” which is translating into a raised average.
If 2° increase is almost entirely the result of increased minima, where is the problem?

Simon
Reply to  Martin Mason
April 20, 2021 1:09 am

The burden of proof is absolutely on the warmists. You have to prove that the very insignificant recent warming is not due to natural cycles as change always has been.”
They have. Natural cycles don’t explain the recent warming.

Peter K
Reply to  Simon
April 19, 2021 3:51 am

There is more money to made by sticking with the ideology rather than telling the truth.

Simon
Reply to  Peter K
April 20, 2021 1:10 am

Not for oil companies there’s not. They would kill to find someone who could prove their product is not warming the planet. But, sadly for everyone they can’t, or they would have.

2hotel9
Reply to  Simon
April 19, 2021 7:05 am

simple, actual people don’t believe the lies you greentards are spewing. By all means keep spewing them, you drive more people to reality the more you lie.

Simon
Reply to  2hotel9
April 20, 2021 1:13 am

Firstly I’m not a greeny. Second the reality is pretty much every scientist on the planet accepts CO2 is warming the planet. They only debate by how much and how much damage will result. If you don’t agree name a single practicing climate scientist who says CO2 is not having a warming effect. You won’t find one.

fred250
Reply to  Simon
April 20, 2021 2:37 am

Second the reality is pretty much every scientist on the planet accepts CO2 is warming the planet.”

.That is a LIE.. but its all you have

You can’t even present any evidence of CO2 warming

You are a sock full of regurgitated BS supported by ZERO actual science.

And no, the AGW apostles and scammers WILL NOT DEBATE the facts.

they are TOO SCARED TO

Come on slimon simpleton…put your non-science where your mouth is…

….or forever proves you are a mentally depraved idiot.

1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human released CO2 causation?

2hotel9
Reply to  Simon
April 20, 2021 7:04 am

Yep, you are a greentard, and no, actual scientists accept no such thing. Thanks for playing”How big An Idiot Can Simple Be!” You won. Bless your little heart.

Simon
Reply to  2hotel9
April 20, 2021 12:10 pm

OK here is your chance, name a scientist that doesn’t accept the warming in part isn’t caused by CO2 created by us. Hell, even the creator of this blog accepts that. So no I’m not the outsider here my friend, you are. And no the earth is not flat and we did land on the moon.
And… I find some of the green policies a bit silly, but I find people like you (who deny the obvious fact that the earth is warming and we are a big part of the cause) even sillier.

2hotel9
Reply to  Simon
April 20, 2021 1:21 pm

Ahhh, look at you! So manly! Put me in my place! Hahahahahahahaha!!!!!! Tell more lies, liar, it is all you got.

Simon
Reply to  2hotel9
April 20, 2021 9:06 pm

Which part is a lie, or is it just anything you don’t understand you consider to be a lie. In that case the world must seem a very dishonest place to you.

2hotel9
Reply to  Simon
April 21, 2021 4:00 am

Everything you say is a lie, or incoherent stupidity. Tell us again how you are not a “green”, that was funny and a lie.

2hotel9
Reply to  Simon
April 20, 2021 1:22 pm

Oh, and yes, you are a greentarded moron.

DrEd
Reply to  Simon
April 19, 2021 4:30 pm

Why was the Medieval Warm Period and the Roman Warm Period hotter than the current warm period? There was no CO2 increase then. Can you answer that SIMPLE question, Simon?? All the evidence shows those periods were world-wide with many, many studies.

Simon
Reply to  DrEd
April 20, 2021 1:15 am

Why was the Medieval Warm Period and the Roman Warm Period hotter than the current warm period? “
Yawn, they weren’t. The evidence says some parts were as warm a today, but that they it was not a global events. Sorry, but being ill informed is not a virtue. Read the first paragraph
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period#Globally

fred250
Reply to  Simon
April 20, 2021 2:43 am

“they weren’t”

And simpleton slimon goes into full on CLIMATE DENIAL mode.

Sorry mindless muppet…..,

“the scientific evidence” show conclusively that the MWP was warmer than now basically EVERYWHERE.

…and that the RWP was warmer than the MWP

Only a scientific nonce cites wikipeedia on climate science.. it is CORRUPTED as the AGW data.

comment image

comment image

comment image

fred250
Reply to  Simon
April 20, 2021 2:44 am

comment image

comment image

comment image

fred250
Reply to  Simon
April 20, 2021 2:47 am

comment image

comment image

comment image

.
Why mark yourself as a scientifically illiterate fool and DENIER with every moronic post you make, simpleton slimon.

2hotel9
Reply to  Simon
April 20, 2021 7:05 am

And now you are trying to win round two when everyone else has already left the playing field. No extra points.

Graemethecat
Reply to  Simon
April 18, 2021 11:34 pm

Wrong, as always.

With the AMO and the PDO in a cooling phase plus a quiet Sun the Earth is now cooling.

Simon
Reply to  Graemethecat
April 20, 2021 1:16 am

Cooling? WTF. Which data set are you looking at? Corn flakes packets don’t count.

fred250
Reply to  Simon
April 20, 2021 2:49 am

Been cooling since the last El Nino, dumbo simon simpleton.

As you say, your conrnflake box data doesn’t matter.

2hotel9
Reply to  Simon
April 20, 2021 7:06 am

He is looking at reality, not the fantastical unicorn fart world you exist in.

fred250
Reply to  Simon
April 19, 2021 1:03 am

Warming ONLY at El Nino events

with ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE OF HUMAN CAUSATION.

That’s what you mean isn’t it, simpleton !

If you didn’t have a thermometer, no-one would even notice the slight but HIGHLY BENEFICIAL WARMING since the LIA, coldest period in 10,000 years

STOP DENYING CLIMATE CHANGE, simple simon.

ResourceGuy
April 18, 2021 2:20 pm

What is the value to the Party from admitting that well after the fact? I would say about $100 million in Party donations, volunteers, and endorsements. Isn’t that right Barry?

Serge Wright
April 18, 2021 2:47 pm

Climate science has never been about the science. It’s only ever been about replacing western democracy with Marxism. Anyone that dares to point out the flaws in the science quickly becomes a target of the Marxist hate machine.

griff
Reply to  Serge Wright
April 19, 2021 3:21 am

That’s utter nonsense.

Jeffery P
Reply to  griff
April 19, 2021 6:07 am

I can only assume your reply is satire. Listen to the people telling us we are in a climate emergency. They openly admit a globalist, socialist government is the goal. Not the solution mind you, but the goal.

fred250
Reply to  griff
April 19, 2021 2:46 pm

griff with yet another self-titled non-comment

You are like a demented wack-a-mole griff-bot.

Rud Istvan
April 18, 2021 2:49 pm

Main title is Unsettled. Release data is April 27. Can be preordered at Amazon Kindle.

Oldseadog
Reply to  Rud Istvan
April 19, 2021 2:40 am

Aw, jings, can we not get away from Amazon and be able to buy from a bookshop, even if it costa a bit more?

Oldseadog
Reply to  Oldseadog
April 19, 2021 3:10 am

costs not costa.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Oldseadog
April 19, 2021 6:07 am

Depends on if you’re Italian or not.

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  Oldseadog
April 19, 2021 4:49 am

I have been trying to get away from Amazon by going other routes. Sometimes one can order direct from the publisher. I am all for the idea of supporting a local bookshop but there are few that are “real” bookshops with a single owner who loves reading and conversing with customers.

TonyG
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
April 19, 2021 8:50 am

Closest I know of would be Barnes & Noble. There’s also Books-a-million. Both at least US, don’t know about international. Independent NEW bookstores do appear to be mostly gone. Closest to what you describe would be used bookstores.

Anyone know: Is the Tattered Cover in Denver still around?

Jeffery P
Reply to  Oldseadog
April 19, 2021 6:09 am

Not where I live. There may be a book store within an hour’s drive, I’m not sure. Sure, I would rather buy from anywhere but Amazon, but they sucked me in with a great Kindle reader that works in bright sunlight.

Curious George
April 18, 2021 3:03 pm

Carthage must be Destroyed.

I mean The New York Times, The Washington Post, The CNN, and more.

Al Miller
April 18, 2021 3:03 pm

There need to be a lot more scientists (actual scientists) who are ready to stand up and defend their profession from the propanaganda. It’s great to hear another one one who does have a spine though. The real problem lies with the smearing of truth tellers and of course especially those younger ones who need to earn a living. Having said that selling out isn’t much of a living…

starzmom
Reply to  Al Miller
April 18, 2021 4:03 pm

You may have noticed this man is at retirement age–he can afford to stand up and speak out. Anybody who wants to remain employed–whether they are in academia or industry or journalism or any other job–needs to keep quiet. And it is only getting worse.

Mr.
Reply to  starzmom
April 18, 2021 5:12 pm

Nailed it, starzmom.

OweninGA
Reply to  starzmom
April 18, 2021 5:45 pm

That is the main reason I don’t use my name. Academia is the origin of cancel culture.

starzmom
Reply to  OweninGA
April 18, 2021 5:58 pm

Me neither. Not in academia, but in a very liberal profession.

fred250
Reply to  OweninGA
April 19, 2021 3:16 am

ditto !

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  fred250
April 19, 2021 3:42 am

But, just suggesting, if more of you used your real names- that might help, no?

Steve Case
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
April 19, 2021 7:02 am

I use my name because I want credit for what I say. It helps to avoid the trap of name-calling and profanities. I do say “Bull Shit” because the meaning of that term is pretty well understood.

Steve Case
Reply to  starzmom
April 19, 2021 6:05 am

Anybody who wants to remain employed–whether they are in academia or industry or journalism or any other job–needs to keep quiet

You can add Investors to the list. I just got a news letter from Merrill Lynch touting Green Hydrogen. The letter says, “Green Hydrogen Could Fuel Our Future This source of renewable energy could help solve the climate crisis—and present opportunities for investors.

I’d like to tell my particular Merrill Lynch representatives that I don’t enjoy being advised to invest in heavily subsidized ventures that will declare bankruptcy as soon as the subsidies terminated. I’d like to tell them that there is not a climate crisis. But as Starzmom has pointed out I’ll probably keep my mouth shut.

Last edited 3 months ago by Steve Case
Steve Case
Reply to  starzmom
April 19, 2021 6:10 am

“Anybody who wants to remain employed–whether they are in academia or industry or journalism or any other job–needs to keep quiet”

You can add Investors to the list. I just got a news letter from Merrill Lynch touting Green Hydrogen. The letter says, “Green Hydrogen Could Fuel Our Future This source of renewable energy could help solve the climate crisis—and present opportunities for investors.

I’d like to tell my particular Merrill Lynch representatives that I don’t enjoy being advised to invest in heavily subsidized ventures that will declare bankruptcy as soon as the subsidies terminated. I’d like to tell them that there is not a climate crisis. But as Starzmom has pointed out I’ll probably keep my mouth shut.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Steve Case
April 19, 2021 11:01 am

You don’t need to tell them anything. Just move your account out of Merrill Lynch / Bank of America and save on fees.

fred250
April 18, 2021 3:04 pm

Anyone have a link to the video interview.

Should be included in the post I think.

fred250
Reply to  Charles Rotter
April 18, 2021 4:25 pm

Yep, that’s the fella ! 🙂

Steve Case
Reply to  Charles Rotter
April 19, 2021 8:02 am

Thanks for the link.

Toward the end the short discussion on natural gas/methane didn’t cover its role as a greenhouse gas. The IPCC presents us with the Global Warming Potential (GWP) numbers for a big list of aerosols, but the GWP numbers are especially designed to attack methane with the claim in the AR5 that pound for pound methane is 86 times more powerful than CO2 at trapping heat. In the AR6 it will almost certainly be reported to be at least 100 times more powerful than methane.

The “86 times more powerful than CO2” may be a true statistic, but in reality it is total bullshit. Why? Because we are never told how much methane is going to run up global temperatures. Anyone who takes the time to figure it out for themselves comes up with about 0.05°C by 2100.

Around the 10:24 mark the point is made that, “We need a large portfolio of energy sources, we shouldn’t be cutting back, we should have a lot of power to power the economy in the next hundred years…”

In other words closing fossil fuel and nuclear power plants and banning natural gas in residential (that’s going on you know) and other applications is entirely without merit.  

Tom in Toronto
April 18, 2021 3:18 pm

Activists in NGOs, Activist Politicians (to be fair, there is never any other kind), and Activist Journalists.
Together they have duped the public into believing the CAGW lie. The power of propaganda and ‘consensus’ is as strong as it has ever been.
It will be entertaining watching it gradually unwind and collapse under its own lies. Hopefully within the next 10 years and before too much harm has been done.

Philo
Reply to  Tom in Toronto
April 18, 2021 7:00 pm

The Federal Govenrment has run several surveys over the past few years on public concerns from cancer to highways and then some.
I believe the UN has run similar surveys.They generally limit it to the top 20 items.
t”Climate” has turned up generally as dead last at #20. in all of them.

Despite all the propaganda ordinary people have a hard time seeing any unusual changes in “Their” climate. It seems to take quite a lot of hype in the “mainstream” media which many people seem to take with some skepticism. Everything is reported as a big disaster from a deadly tornado to flooded roads to a bunch of thunderstorms.

de

Tom in Toronto
Reply to  Philo
April 18, 2021 8:13 pm

Yet they vote fools like Trudeau into office. Even the most far-right party in Canada has to have a ‘climate plan’ just to be considered in the election. Canadians love virtue-signalling.

Barry Malcolm
Reply to  Tom in Toronto
April 19, 2021 1:40 pm

Tom in Toronto, The Freedom Party of Ontario is much further right of the Conservatives. The People’s Party of Canada is also right of the Conservatives. Voters prefer security over freedom and self-responsibily.

Jeffery P
Reply to  Tom in Toronto
April 19, 2021 6:12 am

I am unsure the majority of the public is duped. Look at how public polls rank climate change as a top priority. Look at how few support the Green New Deal. They majority is skeptical.

By skeptical, I mean both skeptical to CAGW and skeptical to the proposed solutions.

AGW is Not Science
April 18, 2021 3:26 pm

How long do you think it will be before Mr. Koonin has a full blown dossier on “DeSmogBlog” and other such “cancel culture” Eco-Nazi sites?

Zigmaster
April 18, 2021 3:35 pm

The main problem I see is not that the models can’t agree on what future climate data looks like but that there is no real consensus as to what is the historical data. When arbitrary temperature adjustments lowers past temperatures and increases current temperature it seems more about manipulation to fit an agenda than a serious attempt to compare apples with apples. The media claim of worst ever, hottest ever, most ever, strongest ever where these claims can be refuted by searching historical reports just serve to discredit the climate science community. The more scientists/ activists that move from the alarmist side to the sceptical side the sooner we’ll have trust in our scientists. In the meantime increased cost and increased instability of the electricity grid will help to make people question the basis of green policies and the claimed science these policies are based on.

StephenP
Reply to  Zigmaster
April 19, 2021 12:05 am

The latest statements on the BBC World Service are putting the blame on climate change for the mass migrations from Central America to the USA,
Apparently increased floods, droughts and hurricans are destroying the ability to grow enough crops to feed themselves. No mention made of the appalling governance in those countries, and no data provided to justify these assertions.

griff
Reply to  StephenP
April 19, 2021 3:24 am

well migrants frequently cite the 2020 central American hurricanes as a reason for leaving…

Hurricane Iota swept over Central America from 16 November, 2020, causing fatalities and widespread damage. Iota came just 2 weeks after the destructive Hurricane Eta, which affected 4 million people in the region.

Bill Toland
Reply to  griff
April 19, 2021 11:22 am

Griff, you obviously watch the BBC and believe everything they say. The only climate refugees are people who retire from cold countries to live in warm countries. In Scotland, I have never met anyone who retired here from a warmer country. If you believe the BBC, Scotland should be overrun with climate refugees. There are none.

The people trying to get into the USA are clearly economic migrants which they admit when they are asked. Some economic migrants have tried to pass themselves off as climate refugees because they think it will increase their chances of getting into the country of their choice.

Last edited 3 months ago by Bill Toland
Tom Abbott
Reply to  Bill Toland
April 19, 2021 5:35 pm

“The people trying to get into the USA are clearly economic migrants which they admit when they are asked.”

Yes, lots of people looking for free stuff. And Uncle Sucker is inviting them all in.

Any poor person in the world who wishes to better themselves through hard work, or by sponging off U.S. taxpayers would be crazy not to be making a bee-line for the American southern border right now.

Terrorists and Enemy spies are probably taking advantage, too. Why not? Whose going to stop them?

We have a crazy man for president.

Pat from Kerbob
Reply to  griff
April 19, 2021 12:16 pm

Most of those fleeing central america can be traced to failed drug policies and the war on drugs.
Narco states are nasty dangerous places to live.

Yes some hurricanes hit there, as they have hit elsewhere, there has been no increase in hurricane frequency or intensity. If anything it is trending down.

This is not like africa, which is suffering from climate change policy

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Pat from Kerbob
April 19, 2021 7:07 pm

“This is not like africa, which is suffering from climate change policy”

Africa is also suffering from Ebola outbreaks, and I would bet some of the people affected by that would just love to change residences and come to the U.S.

Let’s hope they don’t bring their Ebola with them.

The last I heard, the U.S. had 46 people under quaratine in the U.S. who had traveled from nations in Africa affected by the Ebola disease.

If they come across the southern U.S. border illegally, instead of flying in legally, noone would ever know if they carried Ebola or not.

Ole Joe says we can all just take our chances with Ebola and other diseases, since he doesn’t want to stem the flood of illegal aliens coming across the border. He says the Democrats need those votes, and that takes priority over public health.

fred250
Reply to  griff
April 19, 2021 2:50 pm

The demented wack-a-mole called griff, is trying to pretend the Hurricanes are man-made….. a result of human SUVs’

HILARIOUS. !!

RickWill
Reply to  Zigmaster
April 19, 2021 3:04 am

The model output from the two USA climate prognosticators show both options compared to measured data in the trendless Nino34 region. To get a warming trend, where there can be none, NCEP cools the past absurdly so there could have never been an El Nino in 1998 and GISS warm the present absurdly so the current La Nina is an impossibility.

The most common method by the well known climate prognosticating groups is to cool the past. Of all the models I have looked a in detail, GISS stands alone in warming the present; possibly the most hopeful that tropical warm pools will one day exceed 30C – literally a vain hope beyond the realms of physics on our dear planet Earth.

The only way tropical warm pools can exceed 30C is to alter the physical properties of water. I thought added atmospheric mass would change it but it does not alter the 30C. Clouds form a little higher in the atmosphere but same temperature regulating process.

Slide3.PNG
Tom Abbott
Reply to  RickWill
April 19, 2021 7:24 pm

“Of all the models I have looked a in detail, GISS stands alone in warming the present;”

I think that has something to do with the NASA/NOAA propaganda effort. They had to modify the 21st Century temperature record in order to try to continue the “hotter and hotter” narrative.

GISS cooled 1998, in order to allow them to claim that just about every year in the 21st Century was the “hottest year evah!”. Of course, they could not make this claim if 1998 showed to be just as warm as 2016, which is what the UAH satellite chart shows. NASA can’t claim any “hottest year evah!’s beyond 1998, if they don’t cool 1998 to insignificance.

But we still have the good, ole UAH chart to put the lie to the GISS “hottest year evah!” claims.

Do a Wiki search on “hottest years” and you will see the absurd claims by NASA of one “hottest year evah! after another, the following year being warmer than the last.

But none of those claims hold up if the temperature record is not modified to cool the past as GISS has done.

The year 1998, and 2016 are statistically tied for the “hottest year evah!, in this case meaning the hottest year since the Early Twentieth Century, and all that “hottest year evah!” BS they claim took place between 1998 and 2016 is a distortion of reality and climate change propaganda.

The GISS Keepers of the Data are trying to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes. These deliberate distortions of reality are costing the people of the world $Trillions of dollars in vain, unnecessary efforts to curb CO2 production.

Everyone can see for themselves. The UAH satellite chart:

comment image

RickWill
April 18, 2021 4:09 pm

How much warming should we expect from a slightly enhanced greenhouse effect?

ZERO

Moon has an average surface temperature of 200K. The “water effect” on earth lifts the surface temperature by 87 degrees to 287K.

The :greenhouse effect” is easily shown to be WRONG. As atmospheric water vapour increases, there is a dramatic increase in heat rejected; water vapour in the atmosphere increases cooling; exact opposite of the claimed “greenhouse effect”.

Water_Vapour_Cooling-2.jpg
Curious George
Reply to  RickWill
April 18, 2021 5:51 pm

“The :greenhouse effect” is easily shown to be WRONG.” I have been looking for that easy proof for years. Now I am a believer.

RickWill
Reply to  Curious George
April 18, 2021 7:38 pm

Congratulations – It is a sad reflection on modern education that the “greenhouse effect” has gained such a following of true believers unable to look at the much simpler reality. There is now so much money and egos tide up in maintaining the myth that reality hardly gets a mention.

I am pleased I have provided insight.

davidmhoffer
Reply to  RickWill
April 18, 2021 10:58 pm

Moon has an average surface temperature of 200K. The “water effect” on earth lifts the surface temperature by 87 degrees to 287K.
The :greenhouse effect” is easily shown to be WRONG. 

The “water effect” that lifts surface temperature IS the greenhouse effect. Not to mention that the moon has a different albedo than earth, without GHG’s (inclusive of water vapour) Earth’s temperature would not be 200K, it would be 255K (Stephan-Boltzmann Law) and is raised by GHG’s to 288K, so 33K attributed to the sum of all GHG’s (including water vapour), not the 87 you attribute to “water effect”. Your physics is wrong from the get go, plus you cannot simply rename part of the GHG spectrum “water effect” and define it as not part of the GHE. Most of the GHE is from water vapour.

There’s been a long list of people on this site over many years trying to make the case that the GHE is zero. They’ve mostly come and gone. I ceased debating them long ago, there was as little benefit to debating them as there was to debating “the sky is falling” crowd. But this attempt was far enough off the wall that I cannot stay silent.

The GHE is real, get over it. The debate is about sensitivity not existence.

RickWill
Reply to  davidmhoffer
April 19, 2021 12:41 am

There’s been a long list of people on this site over many years trying to make the case that the GHE is zero. They’ve mostly come and gone. 

Tell me what your version of the “greenhouse effect” is and I can easily prove to you that is belongs in the waste bin. You would lose any debate with me because I understand the process of Earth’s surface temperature regulation.

The tropical; warm pools regulate to 30C. Observed by many and easily verified every day of any year since satellites have monitored the globe:
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/ocean/surface/currents/overlay=sea_surface_temp/orthographic=-301.91,2.48,364/loc=55.718,-2.892
Convective instability catapults water vapour high into the atmosphere to produce reflective cumulus cloud and then cirrus cloud is persistent as the water vapour above freezing solidifies due to OLR emissions above 273K.

Sea water solidifies at -2C to insulate the water below,

End result of the two surface temperature regulating processes, combined with the good water distribution over the globe, is the average surface temperature is the mean of the two extremes – 14C or 57F or 287K .

Once you know the tropical ocean temperature remains trendless over decadal timeframes it is easy to show how silly the results from climate models are. They have to cool the past or warm the present to create a trend where there can be none.

Slide3.PNG
Last edited 3 months ago by RickWill
davidmhoffer
Reply to  RickWill
April 19, 2021 7:47 am

You’re original post started with the supposition that water vapour increases the temperature of the earth, and then claimed it doesn’t. So you’ve debunked your own thesis, all I did was point it out, along with a few other jaw dropping mistakes.

RickWill
Reply to  davidmhoffer
April 19, 2021 4:29 pm

You’re original post started with the supposition that water vapour increases the temperature of the earth, and then claimed it doesn’t. 

You clearly did not read what I wrote.

Liquid water on the surface provides the energy store and is the main heat distribution medium. Solid water on the ocean surface as in sea ice insulates the water below to regulate heat loss. Solid water in the atmosphere over warm oceans regulate the heat input. Net heat input goes to zero over tropical warm pools at 30C.

There is no “greenhouse effect” and CO2 cannot alter earths surface temperature.

The surface temperature achieved on earth is best described as the “water effect”. Without water earth would have a huge surface temperature range with an area average of 200K just like the moon.

Net_EnergyvSST.png
Frank from NoVA
Reply to  RickWill
April 19, 2021 11:23 am

“Convective instability catapults water vapour high into the atmosphere…”

Aren’t radiatively active gases, like water vapor and carbon dioxide, necessary requirements for convective instability?

RickWill
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
April 19, 2021 4:11 pm

Aren’t radiatively active gases, …..

Sure, but that has nothing to do with “greenhouse effect”.

fred250
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
April 20, 2021 2:52 am

CO2 doesn’t affect convection in any significant way at all. (maybe a very slight increase due to a slightly lower specific heat than air as a whole)

H2O does because because its specfic and latent heat can alter the lapse rate considerably.

fred250
Reply to  davidmhoffer
April 19, 2021 1:07 am

“The GHE is real, get over it”

.
Not from CO2 it isn’t.

There is NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE of any warming effect from raised atmospheric CO2
.
GET OVER IT !!

davidmhoffer
Reply to  fred250
April 19, 2021 7:52 am

Actually there’s quite a bit, including several papers reviewed on this site. The question is what order of magnitude are the primary effects, and what are the feedback effects. It is increasingly evident that these are small. But small and don’t exist are two different things.

fred250
Reply to  davidmhoffer
April 19, 2021 2:51 pm

BS. !!! Produce one. !

Last edited 3 months ago by fred250
davidmhoffer
Reply to  fred250
April 19, 2021 3:16 pm

Your tone suggests you will discount out of hand any examples I provide, and that you are too lazy to do your own research. I’ve been active on this site since before climategate, I’ve authored numerous articles, and I’m a well known SKEPTIC who has debated countless alarmists into the dirt (back when they had the temerity to show up here). I debated countless people like yourself also, and neither activity is worth my time.

RickWill
Reply to  davidmhoffer
April 19, 2021 4:15 pm

I’ve authored numerous articles, 

You are taking a leaf from Michael Mann, trying to establish your position of authority on climate.

I do not need to establish my authority because I understand how Earth’s temperature regulating mechanisms work.

Please give you description of the “greenhouse effect” I will easily shred it.

davidmhoffer
Reply to  RickWill
April 19, 2021 5:24 pm

And yet you completely contradicted yourself in your opening paragraph. You’ve already destroyed your own argument so there’s nothing left for me to debunk. Why would I debate someone who already proved themselves wrong and cannot see it (less admit it)?

RickWill
Reply to  davidmhoffer
April 19, 2021 5:50 pm

And yet you completely contradicted yourself in your opening paragraph. 

You clearly did not read what I wrote.

Liquid water on the surface provides the energy store and is the main heat distribution medium. Solid water on the ocean surface as in sea ice insulates the water below to regulate heat loss. Solid water in the atmosphere over warm oceans regulate the heat input. Net heat input goes to zero over tropical warm pools at 30C – per attached.

There is no “greenhouse effect” and CO2 cannot alter earths surface temperature. 

The surface temperature achieved on earth is best described as the “water effect”. Without water earth would have a huge surface temperature range with an area average of 200K just like the moon.

It appears you have no idea what your “greenhouse effect” actually is or afraid to describe something so fragile that it is easily dismantled with solid evidence.

Net_EnergyvSST.png
davidmhoffer
Reply to  RickWill
April 19, 2021 6:28 pm

I did read what you wrote. I quoted it in my first reply to you. Did you read what you wrote?

You contradicted yourself, got the black body temperature of earth completely wrong and then calculated from it a total “water effect” that is also completely wrong. Having demonstrated that you don’t understand the very basics of the physics involved, there’s no point having any discussion with you until you get them right.

RickWill
Reply to  davidmhoffer
April 19, 2021 7:31 pm

You are clearly unwilling to give your version of the “greenhouse effect” so I can dismantle it. You are playing a silly game claiming I stated things that I did not state.

You need to be clear and precise about my numbers you believe I have wrong. That is why you need to give clear and precise numbers for your “greenhouse effect”. It simply does not stand close scrutiny because it is not physics.

If you do not agree that the moon is 200K then give the alternative with reference. If you do not believe earth surfaces averages 287K then give me an alternative with reference.

If you do not believe warm pools regulate to 30C then show one that is not.

It for do not believe that sea ice forms at -2C than show me the data that proves otherwise.

I am able and willing to dismantle your silly “greenhouse effect” myth. But you need to be precise in what it supposed top do so I can show you why it is horribly flawed.

davidmhoffer
Reply to  RickWill
April 19, 2021 9:43 pm

Since you insist RickWill, your thesis is that warm water can’t get past +30 and cold water cannot get below -2 and this proves that there is no GHE. So, if you are correct, there cannot be things like ice ages or hot house earth’s, both of which exist repeatedly in the geological record. Not to mention how warm the ocean can get has nothing to do with what heats it. Not to mention that the ratio of warm area at +30 to cold area at -2 doesn’t have to be static, warming could easily be exhibited by a larger warm area and a smaller cold area which you would have to admit would translate to a warmer average temperature.

I didn’t dispute the temperature of the moon, I pointed out that it is not a good proxy for the temperature of the earth because it had a different albedo. I pointed out that the Stefan-Boltzmann Black Body temperature of earth is 255K, the higher temperature due to a different albedo. I did not dispute the average temperature of the earth being 287 (although I use 288, but sure, I’ll give you the one degree) but that subtracting the temperature of the moon from it gives you a completely wrong number since the albedo is different. And I’ve said that several times in this thread, but you persist in not understanding what albedo is and how the black body temperature of the earth is calculated or what Stefan Boltzmann law is.

All you’ve done is yammer on about how warm water can’t get past +30 and cold water past -2 and this proves the GHE doesn’t exist. The leap in logic is as astounding as your determination to continue to make a fool of yourself.

RickWill
Reply to  davidmhoffer
April 19, 2021 10:26 pm

I pointed out that it is not a good proxy for the temperature of the earth because it had a different albedo. 

Without water, earth would have the same albedo as the moon.

warming could easily be exhibited by a larger warm area and a smaller cold area which you would have to admit would translate to a warmer average temperature.

The sea ice area has not changed and the warm pools are no bigger.

 I pointed out that the Stefan-Boltzmann Black Body temperature of earth is 255K, the higher temperature due to a different albedo. 

The different albedo is due to the presence and distribution of water over the globe. The radiating temperature of 255K sits neatly in the average of the temperature of ice between 220K and 273K whether it is on the surface or 12km above the surface. Most OLR exiting Earth comes from an ice. The result of a water planet.

So, if you are correct, there cannot be things like ice ages or hot house earth’s, both of which exist repeatedly in the geological record. 

It is very clear from inferred historical temperature records that the tropical Atlantic goes cold during glaciation. It becomes energy deficient and reaches a maximum of 26C. Both the Pacific and Indian oceans continue to regulate energy out.

Any more questions on how the temperature regulation actually works?

You still have not given your understanding of your “greenhouse effect” myth so I can dismantle it. Give a simple explanation of how you think it works and I will shred it.

davidmhoffer
Reply to  RickWill
April 19, 2021 10:59 pm

Without water, earth would have the same albedo as the moon.

Oh, so you have a spare earth hanging around that has no water to measure the albedo from? No? The earth DOES have water so we work with the earth we have not with a mythical earth that exists in your imagination.

The sea ice area has not changed and the warm pools are no bigger.

Seriously? The earth has been ice free in the past, yet you claim ice area hasn’t changed. LOL. When earth was in a major ice age only the area close to the equator was ice free. That would be an example of more ice. Yet you claim it hasn’t changed. LOL

The different albedo is due to the presence and distribution of water over the globe.

Ah! So now you admit that the albedo is different. Why it is different is immaterial to an energy balance calculation.

the temperature of ice between 220K and 273K

Your thesis is that it doesn’t get below -2 which would be 271K. Suddenly it is 50 degrees below that, apparently a number plucked out of thin air in order to support your 255 nexus argument.

Most OLR exiting Earth comes from an ice. The result of a water planet.

You are confusing net energy balance with raw radiated energy. Most OLR clearly comes from the tropics:
comment image

It becomes energy deficient and reaches a maximum of 26C. Both the Pacific and Indian oceans continue to regulate energy out.

I see. It stays regulated at +30… until it doesn’t… and so if we accept THIS version of your argument, do you want the average temperature of the earth to remain the same when this happens?

Any more questions on how the temperature regulation actually works?

Nope. I think you’ve made your theory crystal clear. Please remember to denigrate me when accepting your Nobel Prize.

davidmhoffer
Reply to  davidmhoffer
April 19, 2021 11:20 pm

Ooops, forgot to point out that not only does most OLR come from the tropics, it is most heavily concentrated on LAND in the tropics. Not ice.

RickWill
Reply to  davidmhoffer
April 20, 2021 12:45 am

Ooops, forgot to point out that not only does most OLR come from the tropics, it is most heavily concentrated on LAND in the tropics. Not ice.

Most OLR in the tropics comes from ice between 7km and 12km above the ocean and land easily verified:
https://neo.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/view.php?datasetId=CERES_LWFLUX_M
All the white, blue and red in this image is OLR exiting via ice either on the surface or in the atmosphere. The bright yellow is the only portion coming directly from land. Notably the Sahara where there is little cloud present.

The blue region in the tropics is all over ocean surface at least at 300K. The only way it can be below 200W/sq.m is to be coming from ice high in the atmosphere averaging 240K.

You continue to fail to give your version of the “greenhouse effect” myth so I can shred it. Clearly you do not want to expose your myth to public scrutiny. It does not even need be your version just the version you believe in.

Last edited 3 months ago by RickWill
fred250
Reply to  davidmhoffer
April 20, 2021 2:55 am

Oh look and still NOT ONE BIT OF EVIDENCE ..

Just mindless conjecture…

So FUNNY !!

RickWill
Reply to  davidmhoffer
April 20, 2021 1:44 am

From the above it is apparent you do not understand that ice can be present on water and be much cooler on its surface than below. In Arctic Ocean typically 55 degrees C below the water under the ice.

You may not realise it but most of the cloud in the tropics is ice. Any water vapour above 7000m over 300+K water is going to solidify to ice. OLR exiting provides the cooling for the solidification and to recharge the convective potential.

Then there is ice on land. Its temperature can range from close to 273K down to 200K at the south pole.

You can never have ocean WATER surface cooler than -2C. And it only ever gets over 30C briefly before convergence sets in – per the data from the moored buoy at 0N 156W in the Pacific or any other tropical ocean.

Slide1.PNG
fred250
Reply to  davidmhoffer
April 20, 2021 2:58 am

“Black Body temperature of earth is 255K ”

.
At what altitude do you think the Earth is a black body

Certainly the surface isn’t

You FAILED immediately. !!

fred250
Reply to  davidmhoffer
April 20, 2021 2:54 am

ROFLMAO..

noted that you immediately backed away from providing any evidence.

Do you realise how DUMB and COWARDLY you look !!

Jeffery P
Reply to  davidmhoffer
April 19, 2021 6:18 am

The people arguing against the GHE are often positing that since greenhouses don’t work like that, the Green House Effect isn’t real.

It’s real alright. Misnamed but real.

Last edited 3 months ago by Jeffery P
TonyG
Reply to  Jeffery P
April 19, 2021 8:54 am

Probably better called “the blanket effect”

fred250
Reply to  TonyG
April 19, 2021 2:53 pm

ROFLMAO.

NO, the atmosphere DOES NOT ACT LIKE A BLANKET !!

Don’t buy into such scientific NONSENSE. !

A blanket DOES NOT cool the surface when the surface gets warm.

TonyG
Reply to  fred250
April 19, 2021 4:35 pm

Well, tt most certainly does NOT behave like a greenhouse. Do you have a better suggestion?

From everything I’ve read, the atmosphere slows down the dissipation of heat to space (which is what a blanket does) and at the same time distributes the absorbed heat more evenly.

Exactly what am I getting wrong?

davidmhoffer
Reply to  fred250
April 19, 2021 6:31 pm

A blanket DOES NOT cool the surface when the surface gets warm.

Neither does a GHG.

fred250
Reply to  davidmhoffer
April 20, 2021 3:03 am

You really are a ignorant MORON, hoff.

The atmosphere MOST CERTAINLY DOES COOL the surface once it get above the temperature the lapse rate can sustain.

Its called convection..

Seems you know basically NOTHING about how the atmosphere works.

No wonder you GET SUCKED IN by the anti-science of the GHGE. !!

Now, where’s that empirical evidence of warming by CO2 that you have been ducking and weaving around producing.

fred250
Reply to  davidmhoffer
April 20, 2021 3:20 am

“Neither does a GHG.”

.
H2O most certainly DOES COOL THE SURFACE.

Its called “evaporation”….. do try to learn.

Where do you get these “comments from IGNORANCE” from ?

Its not from any knowledge of science or reality, that is for sure

Last edited 3 months ago by fred250
RickWill
Reply to  Jeffery P
April 19, 2021 4:17 pm

Please describe your version of the “greenhouse effect” so I can dismantle if with the abundant evidence from measured data.

yirgach
April 18, 2021 4:11 pm

He is an admirer of Richard Feynman, so +100 for that.
They both grew up in Brooklyn/Queens, but with a 30 year difference.

StephenP
Reply to  yirgach
April 18, 2021 11:56 pm

What a pity Richard Feynman is not alive to bring some sense into these matters.

Victoria arnau
April 18, 2021 5:08 pm

Hmm … The Earth’s Magnetic Poles shifting… and lately ..shifting fast… So , isn’t it possible that the weather patterns have shifted in these past years due to the Earth’s Magnetic Pole shifting??

Philo
Reply to  Victoria arnau
April 18, 2021 7:13 pm

It certainly is a distinct possibility! Magnetic reversals in the magnetic poles have been used for quite some time for geological dating. The Atlantic ocean has a very wide beds of side by side lava flows from various vents over many millenia.- not gigantic volcanoes but large lave flows. The lava on either side of a ocean bottom rift shows long stripes on either side of a rift that can have alternating poles. The magnetic field changes are dated by the age of the rocks they occur in.

Mr.
April 18, 2021 5:21 pm

Climate “science” as it stands today is totally inadequate as a basis for any levels of public policy making.

Continue climate research as an interesting academic exercise by all means, but totally cut any ties between what the “science” is postulating and what policy-makers expend taxpayer $$$s on.

Larry in Texas
Reply to  Mr.
April 18, 2021 7:29 pm

It’s the old thing about science and government – President Eisenhower addressed that in his Farewell Address. It is unwise to allow the machinery of government and public policy-making to fall into the hands of so-called “experts” alone, because these so-called experts look far too much into the abstract world of numbers and figures, while ignoring real world consequences of all kinds.

hiskorr
Reply to  Larry in Texas
April 19, 2021 5:32 am

As exemplified by the “expert” Dr. Fauci!

dk_
April 18, 2021 5:24 pm

“Barack Obama is one of many who have declared an “epistemological crisis,” in which our society is losing its handle on something called truth.”

The same Barack Obama who proclaimed that “science is settled?” Wow, I wonder who he thinks is to blame for the “crisis”? Should we expect a book in part titled “Unsettled” to contradict the former President?

I’m not holding my breath, just my nose.

François Riverin
April 18, 2021 6:03 pm

I came aware of Dr Steeven Koonin when he chaired a meeting for American Physical Society (APS) to discuss the IPCCC AR5 report. It was one of the few live debates beetween leaders of climate dogma and main critics. Mr Koonin did asked very pertinent question to both sides. It was very, very interesting, especially for those who know certain notion of science. Following this meeting, Mr Koonin submitted its report, but resigned from APS because, I guess, he did’nt agree with the final position APS adopted on climate change. Here is the transcript of the meeting. 140108001.SGNGL (aps.org)

Chris Hanley
April 18, 2021 6:11 pm

While not suggesting some counterfactual alternative possibility, climate change™ alarmism started with Hansen’s 1974 computer model, has been maintained by computer climate models since and would not exist without them (IMO).

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Chris Hanley
April 18, 2021 8:10 pm

Another way to look at it: powerful digital computers were developed in the nick of time to save mankind from itself, I don’t buy it.

RickWill
Reply to  Chris Hanley
April 19, 2021 1:25 am

I have had replies from CSIRO and Hadley Centre on the poor performance of their climate models in the Nino34 region.

The Nino34 region is important for global weather and well monitored for a long time. The best data is the NOAA/NCEP optimally interpolate temperature record combining the moored buoys readings interpolated with satellite data. This “satellite” record is basically the same as the moored buoys for the Nino34 region.

Both climate prognosticating groups replied that their models are middle of the road. They do not produce unusual results. They do not care what the real temperature is as long as the models are in reasonable agreement.

The attached chart shows the absurdity of models – showing a warming trend where there can be none. The UK groups have cooled the past to the point that there could have never been the 1998 El Nino – the region was simply too cold in the model world.

Slide2.PNG
Last edited 3 months ago by RickWill
Rud Istvan
April 18, 2021 7:06 pm

i tried but somehow failed to respond before. It was experimentally shown in 1859 was among the GHG. ‘Proving otherwise is a fools errand. The issues are how much, how soon. These unattributted graphs contradict the former, and contribute nothing to the latter. Put up or shut up.

RickWill
Reply to  Rud Istvan
April 19, 2021 12:45 am

It was experimentally shown in 1859 was among the GHG.

That sentence does not make sense to me! Can you elaborate?

Doonman
April 18, 2021 7:07 pm

Propagandists always have an agenda. That’s why they bother doing it at all. Most people want to lead their lives and be left alone. Propagandists always tell you you can’t do that because of some cause. That’s your first clue. You don’t need any others.

Walter Sobchak
April 18, 2021 8:07 pm

If you are interested in Reading Koonin’s book: Amazon has a deal for you:

Before the books official release on May 4, they will sell you a Kindle edition for $8.49.
After May 4 the Kindle price will be: $24.95 and the paper version will be $24.95 also.
This is a saving of $16.46 (66%).

If you buy it now, it will be auto-delivered to your Kindle on May 4, 2021.

I couldn’t resist.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B08JQKQGD5/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_tkin_p1_i0

Matthew Sykes
April 18, 2021 11:09 pm

that’s because there’s been no increase in the rate of new record highs since 1900, only a decline in the number of new lows.”

Global Less Colding is not the same as Global Warming of course….

fred250
Reply to  Matthew Sykes
April 19, 2021 1:08 am

Urban effects cause less cold records. Do try to keep up.

griff
Reply to  fred250
April 19, 2021 3:25 am

No. Berkley Earth’s detailed assessment proved that assertion false

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  griff
April 19, 2021 11:12 am

Are you a denier of the UHIE?

fred250
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
April 19, 2021 2:56 pm

griff is a DENIER of the deepest AGW cult order.

FACTS mean absolutely NOTHING to it.!

fred250
Reply to  griff
April 19, 2021 2:55 pm

Berkeley did EVERYTHING THEY COULD to dismiss urban warming.

Their methodology was COMPLETE FLAWED.

Only a complete MORON would think that Urban heat doesn’t affect urban thermometers. !

Joseph Zorzin
April 19, 2021 3:36 am

Meanwhile, according to the Washington Post, “White House removes scientist picked by Trump official to lead key climate report”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/white-house-removes-scientist-picked-by-trump-official-to-lead-key-climate-report/ar-BB1fN7vJ

“White House officials have removed Betsy Weatherhead, an experienced atmospheric scientist tapped by a Trump appointee to oversee the U.S. government’s definitive report on the effects of climate change, from her position.”

cool name for a climate scientist!

Bruce Cobb
April 19, 2021 6:17 am

The trouble with the lukewarmist stance is that it attempts to appear rational by waving “the science” in our faces. But, Eeven when you strip out the Alarmism, you are still left with bad science, which essentially isn’t science at all. I doubt Mr. Koonin has actually dug down into what he calls “the science” of manmade warming, because he also has an agenda, even if it doesn’t include Alarmism.

2hotel9
April 19, 2021 7:08 am

“The panel is expected to consult 40-plus climate computer simulations” So they have made the decision, now they simply look for window dressing to hide it behind.

This book may sway a small number of people, the environista hardcore will call him a traitor and destroy his career. It is what they always do. Just ask Patrick Moore.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  2hotel9
April 19, 2021 12:38 pm

Why do they need 40 different computer simulations, when just one (correct) program would suffice? And since none of them produce exactly the same results, how can you even begin to decide which one is correct?

2hotel9
Reply to  Paul Penrose
April 20, 2021 6:47 am

None of them are correct. That is their goal, flood media with lies and distortions and obfuscation. That is all that has been done for 40 years.

Yooper
April 26, 2021 4:47 am
%d bloggers like this: