Why Aren’t Journalists and Politicians More Sceptical About the ‘Net Zero’ Policy, Given that it’s Based on the Outputs of Unreliable Models?

From THE DAILY SCEPTIC

By Chris Morrison

We’re publishing a guest post on the eve of COP26 by journalist Chris Morrison that asks why journalists and politicians are so willing to accept at face value a scientific hypothesis that relies on the outputs of climate models, given that the track record of those models in predicting the future has so far proved to be very poor?

Delegates gathering in Glasgow for COP26 to try to stop the climate heating up face the rather inconvenient truth that the average temperature in Scotland hasn’t moved for about 15 years. Indeed IPCC members might wish to cast a new hockey temperature stick. With the handle now stretched along the horizontal, rather than the vertical, it can replace the previous climate mascot – long gone after some unseemly disputes over the surprise abolition of the medieval warming period and the subsequent mini ice age.

The delegates plan to stay for two weeks. One must hope they have packed warm clothing. For years, average November temperatures in Scotland have been dropping like a stone. It’s so bad that temperatures are falling to levels last seen in the ‘90s – the 1890s.

These trends are not confined to Scotland. Met Office figures show a similar pattern for the U.K. In fact, the 2010s were colder across the U.K. than the 2000s – a fall in average temperature from 9.3C to 9.17C, again according to official Met Office figures. On a global level, both highly accurate satellite measurements and surface measurements show that there has been no warming for seven years – and counting.

But of course the science that states humans are causing all or most global warming is ‘settled’. But of course it isn’t. The suggestion is an unproven scientific hypothesis based on the output of climate models that over a 30-year period have yet to record an accurate forecast among them. The vast majority greatly over-estimate global warming, yet are routinely presented as evidence for a hard green agenda that says the matter and science is beyond debate. The latest IPCC ‘code red’ report relies on yet more soaring model forecasts, that can stretch to 6C warming, while anyone commenting on the current position has for 20 years had to keep to just 1.1C warming since the early 1800s.

As they don’t say in the climate modelling business – ‘Garbage In, Gospel Out’.

Sceptics of the hypothesis are routinely traduced as ‘deniers’, although quite where the equivalence is between denying the proven fact of the Nazi holocaust and questioning fanciful climate model predictions is hard to see.

Of course the flatlining temperature should be well known to agenda-driven journalists, politicians, activists and academics, hence the recent move from global warming to Climate Crisis, then Climate Emergency and now Climate Breakdown. To back up these emotional claims, the emphasis has turned to ‘extreme’ weather – what we used to call bad weather. Heat, cold, rain or drought, everyone is a winner. Of course, cherry picking individual weather events and blaming it on long term changes in the climate is about as unscientific as you can get and not a scintilla of credible proof has yet been produced to back up the claims.

Almost daily, the headlines are filled with news from the Met Office’s gauge at Heathrow airport where record temperatures are to be found, helped by acres of concrete and black tarmac and the warm breezes from jet engines and numerous industrial aircon units. In 2019 the BBC highlighted one ‘record’ high temperature in one day in Antarctica and splashed it across all of its media outlets. The recent news that the South Pole had its coldest six month winter since records began was ignored. One-off event good, longer term trends bad.

If your correspondent thought that the world faced an existential threat from burning previous dead plant and animal matter, he would be first in the queue to super-glue his bits to the M25. He might even be tempted to fly half way across the world and lecture the adoring crowds from a pink boat parked in Oxford Circus, in the manner of Dame Emma ‘First Class’ Thompson. But to make that informed choice he would need to be aware of the recent work of the noted atmospheric scientist Professor William Happer, emeritus Professor of Physics at Princeton, who argued that the heating properties of CO2 fall as more is placed in the atmosphere. The work is complex and it talks of the ‘forcing’ ability of CO2 and water vapour (a much more plentiful and abundant greenhouse gas) becoming ‘saturated’ at current levels. Professor Happer also argues that the world is emerging from a period of denudation of C02 and needs more, particularly if the planet is to continue greening – up 14% in the last 30 years. Numerous scientists agree with this last point.

Happer is a renowned authority on radiation physics and his conclusions may be right, or they may be wrong. They certainly offer some explanation as to why C02 levels were 10 times higher when dinosaurs the size of London buses roamed the world 100 million years ago. The temperature was a little higher and life in all forms was abundant.

But Happer is ignored. In 2006 the BBC met in secret conclave and decided to stop covering sceptical climate science. In 2018 the Guardian published a letter signed by numerous green activists such as Caroline Lucas and George Monbiot stating they would no longer “lend their credibility” by debating climate science scepticism. Presumably they will not be lending their credibility to Professor Antonio Zichichi, another emeritus Professor of Physics, who published a letter in 2019, along with 70 Italian academics, warning about signing up to policies of uncritical reductions of CO2 with “the illusory pretence of governing the climate”.

Professor Zichichi was unperturbed by the Guardian no-shows and the undoubted blow to his credibility. He was too busy discovering nuclear antimatter.

We don’t know for certain if humans cause all or most global warming by burning fossil fuel. But it seems highly unlikely. From around 1945 to the late 1970s, there was a fall in global temperatures and the almost unanimous fear was global cooling. Then the temperature rose for 20 years leading to the ‘settled’ science of global warming. Now it is flatlining and possibly heading for cooling so Armageddon beckons with ‘extreme’ weather. Is CO2 to blame? Well, humans only contribute 3% of all CO2 entering the atmosphere. If we destroy our industrial lifestyle by cutting our modest contribution, can we be sure the other 97% will behave itself in a world that is naturally warming a little, as it has done countless times in the past? A small test recently occurred when the Covid pandemic cut human global CO2 emissions by 7% in 2020. It had no discernible effect on the overall rise, which seems likely to be a product of a gently warming natural climate.

On the basis of an uncertain hypothesis which has become an argument-free agenda for most members of the mainstream media, politicians, activists, state-sponsored scientists and subsidy-hungry industrialists, we are embarking on net zero with little idea, or seemingly care, of the disastrous effect it will have on human society across the globe. Almost every new technology to replace our existing cheap and reliable power has severe disadvantages and heavy costs. The warnings of green disaster have long been evident. In 2018 the long established Institution of Engineers and Shipbuilders in Scotland warned that the Scottish and U.K. Government green energy policy was likely to lead to severe electricity blackouts. Such events, it warned, “lead to death, severe societal and industrial disruption, civil disturbance and loss of production”.

As delegates in rapidly cooling Glasgow jack up the central heating, they might like to stop the constant virtue signalling and concentrate on events – and science – in the real world.

4.8 33 votes
Article Rating
100 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
niceguy
October 30, 2021 6:11 pm

Many people can’t even differentiate between a legitimate scientific study (even a poor one) that studies stuff and computer games, which is really paid for Nintendo. They call model runs “experiments”!!!

Rory Forbes
Reply to  niceguy
October 30, 2021 7:10 pm

They call model runs “experiments”!!!

And curiously enough they call the computer output data.

Peta of Newark
Reply to  niceguy
October 31, 2021 2:53 am

Because computers have become Gods – nobody can, does or even dares to argue with them..

I don’t believe anybody on the Earth really understands them and as ???? said, nobody wants to understand them. Too comfortable not to. Too good an earner

Russ Wood
Reply to  Peta of Newark
November 2, 2021 4:08 am

As an aviation Mass Properties engineer, I was forever having run-ins with the marketing division over a badly out-of-balance executive jet. Marketing kept on wanting to put in ‘heavy’ stuff that would unbalance it more, and no matter how I typed up and reported my calculations, they could not accept that their sales pitch was a bad idea. So, I wrote a program that would do the SAME calculations, but print them out in computer style. THAT they would accept, and then re-think. Definitely a BBB case, and it seems to hold today, 50 years later!

HotScot
October 30, 2021 6:13 pm

In answer to the headline: Because they are too damn lazy to seek out a less fashionable idea.

Climate change has little more to do with science and politics than it has to with fashion.

It’s ‘cool’ to be n hysterical alarmist.

But like all fashions, it will die a death.

Prjindigo
Reply to  HotScot
October 30, 2021 6:38 pm

Actually it’s largely about politics of land use and environmental destruction.

Drake
Reply to  Prjindigo
October 30, 2021 9:50 pm

Yes, the politics of subsidizing the use of vast amounts of and for the installation of unreliable electrical generation by solar and wind. The destruction of stretches of land for mining rare earths to produce batteries for EVs and magnets for bird choppers.

etc., etc.!

Oldseadog
Reply to  HotScot
October 31, 2021 3:17 am

I disagree with HotScot.
I think that they have all painted themselves into the corner and are scared to admit they were wrong because doing that would lose them their jobs.
But yes, sooner or later it will wither and die.

Pamela Matlack-Klein
Reply to  Oldseadog
October 31, 2021 6:39 am

I think some are starting to realize they have backed the wrong horse and seem to be less certain of their “science.” It must be a very difficult position to be in for the majority, especially the ones who can see the change in wind direction of late.

DMacKenzie
Reply to  Pamela Matlack-Klein
October 31, 2021 7:06 am

You are kidding yourself….very powerful people are backing the green agenda. Investment firms are pushing…. Bureaucrats are flying to conventions half way around the world to come up with agreements.
You must denounce the hyping of a degree of warming since the Little Ice Age at every opportunity…lest like the medieval French, we become enslaved building cathedrals and donating our wealth, at the whim of the local Bishop….

Nick Schroeder
October 30, 2021 6:21 pm

Politicians and journalists?
You mean Pinky and the Brain?
Same thang every night
TAKE OVER THE WORLD!

ResourceGuy
October 30, 2021 6:32 pm

This is 95 percent advocacy-driven politics and a dash of useful agenda science for message management. Reason left the building decades ago and we are now seeing the advocacy industrial complex in action.

Tom Halla
October 30, 2021 6:32 pm

The behavior of the journalists and politicians involved is that of adherents of an evangelical religion. Expressing doubt in the tenets of that religion will result in shunning by the self proclaimed elect, so asking questions is basically coming out as a heretic.
As some large percentage of the “science writers” and most of the politicians would not get the Penn and Teller DHMO skit outright, they are comfortable in their faith.

Thomas Gasloli
Reply to  Tom Halla
October 31, 2021 9:29 am

No it isn’t like “evangelical religion” it is like political corruption and tyranny. And they aren’t socialists they are fascists.

Tom Halla
Reply to  Thomas Gasloli
October 31, 2021 9:44 am

As to why I call it quasi-religious, try reading The True Believer by Eric Hoffer. Political movements act very much like a cult in some stages.
As to Fascists being a variety of socialism, I think you may have been unconsciously influenced by Stalinists, who tried to define socialism as a stage towards Communism, rather than a general tendency to try to “democratically” control the economy. Having the government setting wages and prices commonly leads to severe corruption, thus the scare quotes.

Thomas Gasloli
Reply to  Tom Halla
October 31, 2021 10:24 am

No, wrong.

It wasn’t evangelicals who decided to infect elder care facilities with COVID killing thousands;
It wasn’t evangelicals who decided to lockdown the economy & schools increasing the number of child & adult suicides;
It wasn’t evangelicals who decided to pervert pediatrics into an industry that chemically & surgically mutilates the bodies of children with a disorder 90% outgrow with no intervention;
It wasn’t evangelicals who decided to open the border to a tidal wave of fentanyl, methamphetamine, and cocaine increasing the number of overdose deaths;
It was the “right thinking” atheist who believe criticizing Fauci is criticizing “science”.

The same atheist bureaucrats and academics who tell us we need to destroy the economy to save the planet from “climate change”, something that was disproven 20 years ago when the Antarctic ice core data was published. But even the “lukewarmers” won’t admit it because there is too much money to be made as a “consultant” for “climate mediation efforts”

And why not lie for money, power, and the abuse of power, if you can justify anything with “science”.

And, no, fascism is not “a kind of socialism”. Socialists nationalize industry; fascism coops industry to perform surveillance & enforcement in return for the right to wealth. You know, what we have now.

In short, stop smearing “evangelicals” with the crimes of the faithless. Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, all justified their horrors with science.

And historical point, Galileo was not punished for disagreeing with the church; he was punished for having a patron who was on the wrong side of thre politics. He was a proxy victim in a political dispute, not a victim of religious persecution.

Tom Halla
Reply to  Thomas Gasloli
October 31, 2021 10:36 am

A matter of equivocal definitions of words.
While I sometimes use “evangelical” as a term for conservative Protestant, the term as I was using it in this case is a religion actively seeking converts, and trying to spread their message to unbelievers. Salafi Islam and various Marxists have this behavior.
Fascism and the NSDAP in Germany were called “right wing” by Stalinists, which was odd, as the right wing in Europe were royalist. Having total control over what is produced, what profits are made, what wages are paid, and all prices is hardly capitalism. It is a layer of bogus private ownership over a socialist core.

Prjindigo
October 30, 2021 6:38 pm

Well, to start with it isn’t based on models or even modele’ because those would require basic math to establish their mechanisms. Neither climate nor zero-carbon claims can survive basic math because those would require the use of actual inputs instead of fabricated ones.

Tony Sullivan
October 30, 2021 6:57 pm

The better question is: Are journalists and politicians completely unable to do some basic math that clearly shows the inability of “renewables” to power modern utility grids/infrastructures?

Oldseadog
Reply to  Tony Sullivan
October 31, 2021 3:19 am

See my reply to HotScot above.

Sommer
Reply to  Tony Sullivan
October 31, 2021 6:12 am

James Delingpole has shown great courage:
https://stopthesethings.com/2017/03/08/james-delingpole-dumps-on-the-great-wind-power-fraud/

Someone could ask him to talk about his experience in exposing the wind industry.

Steve Case
October 30, 2021 6:59 pm

Why Aren’t Journalists and Politicians More Sceptical About the ‘Net Zero’ Policy, Given that it’s Based on the Outputs of Unreliable Models?
________________________________________________
It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it! – – – – – Upton Sinclair

After a short search, here’s a history of that quote from “The Quote Investigator”

Scissor
Reply to  Steve Case
October 30, 2021 7:08 pm

Yes, media outlets are paid to report a narrative. For example, one means for this payment is from the Ad Council, which is to a large extent funded by taxpayers.

Scientific journals require that any conflicts of interest be disclosed. At the very least, news outlets should declare their sources of revenue and where they get their scripts.

This comment was not sponsored by Pfizer.

Barry James
October 30, 2021 7:01 pm

It is really quite simple. The Borg’s assimilation program requires that they use the “power of the press” to achieve their ends, so assimilation of the media was high on their agenda and it has been achieved. Group think is now the order of the day. Politicians and working scientists who don’t “toe the line” get ostracised and become unemployable. Witness, for example, what happened to Peter Ridd and Craig Kelly here in Oz.

Chraya
October 30, 2021 7:32 pm

Net zero is impossible with current technology. CO2 emissions will continue to increase regardless of the fairy tale targets politicians set.

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  Chraya
October 31, 2021 2:43 am

No, it is eminently possible. Just stop using any fuel, stop manufacturing anything, stop heating your dwelling, stop growing crops. And die.

Reply to  Chraya
October 31, 2021 3:12 am

And that is a good thing, because if we did achieve net zero and the planet cooled, this ridiculous travesty of science would live on for years more…

markl
October 30, 2021 7:45 pm

For the journalists, politicians, and rent seeking pseudo scientists it’s a self fulfilling prophesy.

William Haas
October 30, 2021 8:42 pm

The AGW at first sounds quite plausible but upon closer examination I find that it is a conjecture based on only partial science. For example, molecule per molecule, H2O is a stronger IR absorber than is CO2 and on average there is roughly 50 times more H2O in the Earth’s atmosphere than is CO2. So H2O is the primary greenhouse gas. So according to the AGW conjecture, adding more H2O to the atmosphere should cause warming. So one would expect that the adding of H2O to the atmosphere must cause the lapse rate to increase yet the opposite is true. Because the wet lapse rate is significantly less than the dry lapse rate in the troposphere adding H2O must cause cooling and not warming. Any CO2 based warming would cause more H2O to enter the atmosphere but that additional H2O must act to reduce any warming that CO2 might cause. Also consider the whole process where H2O evaporates at the Earth’s surface and then condenses into clouds. The entire process moves heat energy from the Earth’s surface to where clouds form and where that energy is more radially radiated to space. so instead of the primary greenhouse gas causing warming it really causes cooling. So because of that problem alone there must be something very wrong with the AGW conjecture. And the problem with H2O is not even the biggest problem that the AGW conjecture actually has. Am I saying anything that is wrong here? I guess that a lot of would be scientists just assume that the AGW conjecture is correct but it is not.

saveenergy
Reply to  William Haas
October 31, 2021 12:20 am

Will, that was a good, but hard read, particularly for old eyes; all the right words (but not necessarily in the right order !!! ) needs more paragraphing.

Suggest you end with –
A lot of would be scientists just assume that the AGW conjecture is correct … but it fails at the first application of the laws of physics.

AGW is just media/political group-think.

William Haas
Reply to  saveenergy
October 31, 2021 1:16 am

You are right!

Jeroen
Reply to  William Haas
October 31, 2021 1:50 am

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapse_rate

Moist lapse rate is less, because it releases heat? I do agree that CO2 is insignificant to be the main control knob for earths temperature, but that is for other reasons.

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  Jeroen
October 31, 2021 3:08 am

Yes. The moist lapse rate is also known as the adiabatic lapse rate and is 6C/km for the standard atmosphere but can be as low as 3C/km if heavily laden saturated air. The radiative lapse rate of the standard atmosphere is 12-13C/km. The radiative lapse rate being much larger than the adiabatic lapse rate drives the convection in the atmosphere. Not only that but the numbers show that about half of the energy transport in the convective atmosphere is by that convection, while the other half is by radiative transfer of heat.

Alasdair Fairbairn
Reply to  William Haas
October 31, 2021 4:05 am

You are right here William. You only have to look at the science behind the Hydrological Cycle to see how this works.

In fact, in the presence of water there is a maximum temperature of around 32C achievable. The evidence for this sticks up like a sore thumb in that the oceans never get above around this 32C value in spite of millions of years of relentless solar radiation. At some 72% of the Earth’s area this has a very major influence on the average global temperature.

Briefly the reason is that water Vapour pressure rapidly increases with temperature at around 22C and at around 32C this pressure generates very rapid evaporation with the energy involved being driven upwards to the clouds and space for dissipation due to the buoyancy of the Vapor/gas produced. This, in essence, swamps any incoming radiation or other heat source and provides an equilibrium at around this 32C figure.

IMO: For political manipulative reasons the climate debate has deliberately erased discussion of this Cycle from the media as its inclusion would severely damage the alarmist nature of the message being promulgated. The dearth of available information on this Hydrological Cycle in the media and academic circles supports this view.
The academic profession has a heavy responsibility here; having sold its soul to the political pressure.

Pamela Matlack-Klein
Reply to  William Haas
October 31, 2021 6:50 am

Maybe if these geniuses could figure out how to add cloud data to their Fing models someone would twig to what is wrong.,..,.

Tom Foley
October 30, 2021 8:44 pm

“An existential threat from burning previous dead plant and animal matter.”

Well, I don’t know whether it’s an existential threat. But I am curious about one thing. Over the past 150 or so years we have burnt tens of millions (or more) of years worth of dead plant and animal matter. Why hasn’t this had a much bigger effect than even the worst claims of the global warming mob? Has there been any research quantifying the total amount of CO2 released and where it has gone? Does it just account for the very small increase in atmospheric CO2? How much went into new plant growth? Into the ocean? Into carbonate sediments? If into vegetation, how much then re-emitted during wildfires or sequested as timber used for building etc.? If into the oceans, what has and will happen to it there? A geologist (petroleum) friend said ‘wait till all the CO2 that’s recently been absorbed by the oceans is released!’ I’m not clear whether that’s just speculation or based on actual research.

Does anyone know of any published research quantifying how much CO2 in total has been released from burning fossil fuels and where it ended up?

AndyHce
Reply to  Tom Foley
October 30, 2021 11:38 pm

Human activity CO2 production is about 3 to 4 % of the yearly CO2 inflow/outflow cycle. It appears that about 50 % of human CO2 production fits the numbers for how much atmospheric content increases each year.The other 50 % goes to the many places CO2 goes.

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  Tom Foley
October 31, 2021 2:52 am

If we burn the total proven coal reserves of the United States, and I mean the lot, in one go (if that were possible) then it would add 400 ppm CO2 to the atmosphere. Roughly doubling its current content. The total reserves of the planet are 10 to 20 times larger, hence good for 4000 to 8000 ppm, that is 0.4% to 0.8%. Which is similar to the CO2 levels of the Precambrian.

Izaak Walton
October 30, 2021 9:21 pm

The author claims that:
Well, humans only contribute 3% of all CO2 entering the atmosphere.”
when in fact humans are responsible for roughly double the annual increase in CO2
levels. Something that is confirmed by multiple lines of evidence ranging from isotopic
analysis to measuring the amount of human caused CO2 emissions.

Drake
Reply to  Izaak Walton
October 30, 2021 9:52 pm

Thanks for the link to the source of your information.

Mr.
Reply to  Izaak Walton
October 30, 2021 9:53 pm

measuring the amount of human caused CO2 emissions

Are the measurement units they use still called “Poofteenths”?

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Izaak Walton
October 30, 2021 10:05 pm

And yet, even though CO2 has increased ~ 12+%, since 2000, there has been no corresponding increase in temperatures. There’s simply no evidence that CO2 is forcing temperatures to rise … or having any effect at all. It would be nice to believe that human CO2 emissions are responsible for the ideal growing conditions and beneficial warming, but it isn’t likely.

Graemethecat
Reply to  Rory Forbes
October 31, 2021 9:27 am

Furthermore, temperatures actually fell between 1940 and 1980 at a time when CO2 concentrations were climbing rapidly. I remember very well the Great Global Cooling Scare of the 1970’s, before it was replaced by the Great Global Warming Scare.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Graemethecat
October 31, 2021 9:46 am

Yep … I remember it too, and at the time I believed it. I didn’t know as much back then. There was a consensus on that “science” as well, but now it’s all but removed from history, down the memory well and anyone who mentions it is gas lighted.

John H
Reply to  Izaak Walton
October 31, 2021 12:32 am

If humans are responsible for double the increase then another source must be decreasing. Just confirms your premise is mumbo jumbo.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Izaak Walton
October 31, 2021 3:11 am

A marvelous set of sweeping statements there, Izaak.
Still, the observed warming since the end of the 19th century has failed to bring about global atmospheric chaos, so stop worrying.

Richard S Courtney
Reply to  Izaak Walton
October 31, 2021 4:53 am

Izaak Walton,

There is no evidence that “ humans are responsible for roughly double the annual increase in CO2 levels”; no evidence, none, zilch nada.

Indeed, the data don’t indicate what proportion of the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration (measured at Mauna Loa since 1959) is a result of emissions from human activities. This finding was first published in 2005
ref. Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005).
In 2008 I expanded on that finding in a paper I presented to the first Heartland Climate Conference and Ed Berry has posted it on his blog at
https://edberry.com/wp-content/uploads/Courtney_NY_2008.pdf .

Those papers say,
It is commonly assumed that the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration during the twentieth century (approx. 30% rise) is a result of anthropogenic emissions of CO2 [1, 2, 3]. However, the annual pulse of anthropogenic CO2 into the atmosphere should relate to the annual increase of CO2 in the atmosphere if one is directly causal of the other, but their variations greatly differ from year to year [4].

Using data of the period, those papers explain,
The accumulation rate of CO2 in the atmosphere (1.5 ppmv/year which corresponds to 3 GtC/year) is equal to almost half the human emission (6.5 GtC/year). However, this does not mean that half the human emission accumulates in the atmosphere, as is often stated [1, 2, 3]. There are several other and much larger CO2 flows in and out of the atmosphere. The total CO2 flow into the atmosphere is at least 156.5 GtC/year with 150 GtC/year of this being from natural origin and 6.5 GtC/year from human origin. So, on the average, 3/156.5 = 2% of all emissions accumulate.

My paper at the link explains.
Figures 1 and 6 provide an apparent paradox. The annual anthropogenic emission of CO2 should relate to the annual increase of CO2 in the atmosphere if one is causal of the other, but Figure 1 shows these two parameters do not correlate. However, Figure 6 shows that – using each of these different models – we were able to model the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere as being a function solely of the annual anthropogenic emission of CO2. It is important to note that we did not use any ‘fiddle factors’ such as the 5-year-averageing used by the IPCC (that cannot be justified because there is no known physical mechanism that would have such effect). 13

The apparent paradox is resolved by consideration of the calculated equilibrium CO2 concentration values, Ce. These are shown in Figure 7. Each model indicates that the calculated CO2 concentration for the equilibrium state in each year is considerably above the observed values. This demonstrates that each model indicates there is a considerable time lag required to reach the equilibrium state when there is no accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere. In other words, one has to reckon with a considerable time lag to reach the equilibrium state Fa = 0 when Fin increases to a certain value with increasing Fem. As Figure 2 shows, the short-term sequestration processes can easily adapt to sequester the anthropogenic emission in a year. But, according to these models, the total emission of that year affects the equilibrium state of the entire system. Some processes of the system are very slow with rate constants of years and decades. Hence, the system takes decades to fully adjust to the new equilibrium. And Figure 6 shows the models predicting the atmospheric CO2 concentration. ” (emphasis added)

This deduction of the probable cause of the observed atmospheric CO2 rise being a response to changing equilibrium of the carbon cycle was subsequently and independently also deduced by Harde and bt Salby.

Berry has developed from my paper at the link because he made a breakthrough of understanding that I and all others had failed to make (which is why he copies my paper on his blog). This breakthrough has enabled him to deduce from the data the proportions of the observed atmospheric CO2 rise which are caused by human activities and natural activities. His publication preprint can be read on his blog.

Richard

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Richard S Courtney
October 31, 2021 5:36 pm

Izaak Wants To Believe

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Izaak Walton
October 31, 2021 5:35 pm

Your data source is interesting.

Mike McMillan
October 30, 2021 9:40 pm

You mention Dame Emma ‘First Class’ Thompson.
Didn’t you really mean Dame Edna‘First Class’ Everage? An easy mistakecomment image

saveenergy
Reply to  Mike McMillan
October 30, 2021 11:32 pm

Dame Edna Everage is far more intelligent & better looking than ‘Enema’ Thompson.

Last edited 6 months ago by saveenergy
Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Mike McMillan
October 31, 2021 3:12 am

Emma Thompson lives near me. She has a massive house, of course.

Richard Page
Reply to  Mike McMillan
October 31, 2021 9:58 am

Heh better choice probably. The pink boat belonged to Extinction Rebellion, proving that Emma Thompson really will shill for any of the Green loon groups. I do like seeing her little tirades – she’s got absolutely no idea what she’s saying and it’s highly amusing to see her flailing about, making a complete laughing-stock of herself and whatever her cause-de-jour is!

Geoff Sherrington
October 30, 2021 10:33 pm

No sign of CO2 change at Mauna Low caused by the Covid lockdowns, with an estimated 7% reduction in emissions.
The situation is symmetric. If you cannot detect a CO2 fall from a 7% decrease, you are not able to detect a rise fron a 7% increase. Can you then detect a 14% increase? How are punishment authorities going to calculate a fine for too much emission, when it cannot be seen to change CO2 levels?
These are some consequences of making policies about emissions when nobody has been able to give a reliable number for emission sensitivity.
Where/when would severe policy be made when the fundamental hypothesis can’t be quantified?
It is way past time for honest scientists, who know these problems, to speak up. Geoff S

AndyHce
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
October 30, 2021 11:40 pm

A straw man argument. Emissions are calculated at the source, not by their results in the atmosphere.

AndyHce
October 30, 2021 11:11 pm

“why journalists and politicians are so willing to accept at face”

Have you missed all the praises written by said journalists about how accurate and insightful past predictions have been — except when they haven’t been quite extreme enough?

Lurker pete
October 30, 2021 11:16 pm

“Why Aren’t Journalists and Politicians More Sceptical About the ‘Net Zero’ Policy…”
Because they are willing to support lies.

“Our way must be: Never knowingly support lies!”

“Let him not brag of his progressive views, boast of his status as an
academician or a recognized artist, a distinguished citizen or general.
Let him say to himself plainly: I am cattle, I am a coward, I seek only
warmth and to eat my fill.”

The day before he was exiled from the Soviet Union, Aleksandr
Solzhenitsyn published a short essay titled Live Not By Lies, and in it
he wrote:

“We are approaching the brink; already a universal spiritual demise is
upon us; a physical one is about to flare up and engulf us and our
children, while we continue to smile sheepishly and babble: “But what
can we do to stop it? We haven’t the strength.”…But we can
do—everything!—even if we comfort and lie to ourselves that this is not
so. It is not “they” who are guilty of everything, but we ourselves,
only we!”

quotes from: Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Live Not By Lies

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VfJ0BJvt7Y

TheFinalNail
October 31, 2021 12:04 am

… given that the track record of those models in predicting the future has so far proved to be very poor?

Which is hardly a “given”, since observations are well within the model range.

fig-nearterm_all_UPDATE_2020.png
Climate believer
Reply to  TheFinalNail
October 31, 2021 1:16 am

“since observations are well within the model range.”

Hardly surprising when your models range is more akin to a trawler net than a fishing line.

TheFinalNail
Reply to  Climate believer
October 31, 2021 2:02 am

Observations are pretty close to the centre of the model range, so hardly “very poor”.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
October 31, 2021 9:08 am

TheFinalNail won’t look at your link. It is outside his dogma and is considered nothing more than heresy.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  TheFinalNail
October 31, 2021 3:15 am

Weapons grade rubbish

Richard Page
Reply to  TheFinalNail
October 31, 2021 10:03 am

It’s extremely easy to tell that this is alarmism, not anything rooted in science. Scientific studies show us that temperatures do one of 3 things (broadly speaking) – stay more or less the same, go up or go down. The fact that the projection range on your graph only shows it either staying the same or going up is a clear indication that this is alarmism and nothing whatsoever to do with science.

Crowcatcher
October 31, 2021 12:21 am

As my BBC departmentle boss said back in the mid 1970s “Know bugger all about anything, become a (BBC) journalist” – plus-ca-change in 1921!

TheFinalNail
October 31, 2021 12:25 am

…the average temperature in Scotland hasn’t moved for about 15 years.

It’s not obvious from the chart because of the long time-scale, but it’s easy to download the data from the Met Office link and check that in the 15 years from 2006 to 2020, average annual temperatures in Scotland rose at a rate of +0.1C per decade.

In fact, the 2010s were colder across the U.K. than the 2000s – a fall in average temperature from 9.3C to 9.17C, again according to official Met Office figures.

No chart is provided to support this claim, which might be because it’s flat wrong. According to the UK Met Office data linked to, the figures are the opposite way around! Average annual UK temperatures 2001-2010 were 9.16C; between 2011 and 2020 they were 9.32C. Over the 20 year period 2001-2020 there was a warming trend in average UK temperatures of +0.08 C per decade.

Last edited 6 months ago by TheFinalNail
Climate believer
Reply to  TheFinalNail
October 31, 2021 1:26 am

“Over the 20 year period 2001-2020 there was a warming trend in average UK temperatures of +0.08 C per decade.”

Guess Brits won’t need to holiday on the Costa del Sol at this rate.

You people are off your rockers.

TheFinalNail
Reply to  Climate believer
October 31, 2021 2:03 am

But not cooling, as the article claimed.

And Scotland warmed over the past 15 years, contrary to the claim.

Do you skeptics ever actually check anything?

Last edited 6 months ago by TheFinalNail
Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  TheFinalNail
October 31, 2021 3:12 am

Too much water of life I presume.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  TheFinalNail
October 31, 2021 3:23 am

I dare you to stand in your garden and notice a change of 0.1 degs.
You are talking about miniscule changes. Stop getting your knickers in a twist about absolutely nothing.

TheFinalNail
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
October 31, 2021 6:02 am

Again, the point is not the scale of the rising trend over the last 15 years (+0.1 per decade, or +1.0C per century). The point is that the author claims it isn’t there – it is. No one thought to check if he was right, apparently.

Last edited 6 months ago by TheFinalNail
Rory Forbes
Reply to  TheFinalNail
October 31, 2021 10:03 am

The author is right, “it isn’t here”. There is no possible way to measure +0.1C per decade. It’s an invention.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Rory Forbes
October 31, 2021 10:58 am

When the uncertainty interval of even the best measurement devices today is +/- 0.6C (See the Federal Meteorology Handbook No. 1) how can you possible identify a trend of +0.1C over a decade? That trend line is inside the width of the uncertainty interval, it should be entirely invisible.

This doesn’t even get into the fact that temperature is a time series, it is non-stationary. Even a quick study of analyzing non-stationary data will show that linear trending of such data is highly misleading and gives totally spurious results. The only *real* way to analyze this data is to convert it into stationary data. I.e. convert it from the dimensional form of temperature/time to just temperature. Integrate the daytime and nighttime temperature data and you get “temperature” as the dimension (temp/time)dt where dt is incremental time.

(hint: the horizontal axis on all of this is in “time”, be in in days, months, years, or decades.)

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Tim Gorman
October 31, 2021 1:08 pm

That trend line is inside the width of the uncertainty interval, it should be entirely invisible

Thanks for the full version. The *real* fact is, he’s showing a trend line that’s narrower than the line used to describe it.

Graemethecat
Reply to  Climate believer
October 31, 2021 9:35 am

A warming trend of 0.08 C/decade is completely overwhelmed by the error bars in the measurements.

Don’t you Warmists know anything about metrology and error analysis?

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Graemethecat
October 31, 2021 1:12 pm

Don’t you Warmists know anything about meteorology and error analysis?

Of course they know better, but their intended audience do not. Those are the group who can be “fooled all of the time”. The people at this site aren’t part of that group.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  TheFinalNail
October 31, 2021 3:20 am

0.08 degs per decade?
Oh my gawd!!!!! How ever will we cope?! In a hundred years time it will be, um, less than a degree warmer!!!!! Quick, where are my sun cream and beach shorts??!!???
Have a word with yourself.

TheFinalNail
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
October 31, 2021 6:04 am

The point is that there is a rising trend and that the last full decade was warmer than the previous one in the UK – contrary to what the author claims. He can do that because he knows very few readers here will check.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  TheFinalNail
October 31, 2021 6:48 am

And my point is you, I, and everyone else shouldn’t be worried about such a miniscule trend (if it really exists).
Are you worried about such a miniscule rise in temps? If so, why? If you’re not worried, good.

Alba
Reply to  TheFinalNail
October 31, 2021 5:42 am

Who the heck notices a change in the average temperature of +0.08 C? Or even a change of +0.8 C in a century? Just now it is 10 degrees C in Glasgow and 14 degrees C in London. If I travelled down to London I might notice a difference of +4 degrees C.

TheFinalNail
Reply to  Alba
October 31, 2021 6:05 am

Once again, the point is not the scale of the warming trend, it’s the fact that the author denies there is one.

Last edited 6 months ago by TheFinalNail
Rory Forbes
Reply to  TheFinalNail
October 31, 2021 10:10 am

The author is correct. There isn’t a trend. Your example is unreliable because it’s from the IPCC … a notoriously bad source. They have no credibility.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  TheFinalNail
October 31, 2021 9:15 am

Something wrong with your numbers.

+0.1C is not equal to +0.08C. Hmmmm……

Are you saying that 2001 to 2005 was a cooling period that offset 2006 to 2020? What happened to 2002?

Richard Page
Reply to  TheFinalNail
October 31, 2021 10:17 am

I had a look at the average temperatures from 2000 to 2021 in Scotland and I have to say that only a statistician with some sort of OCD-like affinity for numbers would have put a trend to that series. 0.08 or 0.1 is completely and utterly irrelevant – the temperatures go up and down like yoyo’s across the entire timescale – the ‘trend’ is an artefact of noise, not a signal in itself. I would discredit any attempt to make either a warming or cooling trend out of the temperature series and put it down to being ‘no trend’ or no discernable change in average temperature. How the hell did we get to arguing over noise?

Last edited 6 months ago by Richard Page
Tim Gorman
Reply to  Richard Page
October 31, 2021 10:49 am

Because the scale of the graph used to show the noise makes every thing look really bad. Put the graph scale in actual degrees and the width of the noise will disappear into the width of the pen used to create the graph. Not so scary and not good for getting additional funding!

Graemethecat
Reply to  Tim Gorman
October 31, 2021 2:24 pm

This is a trick frequently used by Warmists: blowing up the scale on the y-axis makes an insignificant change look really big and scary.

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  Richard Page
November 1, 2021 12:55 am

Richard,
For Australia, asking our BOM for an error envelope on temperatures resulted in a number that they said was not the number I was seeking.
There are still some alarmists who cannot accept that The Establishment uses dirty tricks. Geoff S
……………………..
Dear Mr. Sherrington,
You have asked “If a person seeks to know the separation of two daily temperatures in degrees C that allows a confident claim that the two temperatures are different statistically, by how much would the two values be separated?
The internationally accepted standard for determining if two measurements are statistically different is ISO/IEC17043. The latter covers the calculation of a normalized score (known as the EN score), which is a standard method for this type of question.
As previously communicated, the most relevant figure that we can supply to meet your request for a “T +/- X degrees C” is our specified inspection threshold (conservatively within +/- 0.3 ⁰C), but this is not an estimate of the uncertainty of the ACORN-SAT network’s temperature measurements in the field.
From Dr. Boris Kelly-Gerreyn
BOM Manager, Data Quality and Requirements.
Letter dated 7th June, 2019

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
November 1, 2021 2:23 pm

but this is not an estimate of the uncertainty of the ACORN-SAT network’s temperature measurements in the field.

What *is* the uncertainty of the field measurements? My guess is that it is large enough that temperature changes less than +/- 1C would be eclipsed by the width of the line through the stated temperatures!

Ian Smith
October 31, 2021 1:59 am

You certainly would not expect these stats based on the hottest ever / second hottest year, month and day stories that dominate the press.

I don’t even recognise the 70s as being cooler. My baby’s first snow pictures were taken in 70/71 in the north of Scotland, and I don’t remember anything with similar coverage for the next 15 years, when we started having five year cycles of some / no snow.

Ed Zuiderwijk
October 31, 2021 2:37 am

Fat chance. The participants are a thoroughly indoctrinated and deluded crowd who believe anything they have been told by self-appointed ‘experts’, who in their turn are equally indoctrinated and deluded themselves. The rot has been resident for two generations now and even the ‘scientists’ in that crowd are clueless about that good old customer: natural causes.

atticman
October 31, 2021 2:41 am

Simple answer? Because the media loves bad-news stories. To upend a well known saying, “Good news is no news”.

Peta of Newark
October 31, 2021 2:44 am

(part of) Headline:”it’s so chilly our daughter keeps her coat on indoors
Renewable Energy meets Other People’s Money

Where exactly did that money go?

October 31, 2021 3:10 am

Why Aren’t Journalists and Politicians More Sceptical About the ‘Net Zero’ Policy, Given that it’s Based on the Outputs of Unreliable Models?

Climate models are based on insolation averaging over the total surface area of the planet, something that is totally false. This averaging creates the false paradox that the sun is too weak to create the climate because its perceived average radiant power intensity at the Earth’s surface is 168 W/m^2 (post Albedo and post atmospheric absorption). This solar radiant flux equates to a thermodynamic temperature of 233 Kelvin (minus 40 Celsius) using the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. Clearly this surface temperature is too low to melt ice, water vapour being the dominant greenhouse gas under the radiant flux paradigm of climate. Consequently, carbon dioxide gas is called in to “bootstrap the climate” to an atmospheric temperature that is high enough to melt water-ice.
 
The key error in this bizarre modelling analysis is that the Sun NEVER shines on to the surface of the Earth at night. Therefore, the correct power of the lit hemispherical solar radiant flux being absorbed by the surface is 336 W/m^2 (Figure 7: An Analysis of the Earth’s Energy Budget – Update). Using Stefan-Boltzmann this surface solar flux equates to a thermodynamic temperature of 277 Kelvin (plus 4 Celsius), an average temperature that is sufficient to melt ice over the full surface area of the lit hemisphere leaving no role for atmospheric carbon dioxide gas. Carbon dioxide gas is irrelevant for the radiative paradigm, as water vapour can create the climate all by itself.

Alba
October 31, 2021 5:34 am

“For years, average November temperatures in Scotland have been dropping like a stone.”
Mr Morrison must live in a different world where stones fall relatively slowly.
“rapidly cooling Glasgow
The graph show some slight cooling in Scotland in recent years. Certainly nothing to justify using the adverb ‘rapidly’.
One other point, the data presented in the article refers to Scotland as a whole. It tells us little or nothing about Glasgow.
Admittedly it’s still October but the temperature just now (12.30) in Glasgow is ten degrees C.

JEHILL
October 31, 2021 5:35 am

Power. Pure political power. If a politician were interested in the truth they would be here, openly.

Eric Vieira
October 31, 2021 5:40 am

The main problem is: they don’t care about society, and even less about ordinary people.

John K. Sutherland
October 31, 2021 7:06 am

The easy answer to the headline is… ‘Because they are not smart enough to know anything.’

Last edited 6 months ago by John K. Sutherland
Curious George(@moudryj)
October 31, 2021 8:19 am

Simple. They live in their own bubble: The New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, the Guardian, …

80 years ago it was the Völkischer Beobachter.

M Courtney
October 31, 2021 9:20 am

There is a disconnect between reality and the narrative line of the newspapers. So honest journalists leave.
The remainder are true believers who cannot tell when evidence is going the other way; religious nutjobs.

A good example is this recent Guardian on the greatest songs about Climate Change. The Guardian picked out these Clash lyrics from the comments as worthy of a special link.
The greatest songs about the climate crisis – ranked! | Music | The Guardian

Do you think the commenter was endorsing the Guardian editorial line when writing “The Ice Age is coming”?

The Guardian couldn’t recognise the irony.

Gordon A. Dressler
October 31, 2021 1:29 pm

Obvious and well-established answer to the question asked in the title of the above article: Follow the money.

%d bloggers like this: