Richard Lindzen on Climate Science from the Inside-Tom Nelson Podcast

Tom Nelson

Climate realism | Published September 22, 2022 

Richard Lindzen, Ph.D. is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT.

He has made major contributions to the development of the current theory for the Hadley Circulation, which dominates the atmospheric transport of heat and momentum from the tropics to higher latitudes, and has advanced the understanding of the role of small scale gravity waves in producing the reversal of global temperature gradients at the mesopause, and provided accepted explanations for atmospheric tides and the quasi-biennial oscillation of the tropical stratosphere.

Lindzen is a recipient of the AMS’s Meisinger, and Charney Awards, the AGU’s Macelwane Medal, and the Leo Huss Walin Prize. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, and the Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters, and a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences, the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society. He is a corresponding member of the NAS Committee on Human Rights, and has been a member of the NRC Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate and the Council of the AMS.

He has also been a consultant to the Global Modeling and Simulation Group at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, and a Distinguished Visiting Scientist at California Institute of Technology’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory. He received his Ph.D. from Harvard University.

Tom Nelson’s Twitter:
About Tom:
Notes for climate skeptics:
ClimateGate emails:

4.9 17 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
September 25, 2022 3:27 am

Engaging interview and insightful reflections.

I agree that there will need to be serious damage economic damage and probably riots and deaths before sanity prevails.

Weather models are the basis of climate models – good for 3 days.

Reply to  RickWill
September 25, 2022 3:59 am

Weather models are the basis of climate models – good for 3 days.

Weather models maybe good for 3 days, climate models, not so good for any length of time

Reply to  Redge
September 25, 2022 9:39 am

Oh, climate models are perfectly fine… until you run them.

Reply to  Redge
September 25, 2022 2:18 pm

Climate models when averaged represent the climate science consensus and show that the consensus is wrong. So they are good for one thing.

John in Cheshire
September 25, 2022 3:29 am

A few years ago I watched a few presentations by Nir Shaviv, an Israeli physics professor. He makes a very compelling case for the sun being the most significant controller of earth’s climate; and done so from a proper scientific approach, not because everyone else says so, an effective show of hands to reach “consensus”.

Krishna Gans
Reply to  John in Cheshire
September 25, 2022 4:44 am

There was an interesting paper by Shaviv and Veizer about the suns position in the spiral arms of the galaxy and the respective cosmic rays.

Bill Powers
Reply to  John in Cheshire
September 25, 2022 10:09 am

Any real scientist who wants to examine what causes the planet to warm and study the fluctuations in global surface temps over time would start with the primary driver of heat. To ignore the sun is to turn science into politics.

ALGORE is a spokesman (don’t ask me why they picked a bore with only one college science course on his transcripts) for the Ruling Political Class. In essence ALGORE is the lab assistant for the Bureaucratic Dr. Frankenstein and they are cooking up a Monster to scare you into submission.

Using ALGORE as and acronym for the ruling class (Autocratic Liars Global Organizational Reset for Everybody) Let us listen for the motivation behind the words knowing that Lindzen is a real scientist and ALGORE is not. Lindzen seeks answers. ALGORE seeks to scare your children. Lindzen wants the truth. ALGORE wants to control the narrative. Lindzen sounds believable. ALGORE sounds like a thoroughly tossed word salad with unknowable mystery ingredients.

Patrick Maher
Reply to  John in Cheshire
October 4, 2022 11:43 am

Shaviv is one smart cookie. I’ve seen him speak a few times

September 25, 2022 3:45 am

This seems to be a change of opinion for Lindzen.
He appears to dismiss CO2 levels as a climate variable.
Possibly dismissing all AGW
But he does not provide enough evidence to make that claim.
Am I misinterpreting Lindzen?

Reply to  Richard Greene
September 25, 2022 4:37 am

Did he? I don’t remember him saying that

Reply to  Richard Greene
September 25, 2022 5:23 am

Yes. You are misinterpreting Lindzen.
He saying there are a lot climate variables.
He did say something I thought was new, which was
that higher CO2 level affects the tropics the most.
I would have tended to think higher CO2 levels effect the tropics, the least.

Rich Davis
Reply to  gbaikie
September 25, 2022 8:59 am

Without going back and listening to the whole thing again, I am pretty sure that he didn’t say CO2. I believe that what he said was that the greenhouse effect should be maximized in the tropics. That is because water vapor, the primary GHG is highest in the tropics and very low at the poles, while CO2 is more uniformly distributed. When we talk about the GHE, CO2 is a bit player. It’s mostly about the water vapor.

The global fascists focus on CO2 not because it matters, but because it provides the excuse to control global energy use and control literally all economic activity.

Kevin kilty
Reply to  Rich Davis
September 25, 2022 9:29 am

I just finished listening and you are right. He spoke of greenhouse effect. I live at 2200 m amsl and it is apparent up here that not only is the greenhouse effect maximized in the tropics, but also at low elevation. Water vapor is the common thread.

Reply to  Kevin kilty
September 25, 2022 1:59 pm

The greenhouse effect of added CO2 should be largest where there is less competition from water vapor — at higher latitudes, in the six coldest months of the year, and most affecting TMIN. Lindzen appears to disagree with that statement.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Richard Greene
September 25, 2022 3:24 pm


greenhouse effect of added CO2 should be largest where there is less competition from water vapor 

So far, not proven, and, given the way the “greenhouse effect” works, not logical.

Reply to  Richard Greene
September 25, 2022 4:00 pm

Greene. And which energy is in such competition between water and CO2?. on wgat basis is an outcome decided?

Reply to  Richard Greene
September 26, 2022 6:57 pm

Let me re-phrase your statement “The greenhouse effect of added CO2 should be MOST APPARENT where there is less competition from water vapor.” Desert and arid regions are perfect examples demonstrating the very weak effect of CO2 as a GHE. CO2 is ostensibly well-mixed through the atmosphere, so in the desert/arid regions, where water vapor is sparse, temperatures become very hot during the day and then cool dramatically at night making temperatures very cold. This is despite the same volumes of CO2.

In temperate regions, daytime temperatures don’t get as hot, but nights stay warmer because of the water vapor in the air.

J Burns
Reply to  Richard Greene
September 29, 2022 5:46 pm

Perhaps, and without claimed feedback from water vapour, its effect would be extremely small – perhaps unmeasurable on shorter timescales.

Reply to  Rich Davis
September 25, 2022 1:32 pm

18:35 to 19:30

Rich Davis
Reply to  gbaikie
September 25, 2022 1:46 pm

There he spoke of polar amplification and the lack of any mechanism to justify that.

Reply to  Rich Davis
September 25, 2022 3:40 pm

He did not mention the warming ocean which is more than 90%
of global warming.
But he seems more interested in the atmosphere- which is a quite common mistake {though if we could predict the weather, that would great]. He probably discusses issues the ocean with others, and does talk about it generally. His puzzles he apparent his professional interest in, focuses on the atmosphere.

I think polar amplification is “the everything” relate to global climate- but it is less exciting than the weather.

Reply to  gbaikie
September 25, 2022 4:31 pm

Just to clear, we not going to melt our two sheets, anytime soon.
I think our ocean has to close to 4 C, to even imagine this happening, and currently our ocean is about 3.5 C.
And has been about 3.5 C for last 5000 years.
We may have had about .1 C of ocean warming over last century- but another .4 is at least centuries into the future. It doesn’t seem it will happen soon, unless we spend money to make it happen.
I imagine I know the technologies needed to do it, but it still require about 100 years of trying to do it.
Meanwhile, in 100 hundred years what else are humans going to do?
It’s possible we will become a space faring civilization within
a century- depending what we find in terms of Lunar and Mars
exploration. Or it could happen regardless of the results from such exploration.

Reply to  gbaikie
September 25, 2022 1:56 pm

Greenhouse gases should most affect colder nations at high latitudes in the colder months of the year, mainly increasing TMIN.
Lindzen seems to be saying higher levels of CO2 are not affecting the Arctic. Meaning that CO2 is doing very little, so can be ignored as a climate change variable.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Richard Greene
September 25, 2022 4:00 pm

No Richard, you’re convoluting the argument with something you’re reading into it. He spoke about the greenhouse effect (not the enhanced greenhouse effect of added CO2). He said that the GHE is strongest in the tropics yet there has been no great variation in temperatures in the tropics over 10s of thousands of years. So the GHE isn’t very effective. He said that CO2 doesn’t have enough power to affect things as an enhancement on an effect that hasn’t made much difference even where the GHE is at maximum.

Sure your argument makes sense but you’re disputing something that Lindzen didn’t assert. To the extent that CO2 enhances the effect of water vapor, it would be most effective where there is the least water vapor. He didn’t discuss that. He was talking about the full mostly-natural greenhouse effect not being very significant even where it is at its strongest.

Reply to  Richard Greene
September 25, 2022 4:07 pm

The tropical zone is not 1/2 of the world, either, it’s about 40%, but I would
say the tropical ocean itself absorbs more than 1/2 of sunlight reaching Earth surface- 1/2 the world get more sunlight than if just counting tropical ocean within the tropical zone.
Or other half which above 30 degrees, north and south latitude- say, 35 degree and up. These two halves which equal 50%
of area receive a lot than 1/2 sunlight, and when move it up to 50 degree latitude the direct solar heating is a lot less- less done by sunlight and more done by heat of 1/2 world which get more sunlight.
And it’s ocean in warmer 1/2 which has Earth’s tropical ocean heat engine which drive the global atmosphere and global oceans.
Of course, in terms driving the ocean the arctic oceans create vast amounts of cold falling water, which drive those bottom global currents.

Reply to  Richard Greene
September 25, 2022 4:32 pm

Perhaps the less sun during the colder months might explain much of the difference in the higher latitudes.
Just a thought.

Reply to  Richard Greene
September 25, 2022 8:01 am

Lindzen has a lot of background knowledge and thus circumstantial evidence on “climate science” being a hoax. And he is right. If you know so many instances where you are lied upon, you can not take it serious anymore. What he does not have, is the smoking gun with regard to the core claim of CO2 related climate sensitivity. He attempted something with this “Iris effect”, but arguably it is not his best work.

Me however I have solved it all 😉

Janice Moore
Reply to  Richard Greene
September 25, 2022 1:48 pm

I just finished listening to the entire Lindzen podcast. Nothing he said logically results in your conclusions at 3:45am today, Mr. Greene.

Perhaps, it will help you if you listen once again to Dr. Lindzen’s statement here:

21:14 CO2 doesn’t have the wherewithal to make a major difference in climate. It’s only if you assume the tropics are the whole earth …

Reply to  Janice Moore
September 25, 2022 2:06 pm

I didn’t hear a satisfactory explanation of why CO2 can not make a major (whatever major means to Lindzen) difference in the Arctic temperature. The Arctic temperature increased +0.9 degrees C since December 1978, according to UAH data. An increased greenhouse effect from more CO2 in the atmosphere would be a good explanation for some of that Arctic warming.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Richard Greene
September 25, 2022 3:21 pm

What observations support your conclusion:

“an increased greenhouse effect from more CO2 in the atmosphere would be a good explanation.”

(whatever “good” means to you, I mean)

Richard Page
Reply to  Richard Greene
September 25, 2022 4:27 pm

“The Arctic temperature increased +0.9 degrees C since December 1978, according to UAH data. Also according to the fact that there are no permanent temperature stations dotted across the entire Arctic that are measuring these temperatures. So the UAH claim of Arctic ‘data’ is misleading infilling from non-Arctic locations at best and fraudulent at worst.

Reply to  Richard Page
September 25, 2022 6:44 pm

Have you noticed that the UAH (satellite data) temperature record doesn’t use surface stations?

Reply to  Richard Greene
September 25, 2022 6:42 pm

whatever drives the ~1000 year warming cycle might be a better explanation.

Reply to  Richard Greene
September 25, 2022 8:25 pm

Richard Lindzen knows as much as any other scientist about the effect of human co2 on the planet’s temperature – nothing.
The difference is that he knows that and cli sci fi people don’t.

Reply to  Mike
September 26, 2022 4:29 am

If the +48% increase of CO2 since 1850 had no effect on the climate, then Lindzen has taken a radical position on the subject.
He is definitely outside of the 97% consensus on AGW.

He appears to be dismissing the evidence of almost +1 degree C. warming in the Arctic and the cooling stratosphere, both of which would be caused by greenhouse gas warming.

Nothing he says justifies ignoring that evidence and dismissing CO2 caused warming as fiction.

He concludes by saying:
However, I am reasonably confident that the current popular narrative is largely incorrect. The notion that the science is ‘settled’ is pretty implausible in either case.”

JCDN Texas
Reply to  Richard Greene
September 26, 2022 8:01 am

“He is definitely outside of the 97% consensus on AGW.”

That’s because no such consensus exists and consensus, per se, does not constitute the scientific evidence that corroborates hypothesis and/or theory.

September 25, 2022 4:23 am

Lindzen roughly says global climate doesn’t change much- which I don’t disagree with.
But global climate has changed a lot during transition very cold glaciation period to the interglacial period. Al Gore lied when he said such a change was caused by CO2, but it does
not seem there is well understood reason for this.
Also there is the large change related to desertification Sahara Desert. During last glaciation
period, the Sahara Desert was dry, and then during large change of global temperature as left the glaciation period, we had the African humid period, where Sahara desert was mostly grassland and about 5000 years ago, it turn back into it’s current desert.Or Africa being drier, then becoming wetter, and than becoming drier again, is a large climate change. Usually it’s said to caused by the Milankovitch cycles but it seems it not understood or explained well.
Or we had couple mania, one the Ice Age is coming and global warming followed and both seemed to fueled by knowledge that large changes in climate happen and it’s clear why they
have happened.
And rather thing tangled up with it, the planet Venus and why it’s so hot and was sipposed to have had a huge runaway warming effect.
Anyhow, I tend to think that if Venus were at Earth distance from the Sun, it would be colder
than Earth.
It’s possible I am wrong, but what would Venus surface temperature be if it was at 1 AU distance from the Sun?
Anyhow, I think resolving either of these issues, would put big dent in the madness.
Also what is global warming.
I say global warming is not about Earth getting hotter, but rather Earth getting a more uniform global temperature.

Krishna Gans
Reply to  gbaikie
September 25, 2022 4:49 am

What we have are more or less shifts of regional climate resp. weather patterns.

Reply to  Krishna Gans
September 25, 2022 5:10 am

Both NASA and NOAA say the more than 90% of global warming is warming our
cold ocean which has average temperature of about 3.5 C.
It’s claimed our ocean has warmed by .1 C
And I believe the ocean warmed by .1 C is global warming.
It’s a fact, that whenever we had warmer global temperature, our
ocean was 4 C or warmer.
And I think an ocean which was 4 C, would have ice free polar sea ice during
the summer.

September 25, 2022 4:32 am

Disasters like Sri Lanka are not enough to promote a rethink. The consensus will claim it wasn’t done right etc

Forget the two hot days and a thunderstorm

“”Britain will spend a week on ice with freezing temperatures, frost and snow threatening to grip through the rest of September.””

My prediction confirming Sod’s Law (high energy prices guarantee cold weather) looks sound

Steve Case
September 25, 2022 4:48 am

14:40 So the rule is the report is going to come out six months after the summary to give time for the report to match the summary.

It would follow that the authors were pressured to change the report.

Reply to  Steve Case
September 25, 2022 6:54 pm

or the editors?

Tom Abbott
September 25, 2022 5:30 am

A transcript would be helpful and would spawn more comments.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
September 25, 2022 9:59 am

The transcript is now up on YouTube. Seems like the transcripts usually show up 1-2 days after I upload the interviews.

Joe Born
September 25, 2022 5:36 am

We’re giving the EPA the right to control CO2 by declaring it a pollutant. Think about that for a moment. Here is a pollutant. Let’s say some genius comes up with a method. He’s going to get rid of a little bit more than 60% of the CO2. And what will be the wonderful consequence of that? The death of all animals; the plants will die; there’s no food. 

What kind of pollutant is it you get rid of it you die?

Reply to  Joe Born
September 25, 2022 6:21 am

That is a good point, which highlights the absurdity of the whole climate agenda, but realistically there is not much we can do that will lower atmospheric CO2 concentration.

More concerning is the increased cost of energy, wasted resources, lower production of food, etc., that result from the misguided attempts to do so.

Steve Case
Reply to  Scissor
September 25, 2022 7:39 am

“… there is not much we can do that will lower atmospheric CO2 concentration.”

There is no reason on God’s green Earth why anyone should want to.

In other words, stop buying into the bullshit.

Reply to  Steve Case
September 25, 2022 8:28 am

I should have said something to the effect that we couldn’t do much even if it were desirable. It’s not. I buy into very little bullshit.

Steve Case
Reply to  Scissor
September 25, 2022 8:45 am

It’s one of those things I harp on. Start out from the fact that Carbon Dioxide is NOT a problem and go from there. Do not entertain the notion that there might be a way to reduce CO2 or Global Temperature. Don’t step sideways into the issue, hit them straight on with the empirical record and the facts about what CO2 is and what it isn’t.

What’s that old lawyer saying about, “If you have neither the evidence or the law, pound the table.” Let them pound the table, because they have nothing else.

Reply to  Steve Case
September 25, 2022 9:31 am

They may have to burn some tables for heat in Europe this winter at which point the pounding is likely to hurt.

Reply to  Steve Case
September 25, 2022 10:15 am

You are exactly right. CO2 is not a pollutant and CO2 does not drive global temperatures. Everything else is a distraction from the main point, and is bullshit.

Reply to  Scissor
September 25, 2022 1:17 pm

–That is a good point, which highlights the absurdity of the whole climate agenda, but realistically there is not much we can do that will lower atmospheric CO2 concentration.–
We could do a lot, but government as only increased CO2 emissions.
Fracking lowered CO2 emission.
Government paying for wood to make electrical power- increasing CO2 emission.
Government inhibiting nuclear energy- higher CO2 emissions.
Government schemes related to solar and wind- increased CO2 emissions.
Governments limiting industry so they have go to China- increased CO2.
Governmental slow walk in terms of mining Methane from the Ocean- increasing
CO2 emissions. Doing little increases CO2 emission, government is good at
stopping things, and incapable doing things which needed to be done.

September 25, 2022 6:40 am

So…All we have to do is wait for the Lying “Climate Crisis” Oligarchs to destroy Western Civilization and the World will self correct back to a Free Civilization because the Costs were too high and 280 million people died because of the misguided CO2 Mitigation efforts.

That’s a great plan.

Rich Davis
Reply to  DocSiders
September 25, 2022 9:12 am

It’s a thoroughly terrible plan, but as Ben Franklin advised, “Experience keeps a dear school, but fools will learn at no other”.

We in the US must hope that Germany, the UK, and California (right, not really part of the US) can provide the service of being crash dummies before the global fascists finish the task of extinguishing our Republic.

Reply to  Rich Davis
September 25, 2022 10:20 am

And Virginia is right behind California as the Democrats passed a bunch of Nut Zero laws when they took control of the governorship and legislature in the election before Youngkin won office. We need a Republican controlled legislature to reverse these laws – the Dems are too evil to let a reversal happen if they have any control.

Reply to  Rich Davis
September 25, 2022 12:14 pm

I hope you all know that Mussolini was a communist and Hitler a socialist.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Robertvd
September 25, 2022 1:32 pm

Yes, fascism is a leftist ideology, absolutely.

It is basically a mix of socialist state control with crony capitalism rigged for the benefit of those in power and their friends. That’s why I always call them global fascists rather than communists, even though there’s not in practice much to differentiate the two thug systems of government. It really comes down to whether the cronies pretend to work for the people or openly act for personal gain.

People like Biden and Clinton are obviously in it for the opportunity to skim wealth off government schemes. They are truly best described as fascists.

Reply to  DocSiders
September 25, 2022 10:16 am

You can’t fix stupid.

Robert W Turner
September 25, 2022 7:12 am

The fact that legitimate researchers must come to the right conclusions or add statements about how their conclusions don’t conflict with the orthodoxy, tells you all you need to know about the subject. We’re entering the Dark Ages, brought to you by an Oligarch near you.

Peter W
September 25, 2022 7:15 am

I just read an item on Space Weather stating that Jupiter, largest of the planets, will be at its closest approach to earth in 59 years, and visible in the evening sky on Monday. Yes, think Milankovitch Cycles, the largest planet in the solar system working to pull earth further away from the sun, and at this time of year. Welcome, BIG ice age!

Reply to  Peter W
September 25, 2022 8:32 am

Jupiter is 5 AUs from the sun, while the Earth is one AU from the sun. Jupiter pulls on both the sun and the earth at the same time, and the difference is not that great.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Peter W
September 25, 2022 9:22 am

Don’t be silly. This happens every 60 years or so. In fact, to a lesser degree, it happens every year. Half of our year when the earth is on the opposite side of the sun from Jupiter, the effect is to pull the earth closer to the sun.

Other than seeing Jupiter appear a bit brighter, this is a nothingburger.

Peter W
Reply to  Peter W
September 25, 2022 1:43 pm

Thanks to both Mark and Rich for demonstrating their complete lack of understanding of the Milankovitch Cycles.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Peter W
September 25, 2022 1:59 pm

Peter, it would appear to be you who lacks a grasp of the Milanković cycles that function over tens of thousands of years, not decades.

To think that we’re suddenly going into a glaciation caused by a change in the eccentricity of our orbit because of something that also happened in 1963 is a bit clueless.

September 25, 2022 7:52 am

Precisely what Lindzen was talking about-
Tonga’s volcanic eruption sent record amount of water into atmosphere, potentially warming Earth – ABC News
We don’t know what caused the eruption and haven’t got a clue what the overall effect will be. Mind you don’t stand under all those falling swimming pools or you’ll get a lesson in earth’s gravity and you’ll go viral.

Kevin kilty
September 25, 2022 9:21 am

What a great podcast to be able to spend some quiet time on a Sunday morning listening to.

Peta of Newark
September 25, 2022 10:11 am

Quote:C02 is not the control knob

Too damn right.
Your shout, do you vote (while you still can) for:

  • Michael Mann
  • or
  • Gavin Newsom for that ‘position’

We do know who previously controlled the knob, but she’s been thrown out of Number 10 Downing St – so what she does with it now is anyone’s guess.

Richard Page
Reply to  Peta of Newark
September 25, 2022 4:37 pm

Well the previous incumbents wrote one or more books, charged a fortune per appearance on the lecture circuit then held a senior position in a laughingly titled ‘think tank’ (political lobby group). Princess Nutnut may go down that route or try for a WEF/UN position, either dragging the clown along or using him as her frontman.

September 25, 2022 10:29 am

The key difference between science and politics is science requires dissent and politics forbids it. Climate science isn’t science; it’s politics. Without dissent, there is no progress. We are in for some difficult times, until people realize how deadly ignorance is. And that might be a while.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Brock
September 26, 2022 4:07 am

Well said, Brock.

September 25, 2022 10:49 am

Lindzen’s latest update on the thermodynamic radiation “iris”.

Reply to  JCM
September 25, 2022 11:09 am

My read from the interview and paper is that he warns there is no single control knob, he reminds us the earth is composed of many climates, and that there is still much to discover. Seems sensible.

Reply to  JCM
September 25, 2022 11:17 am

Perhaps a useful slogan for the transdisciplinary study of climates is “Climates Change”.

CD in Wisconsin
September 25, 2022 11:08 am

Did I understand Dr. Lindzen correctly? Did he say that the Summary For Policymakers of the IPCC reports is written before the report itself is? And that the summary is written by politicians?

I imagine that the report must be molded to match the summary, correct? Isn’t this doing things bass ackwards? When I wrote papers in college, the summary or conclusion was always written last.

If all of this is true, it demonstrates how there is monkey business going on at the IPCC— which leaves me even more suspicious of their true motives.

Rich Davis
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
September 25, 2022 11:33 am

He said (accurately) that the summary for policymakers is released before the underlying science papers are released.

The thing speaks for itself. It is illogical unless the supporting documents are edited to ensure that they support the narrative.

There mustn’t be any contradiction to the political narrative in The Science(tm)

Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
September 25, 2022 12:11 pm

There is evidence that the science in the report has in the past been ordered altered so that it conforms with the summary for policymakers.

CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  roaddog
September 25, 2022 12:20 pm

It would not surprise me.

David Dibbell
September 25, 2022 11:45 am

Much respect to Richard Lindzen. Early in my own effort to understand the warming claims, I found and read this article linked below. I recommend it.

“Some Coolness Concerning Global Warming”
Lindzen, 1990, in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society

My favorite quote from that article:
“Models commonly have difficulty reproducing well-observed major features of the current climate (e.g., mean global temperature, pole-to-equator temperature difference, intensity and position of the jet stream, seasonally averaged regional variations of climate, etc.) without what is euphemistically referred to as “tuning.” ”

There you go. Same situation over 30 years later. The tuning means there is no diagnostic or predictive authority in the resulting simulation outputs concerning GHGs.

September 25, 2022 12:15 pm

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Robertvd
September 26, 2022 4:13 am

That’s why freedom of expression is so important for the people of a free State, and why it is one of the first things authoritarians attack in their attempt to gain and keep political power. Like the radical Democrats are doing today.

September 25, 2022 12:40 pm

(I posted this before but got no answer. Second attempt.)

I’m a bit lost as there’s so much information here. Can someone point
me to resources to refute the claim that the recent “increase” in
atmospheric CO2 levels have been “proven” to be caused by human activity
using C14 dating? Seems like fossil fuel burning and volcano
emissions would be indistinguishable, since the C14 half-life is very
small in geological terms – only 5K years.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Mike
September 25, 2022 2:07 pm

Here’s a comment I made on September 23, at 4:54pm, here:

“July 1, 2013
The Bombtest Curve and Its Implications for Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Residency Time
“… By Gösta Petterssen — The Keeling curve establishes that the atmospheric carbon dioxide level has shown a steady long-term increase since 1958. Proponents of AGW (the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis) have attributed the increasing carbon dioxide level to human activities … Opponents of the AGW hypothesis have argued that this would require that the turnover time for atmospheric carbon dioxide be about 100 years, which is inconsistent with a multitude of experimental studies indicating that the turnover time is on the order of 10 years.
Since its formation in 1988, the IPCC (United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has disregarded empirically determined turnover times, claiming that they lack bearing on the rate at which anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions are removed from the atmosphere. 
Instead, the fourth IPCC assessment report argues that the removal of carbon dioxide emissions is adequately described by the ‘Bern model’, … based on the presumption that the increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide derive exclusively from anthropogenic emissions. Tuned to fit the Keeling curve, the model prescribes that the relaxation of an emission pulse of carbon dioxide is multi-phasic, with slow components reflecting slow transfer of carbon dioxide from the oceanic surface to the deep-sea regions. The problem is, empirical observations tell us an entirely different story.
The nuclear weapon tests in the early 1960’s initiated a scientifically ideal tracer experiment describing the kinetics of removal of an excess of airborne carbon dioxide. When the atmospheric bomb tests ceased in 1963, they had raised the air level of C14-carbon dioxide to almost twice its original background value. The relaxation of this pulse of excess C14-carbon dioxide has now been monitored for fifty years. Representative results providing direct experimental records of more than 95% of the relaxation process are shown in Fig.1. [graph]
The IPCC has disregarded the bombtest data in Fig. 1 (which refer to the C14/C12 ratio), arguing that ‘an atmospheric perturbation in the isotopic ratio disappears much faster than the perturbation in the number of C14 atoms.’ That argument … certainly is incorrect. Fig. 2 shows the data in Fig. 1 after rescaling and correction for the minor dilution effects caused by the increased atmospheric concentration of C12-carbon dioxide during the examined period of time. [graph]
To draw attention to the bombtest curve and its important implications, I have made public a trilogy of strict reaction kinetic analyses addressing the controversial views expressed on the interpretation of the Keeling curve by proponents and opponents of the AGW hypothesis.
Paper 1 in the trilogy clarifies that:
a. The bombtest curve provides an empirical record of more than 95% of the relaxation of airborne C14-carbon dioxide. Since kinetic carbon isotope effects are small, the bombtest curve can be taken to be representative for the relaxation of emission pulses of carbon dioxPide in general;
b. The relaxation process conforms to a mono-exponential relationship (red curve in Fig. 2) and, thus, can be described in terms of a single relaxation time (turnover time). There is no kinetically valid reason to disregard reported experimental estimates (5–14 years) of this relaxation time;
c. The exponential character of the relaxation implies that the rate of removal of C14 has been proportional to the amount of C14. This means that the observed 95% of the relaxation process has been governed by the atmospheric concentration of C14-carbon dioxide according to the law of mass action, without any detectable contributions from slow oceanic events; and
d. The Bern model prescriptions (blue curve in Fig. 2) are inconsistent with the observations, and gravely underestimate both the rate and the extent of removal of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. On the basis of the Bern model predictions, the IPCC states that it takes [ ] hundreds of years before the first 80% of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions are removed from the air. The bombtest curve shows that it takes less than 25 years.
Paper 2 in the trilogy uses the kinetic relationships derived from the bombtest curve to calculate how much the atmospheric carbon dioxide level has been affected by emissions of anthropogenic carbon dioxide since 1850. The results show that only half of the Keeling curve’s long-term trend towards increased carbon dioxide levels originates from anthropogenic emissions. 
The Bern model and other carbon cycle models, tuned to fit the Keeling curve, are routinely used by climate modelers to obtain input estimates of future carbon dioxide levels for postulated emissions scenarios. … estimates thus obtained exaggerate man-made contributions to future carbon dioxide levels (and consequent global temperatures) by factors of 3–14 for representative emission scenarios and time periods extending to the year 2100 or longer. For empirically supported parameter values, the climate model projections actually provide evidence that global warming due to emissions of fossil carbon dioxide will remain within acceptable limits.
Paper 3 in the trilogy draws attention to the fact that warm water holds less dissolved carbon dioxide than cold water. This means that global warming during the 20th century … has led to a thermal out-gassing of carbon dioxide from the hydrosphere. Using a kinetic air-ocean model, the strength of this thermal effect can be estimated by analysis of the temperature dependence of the multi-annual fluctuations of the Keeling curve and can be described in terms of the activation energy for the out-gassing process. … During the last two decades, contributions from thermal out-gassing have been almost 40% larger than those from anthropogenic emissions. This is illustrated by the model data in Fig. 3, which also indicate that the Keeling curve can be quantitatively accounted for in terms of the combined effects of thermal out-gassing and anthropogenic emissions. [graph]
The results in Fig. 3 call for a drastic revision of the carbon cycle budget presented by the IPCC. In particular, the extensively discussed ‘missing sink’ (called ‘residual terrestrial sink’ in the fourth IPCC report) can be identified as the hydrosphere. The amount of emissions taken up by the oceans has been gravely underestimated by the IPCC due to neglect of thermal out-gassing. … By supporting the Bern model and similar carbon cycle models, the IPCC and climate modelers have taken the stand that the Keeling curve can be presumed to reflect only anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. The results in Papers 1–3 show that this presumption is inconsistent with virtually all reported experimental results that have a direct bearing on the relaxation kinetics of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
As long as climate modelers continue to disregard the available empirical information on thermal out-gassing and on the relaxation kinetics of airborne carbon dioxide, their model predictions will remain too biased to provide any inferences of significant scientific or political interest. …”
[Ed. There were 519. Please see thread.]
I copied this with a bit of editing from:
“WUWT, The Battle for Science — The First Ten Years” at 1804-06.”

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
September 25, 2022 2:56 pm

More on C14 for you, Mike:

Dr. Murry Salby

(Author of Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate,

London, 2015

Youtube link:

Atmospheric CO2 Increase Steady While Anthro CO2 Up 300% (etc…)

[Of course, Mike, you need to watch the video, but, I provide my notes as a sort of “Table of Contents”]

My notes on video of lecture (posted on this WUWT thread: )

3:00 – During 1990’s, fossil fuel emission increased linearly .08 GtC/year (IF retained in
       atmosphere = .04 ppmv/year) {“ppmv”: parts per million by volume}

3:22 – After 2002, fossil fuel emission rate increased:  .275 GtC/year, an increase of 300%
       (Total at end of period nearly 2x greater); atmospheric CO2 increase, IF retained, would be 
       .14 ppmv/year.

3:45 – 1995 – 2002, atmospheric CO2 increased linearly 2.1 ppmv/year;
       — After 2002, atmospheric CO2 increased at the same rate.

4:10 – “The growth of fossil fuel emission increased by a factor of 300%; the growth of CO2
       didn’t blink. How could this be? Say it ain’t so.”

4:40 – Estimated CO2 Budget (Source: IPCC) {Anthropogenic CO2 emissions = 5 Gt/year;
       Natural (150 Gt/year) greater than human by 2 orders of

5:12  — Re: Net Atmospheric CO2 – for human CO2 to dominate, natural would have to remain in nearly perfect balance, i.e., even a minor imbalance in natural CO2 would either overwhelm the human CO2 emissions or act as a net sink of all the human CO2.

5:50 – CO2 reaching the atmosphere from earth is “conserved,” that is, it is neither multiplied nor destroyed; CO2 is only rearranged by atmospheric circulation. Thus, to restate,
atmospheric CO2 growth rate = Net CO2 emission from earth.

7:20 – Net global CO2 emission (all sources and sinks, natural and human). Note: it is not linear, i.e., does NOT resemble IN THE SLIGHTEST human CO2 emission rate.
       — Human CO2 and Net CO2 Emission records are incoherent. That is, net global CO2 emission evolves INDEPENDENTLY OF HUMAN EMISSION.

9:12 – Since 1997, global temperature has varied little (constant, except for weak cooling).

9:35 – Natural CO2 emission has strong sensitivity to surface properties (of land and of ocean) – Human CO2 is independent of surface properties.

10:05 – Correlation of .93 (net global CO2 emission and surface properties).

10:55 – Temperature (the main surface property driver) correlation: .80.

11:05 – Integrating thermally-induced CO2 emission backward, i.e., subtracting therm. CO2 for each preceding year (year x-1)  from current CO2 (year x), repeating this going back to 1980, gives an accurate estimate of net natural CO2 (since most net natural CO2 emission is thermally induced).

12:20 – Before 1980, there are no observations of global temperature; must estimate from surface thermometers (limited coverage of earth).

13:50 – Integrating thermally induced atmospheric CO2 backward revealed no human NO human CO2 component; this means the human CO2 component is not zero, but it is so small that it cannot be measured. Upper bound for human CO2 emission can be

15:10 — Using uncertainty range of pre-1980 thermally-induced atmospheric CO2, integrate forward (from 19th century thermally-induced CO2).

15:30 – 19th c. human CO2 close to zero, i.e., the natural, largely thermally-induced CO2 is dominant; as you integrate forward, the thermally-induced CO2 should start to diverge from observed atmospheric CO2 (the discrepancy would reveal the human CO2 component)

18:12 – Upper bound of human CO2 in 2007, (r(A)) <= 33% (corresponding to the lower bound for thermally induced natural CO2 of 67%). {Taking 280 ppmv as generally accepted min.). {See also Salby infra at 40:00}

19:10 – Conservation equation of CO2. dr/dt = E – A.

19:45 – Absorption Time (i.e., exponential rate of decay of CO2 using normalized absorption rate, α) à which, yields (1/ α) Residence Time of CO2 (i.e., after introduced, how long CO2 remains in the atmosphere).

21:20 – To find α requires {method #1 in this lecture}: r (Abundance of CO2 in gigatons of  carbon, per IPCC: 750 GtC) and A (absorption rate: per IPCC 150 Gt/year) à absorption rate (α) is 5 years-1 yielding Residence Time: 5 years).

22:00 – Dr. Salby has “little confidence” in this result for “A is little more than a guesstimate … highly variable … not observed.” (“r is well-determined)

22:18 – Better method {#2 in this lecture} of determining absorption rate α : cross correlation of CO2 (itself, not emission) with temperature.  

22:50 – Cross-correlation (CO2 – temperature) i.e., how large a change in CO2 results from a change in temperature along with the relative timing.

23:15 — A change in temperature is followed 10 months later by a change in CO2; thus, like emission, CO2 is strongly dependent on temperature, lagging behind it; “unambiguous which is the horse and which is the cart.”

23:42 – Theoretical constraints – the Conservation Equation governs evolution of CO2, thus, it also must govern CO2’s cross-correlation with temperature; the more CO2, the faster it is absorbed (i.e., absorption, A, is a function of CO2 abundance, r).

24:17 – Approximating each by a first order Taylor equation reduces the Conservation Equation to linear dependence on temperature and CO2 abundance (r).

24:45 – Thus, the change in thermally-induced emission is proportional to the change in temperature and the change in absorption of CO2 is proportional to the change in abundance of CO2.  
(gamma = the correlation between observed emission and temp.)
(alpha = “normalized absorption rate” value: TBD (to be determined – there are a number of CO2 evolutions, each with a different absorption rate, alpha).

26:10 – Taking as a given the IPCC’s alpha of 5-1 , result is cross-correlation of CO2 and temp.
         of (see slide).

26:24 — {Third Way to Determine α – other 2 at: 1) 21:20 and 2)

22:18 — Experiment} – A Tracer of CO2 in the Atmosphere (goes where CO2 goes). A small, uniquely identifiable subset of CO2 = good tracer: 
— C14 (only a trace contribution (<1%) to overall atmospheric,
— C12 mostly, carbon, so it can change without significantly altering total C in atmosphere).

{27:35} — C14 half-life = 5,000 years; conserved in atmosphere (thus, wherever CO2 goes, C14 goes – its analysis reveals absorption of CO2.
 {See: Gosta Petterssen of Sweden for similar analysis}

28:00 – C14 Discussion

a.     How C14 forms – Cosmic rays

b.     How C14 forms – human

1)    nuclear bomb fission – NTBT end 1963 –
n in 20 years extra C14 virtually gone from atmosphere (decayed)
n 30:00 – C14 decays almost perfectly exponentially (See figure “Absorption of CO2”) – correlation between observed C14 and exponential decay is .996 {32:02} (which means that the first order Taylor series where absorption is proportional to abundance is “not just an approximation, it’s close to exact.” 

Exponential decay means that absorption of CO2 (α) is proportional to the abundance (r) of CO2.
2)    {30:50) Nuclear power plants (1970’s and 1980’s = significant increase). This artificially extended the apparent absorption time of C14 (from the bomb testing)

{31:20} IPCC Models use “so called” Bern Model – 200 years – even then, 30% of C14 remains in the simulated world,

32:34 — Fossil Fuel Emission – Conservation Equation

{See 45:10 – independent upper bound}

Easily solved (no supercomputer necessary, heh), i.e., it is completely defined.

32:55 Anthropogenic CO2 Perturbation – with an initial CO2 level and the subsequent CO2 emission, the evolution of anthropogenic CO2 is entirely determined.

Fossil Fuel Emission During 1995-2015 increased linearly – after 2002 rate increased 300%
35:00 Increased human CO2 abundance ALSO increase its absorption rate, eventually in balance; net human CO2 then, 0.

35:25 Equilibrium level of human CO2 (equation for when emission = absorption) After about 10 years, human CO2 “will disappear.”

36:45 – At 2002 fossil fuel emission level, human CO2 = 30ppmv
n After 2002, 300% increase in CO2 per year matched by absorption rate, eventually they will be in equilibrium differing only by a constant (two parallel lines) – 37:30 —  net emission then becomes a constant, thus, CO2 growth (in abundance) is constant, increasing linearly like emission.

Absorption of human CO2 (equilibrium) drifts higher. CO2 at any instant = its equilibrium level 10 years prior (see graph) – “limited memory” (never “catches up” to the equil. Level) – “EMISSION FROM EARLIER TIMES IS INCONSEQUENTIAL.” – any influence has been erased by absorption.

40:00 – Upper Bound of Human CO2 Emission {See also at 18:12 infra} – Note: actual human CO2 less (shaded area in graph)

40:22 – Human CO2 emission increases steadily with population – most in undeveloped areas of world

41:15 – Re: Ability of government to control human CO2 emission: to date, nearly $2 Trillion dollars has been diverted to “renewable energy.” – it hasn’t made a dent in the above relationship.

42:25 Conservation Equation solved with exponentially related CO2 emission/historical population level – 42:45 for a direct comparison of atmospheric CO2 Conservation Equation result with human, start in instrumental era, ~1960 (Note: approx.. 20ppmv of T. 30 human CO2 since 19th c. was after, like most pop. Growth, 1960)

43:35 — In 2007, the human CO2 contribution to atmospheric CO2 was 28% (natural 72%) — 

45:10 The natural CO2 (thermally induced) component must be >= 67%; human, therefore, <= 33% {upper bound on human} – Note: This upper bound is INDEPENDENT of upper bound found from above analysis of fossil fuel emission.

45:48 Together, these two analyses of upper bound for human CO2 effect a double blind test
46:00 – Two Questions

1)    How Would CO2 Emissions Have Evolved Were Human CO2 Absent (post 1960)?


Even IF gov’t. could control human CO2 emission, can’t control bulk which is natural CO2 emission.

2)    53:00 When Will Fossil Fuel Emission Reach 50% {53:35 in 2014 < pot. max. 30% (boundary) human – Note: models assume 69!%} of Total CO2 Increase? That is: if fossil fuel use down to zero and can’t even eliminate half of CO2 increase (CO2 still increasing), what is the point?

54:35 The post-2002 300% increase in fossil fuel emission must be mirrored in an increase in atmospheric CO2 — fossil fuel component mirrored, should have increased CO2 >100% more than observed increase – it did not (see graph).

55:05 Models over-estimate human CO2 (far over (2.5x) observed upper boundary) using Bern model and eventually human CO2 erroneously becomes nearly ALL the CO2 increase.

56:15 — Per above α analysis (Salby’s), in 2092 is the first year that human CO2 could possibly reach 50% of the total CO2 increase – Note: emissions today are irrelevant (only the preceding 1 or 2 decades’ human CO2 emissions will be relevant, i.e., 2072’s at earliest).

57:33 – Fossil fuel depletion rates of reserves by 100 years or so – models assume fossil fuel emission continues indefinitely

59:00 – When fossil fuel emission is halved, equilibrium (absorption-emission) is halved

1:00:00 — THUS, Answer to above Q: Never {anthro reach 50% of total CO2} Underlying assumption: before it can, fossil fuel reserves will be exhausted.

1:00:30 – Atmospheric absorption/opacity (water vapor takes up any extra heat) – CO2 gets “scraps” – increase of total net CO2 increases atmospheric opacity ~6% — but already at 80, opacity has plateaued, so irrelevant beyond that (human % less than 1% – negligible).

1:02:35 – Radiative Equilibrium (calculation of CO2 heat affect, “temperature perturbation,” on earth) – adds (per above calc.) < .2 of one degree K. It can be amplified or negated by feedback mechanisms which are “countless.”

1:03:10 – A dominant mechanism is Convective Feedback – overturning of air – compared to other feedbacks’ time periods (weeks, months, longer), convective feedback is instantaneous (leaves impact, “horse in race,” in the dust) – 1:04:00 – illustration of Convective Feedback on radiative temperature

1:07:00 – Radiative Convective Equilibrium reduces the temperature perturbation if increased CO2 (above at 1:02:35) from .2 K to less than .1 K.

1:07:40 – What will temperature perturbation of increase in CO2 be not just for a doubling (from 280 of 19th c. (taking this as a given; not proven, btw) to 560), rather, setting that aside, let’s ask: What would be effect of CO2 emissions of ALL fossil fuels used down to level zero?


1:07:50 Around 2100, atmospheric CO2 (if continues on trend) will be around 690ppmv. Atmospheric opacity up by 1.1% (only 40% of that due to CO2 from fossil fuel emission) – surface temp. increased < .6 K, reduced by convective equilibrium, net temp. perturbation: < .1 K.

1:08:35 – Context (graph) for temperature perturbation above – Global mean temp. 1850 – present up .8 deg (due to just 2 decades) – NO systematic change — clearly no systematic relationship to CO2 which increased steadily. 1:11:11 – the “anthropogenic perturbation isn’t even detectible.” — Conclusion: global temperature is controlled by just about everything BUT fossil fuel emission.

1:12:00 CO2 is not measurably/detectibly influenced by fossil fuel emission, therefore, even less could fossil fuel emission affect what is affected (which is not much per above) by total atmospheric CO2.

1:12:30 – This subject is closed. There is no rational reason to further analyze CO2. Personal reason became, “by accident” interested in CO2 analysis: writing a new book on atmosphere and climate, 1:13:00 he was struck by fundamental contradiction between “what was being sold versus what the atmosphere was clearly doing.” – 1:13:34 But for the university in Australia taking away his research resources (the only reason he entered into production of that book – all he could do at that point), he would never have done his CO2 investigation: “I couldn’t have done it without them.” 😄

1:14:00 – 1:40 Questions from Audience

1)    Laudation from Christopher, Lord Monckton

2)    Q: When are you going to publish in a respected journal?

A (Salby) 1:15: I cannot publish THIS material until I publish the material from which it is derived and THAT material cannot be published until I recover my research files and been reinstated in the field.”


3)    1:16 Q: (just listen…. About pause and explaining, etc… hard to understand questioner)

A: 1:18 (Salby): “Pause” is a “misnomer.” “cause of so called ‘pause’ = “return to normality” – more interesting question is what caused the warming in 1980’s and 1990’s – models got tuned for CO2 covariance with temp. increase and no reasonable basis for this; not really related – … .

4)    1:25:30 Q: Re: upper bound for residence C14 time.

A: (Salby) I used the longest residence time – if I’d used the shorter of the (est. error bar ranges per questioner 4 – 25) times… I used 3 different ways to explore residence times… did total of 5 and the other 2 methods yielded even shorter res. times. Key: whether it is 1 or 4 or 8… it is not TWO hundred years (as per Bern model IPCC bases models on)

5)    1:28:20 Q: Re: Club of Rome etc… [I skipped]

6)    1:28:42 Q (Monckton): Re: Negative conductive feedback – How did you quantify that feedback? And did you consider another, short-acting, feedback, the evaporative feedback (3 times as strong as models assume)?

A.   (Salby) Evaporative feedback is coupled to convection – vertical transport of both water vapor and of temp./heat – the convective feedback I considered has evaporative feedback (i.e., latent heat transfer v. sensible (?) heat transfer) built into it – all is calculated v. a v. saturated (not dry) stability – Quantified by comparing rates of equilibrium structure with rates of convective structure (homogenizing is happening, from “skin” (tropopause at top) to bottom, … reduce by about half at the bottom…

7)    Q (really, a little speech) (1:32:09): (Norwegian parliament climate bill – neat accent) — Norwegian politicians say, “is this really true” (ridiculousness of ‘climate change’ arguments)?? Well! They are going to discuss and do something! You do it, too, you British. 

8)    Q: 1:35:00 What is your confidence that CO2 emissions will remain positive over the century to come?

A: (Salby) top of ice firns shows CO2 increasing over last century – if temp. stays about where is, temp.-induced (natural) CO2 likely stay about where it is (this is the basis) – otoh, if temp. were to “come down substantially” (not like anything seen within record of last century), then, CO2 could stop increasing OR, at least, rate of increase may slow

9)    Q: 1:37 We’re told CO2 levels higher than in last 30 million years, any times in past where CO2 higher?

A: (Salby) Absolutely (yes). Higher in other periods. Proxies ( but, with careful damping and the like calculations can better estimate) can grossly underestimate the CO2 level when formed.

10) Q: ~1:39 — So it is natural, NOT human CO2 which is responsible for the net increase in CO2?

A: Yes. Slide at 1:39:45 used to answer this.


I hope this was helpful, Mike.


Tom Abbott
Reply to  Janice Moore
September 26, 2022 4:16 am

“I hope this was helpful, Mike.”

You must have answered every one of Mike’s questions, Janice.

Good job. 🙂

Janice Moore
Reply to  Tom Abbott
September 26, 2022 7:34 pm

Thank you! 😊

Even if they weren’t helpful to Mike, I am so grateful to you for the encouragement and acknowledgement. It took some time to create those two comments which, apparently, Mike never read. 🙁

Reply to  Janice Moore
September 26, 2022 4:35 am

A HUGE pile of baloney

32.5% of all CO2 is manmade — the entire increase of about +135ppm from 1850 (280ppm) to today (415ppm)

If Murray Salby (and Ed Berry) do not agree, they are science frauds.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Richard Greene
September 26, 2022 7:34 pm


Reply to  Mike
September 25, 2022 4:02 pm

Seems like fossil fuel burning and volcano emissions would be indistinguishable

No Mike. To eschew that hubris you only have to visit Undara lava tubes explained here-
Mount Surprise, QLD – Aussie Towns
and here’s some pics to put that in perspective and how that all helped to form the weather you’re enjoying today-
undara lava tubes – Bing images
As Professor Lindzen points out and every concretor knows don’t count on the weather forecast for pouring concrete more than 3 days out and even then fingers crossed.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Mike
September 26, 2022 7:24 pm


My replies (within 3 hours of your asking) to you may not have been helpful to you, but, it would be nice to at least know that you read them …..

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
September 28, 2022 12:23 pm


Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
September 30, 2022 11:23 am

Mike. I have seen you commenting elsewhere, so, your failure to acknowledge isn’t (or wasn’t, as of about 24 hours ago) because you are indisposed.

Kinda irritated. That took me quite awhile to create those two posts and (@ whoever might be reading, here, and wondering why I am writing) I know that Mike is not likely to read this, but, it is helping me to record my annoyance.


@ Mike: I won’t be returning to this thread, so, if you want to let me know you read what I wrote or if you have any questions, please do that on a more recent thread. Not that I am holding my breath……

Last edited 2 months ago by Janice Moore
Robert B
September 25, 2022 1:31 pm

If you look at what is postulated (then declared robust because “We don’t know what else it could be” and if you suggest anything else, you’re a shill for Big O or C), CO2 has a very minor effect without a strong feedback, but there is one that will lead to Thermagedon. And there is one even though Earth’s climate remained stable, even as a massive glacier in Alaska melted away or 18 months of darkness swept over a large part of the NH in 536 AD.

Its a stretch but we get convinced by people like Greta to take action that we know will cause harm. We know that action will cause harm and it’s not because we can’t think of any reason why life expectancy went up dramatically while deaths from natural disasters plummeted.

Janice Moore
September 25, 2022 3:51 pm


Thank you for sharing, Mr. Nelson. Wish it could have been 3 times as long. Love listening to that fine mind, every time I hear him. Your comments and questions were insightful, well-informed, and helpful. You did an EXCELLENT job of letting your guest do most of the talking! 🙂

Ulric Lyons
September 25, 2022 4:54 pm

No one knows how the Sun drives the weather to predict it more than 3-6 days ahead, no one knows how the Sun drives the AMO cooling and warming. Even sunspot cycles are considered to be unforced internal variability.

Mark Pawelek
September 25, 2022 7:54 pm

The greenhouse gas effect claims that the surface of the earth is +32C warmer than it would otherwise be wihout greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The two main GHGs are water vapour and CO2. Take those two gases out of the atmosphere, and the average surface temperature will drop by 32C. That’s their essential claim.

I’ve never seen the primary science behind this claim (+32C warmer). I don’t believe climate alarmists ever did the required primary science; I don’t believe they ever tried to do observations and/or experiments to validate their +32C warming claim. I’ve been told by alarmists that they’d need a whole planet to experiment on. That was a lie. There are experiments and rigourous observations which can be done; and they’ve certainly had the money. For example, between 2008 – 2016, during Obama’s presidency, physical climate science research got $28 billion+ funding. Enough to fund 28000 studies to the tune of $1million each. Where are the primary studies? There’s nothing.

The alarmists claimed their models of the greenhouse gas effect are “settled science”. They defamed and defunded everyone who disagreed with them. Then, of course, there was no one around to force them to be honest. No one to demand validation and attempted falsifications of this greenhouse gas effect! It’s a gangster ridden scam.

Dr Lindzen is, unfortunatately, part of the problem. Where are the primary studies validating the greenhouse gas effect?

Man-made global warming is a fraud.

Mark Pawelek
September 25, 2022 8:18 pm

Freons were banned in 1986. Two years later they began their campaign to ban CO2.

Re: the ozone hole. The release of chlorine from volcanoes and oceans is 3 or 4 orders of magnitude greater than its release from freons. The ozone hole scare was a scam. [See: Maduro and Schauerhammer, 1992.]

September 30, 2022 7:07 am

Professor Lindzen reminded us about scare theories about Concorde SST. I recall in the UK all sorts of scares about nuclear bomb testing which, it was said, caused weather to be changeable and colder!

%d bloggers like this: