Joining Battle Over The “Science” Of Global Warming


Francis Menton

If you read this blog regularly, you likely are a follower of the global warming wars — the ongoing political struggle over government-led efforts in the US and elsewhere to transform the energy economy to get rid of fossil fuels and their associated “carbon emissions.” Lately, those wars have been focused less on what might be called the “science” of global warming — that is, the extent to which human carbon emissions may be causing atmospheric warming and whether that warming might be dangerous — and more on issues of practicality and cost of the proposed of energy transition. After all, as to the “science” issues, we are instructed endlessly by our politicians and media that the science of global warming is “settled.” So what’s the point of debating that any more?

In the real world, the “science” behind the claim that human carbon emissions are heading us toward some kind of planetary catastrophe is not only not “settled,” but actually non-existent. Nevertheless debating that subject can quickly lead to arguments couched in technical jargon and mathematics that very few people will try to follow. By contrast, almost anybody can quickly grasp why wind and solar electricity generation can’t work to power a modern economy and will multiply electricity bills by an order of magnitude.

But don’t get the idea that everybody has just given up on exposing the fake “science” behind the global warming scare. In fact, the Manhattan Contrarian is on the job — along with a hardy band of intrepid warriors with which I am associated. On Friday of this week, my co-counsel and I, on behalf of a small group of plaintiffs, will be filing an opening appeal brief in the DC Circuit challenging the 2009 “finding” made by the EPA that emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases constitute a “danger” to human health and safety. I’ll use this post to give a brief preview, with more detail to follow after the brief becomes public.

You’ll have to wait for Friday to get the full story. But for today, I’ll start with an appetizer of some background on where we are, plus some information on the serious nature of our team and support.

The night of June 3, 2008 was the occasion of Barack Obama’s speech at the Democratic convention accepting the party’s nomination for President. The famous line from the pompous megalomaniac that night was This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.” After Obama became President in 2009, his EPA got right to work on the job of “healing the planet” (really, how foolishly arrogant can a person get?), and in December of that year it issued a document known as the Endangerment Finding, declaring CO2 to be a “danger” to human health and safety.

The Endangerment Finding, by its own language, claimed to be based on three “lines of evidence.” (Two of the three are not actually lines of evidence at all as that term would normally be understood, but that’s a story for another post.). Over the course of the Obama administration, a team of scientists led by a guy named James Wallace investigated the things that EPA claimed as the basis for its finding, and began publishing a series of Research Reports on the results.

On January 20, 2017 (first day of the new Trump administration), a group of plaintiffs called the Concerned Household Electricity Consumers Council (CHECC), represented by myself and my excellent co-counsel Harry MacDougald, submitted a Petition to EPA asking that the Endangerment Finding be rescinded. The Petition, which you can read at the link, was based on the research findings of Wallace and his co-authors up to that time, as well as on publicly available economic data showing that the increasing amount of wind and solar electricity generation was driving up costs and making energy unaffordable for low income people.

But the Trump administration never took the opportunity to review and rescind the Endangerment Finding. During the course of Trump’s term, the CHECC group submitted no fewer than seven supplements to its Petition, citing new and increasingly definitive scientific research as it became available. But we were never able to motivate the Trump EPA to act on the EF. Even after President Biden took office, our Petition and many supplements languished without action. Finally, in April of this year, the Biden EPA denied the Petition. We filed a timely appeal, and the briefing of that appeal is currently under way.

And that’s how it comes to pass that only now, almost 13 years after the Endangerment Finding was issued, we are headed to a court hearing on whether that finding has any scientific basis, or, as we assert, is “arbitrary and capricious.”

I’ll save a review of the arguments made in our brief until after it becomes public. But meanwhile, I’m learning of some of the eminent scientists who are putting together an amicus brief in support of our position. The CO2 Coalition is the group of real scientists who advocate for the position that CO2 is a beneficial gas. It’s Chair is William Happer, the senior atmospheric physicist at Princeton. Tom Sheahen is the head of the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) and also a member of the CO2 Coalition. Sheahen and the Coalition are collaborating on a brief.

SEPP’s October 8 newsletter contains a summary of a major 2021 paper by Happer and co-author William van Wijngaarden that completely undermines the fake “science” of the IPCC and EPA used to support the case of climate alarm. It would be a reasonable bet that some of this might make it into the amicus. Some pithy quotes:

Sheahen specifically discusses the efforts of Professors William van Wijngaarden and William Happer in their pioneering work in calculating the real-world Global Warming Potentials (GWPs) of the five most common Green-House Gases (GHGs) and explains why the approach used by IPCC is faulty but nonetheless is used by its followers such as the US National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and the EPA. These faulty methods lead to great exaggeration of the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide, methane, and other minor greenhouse gases. . . .

Sheahen shows the stunning agreement between the calculations of van Wijngaarden and Happer (W & H) with satellite observations of outgoing infrared radiation emitted by the earth going to space . . .

Sheahen’s major point is that, because of the exceptionally good agreement between observational data and the calculations of W & H, we conclude that their model has now been validated. That embodies the scientific method. In that case, it is reasonable to use it to study other hypothetical cases. It is not possible to do so with IPCC models, which have never achieved agreement with observation. . . .

The gist of the Happer/van Wijngaarden work is that the greenhouse effect of CO2 in the atmosphere is almost entirely saturated, such that additional CO2 can have almost no warming effect. Here is a chart prepared by Sheahen to illustrate the Happer/van Wijngaarden results:

Read the full article here.

5 49 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ron Long
October 12, 2022 6:12 pm

Go get them! Don’t be surprised if the (weaponized) FBI knocks down your door and carts you off for some “rehab”. That’s the same FBI that used to be Famous But Incompetent, now they are Fracking Big Injustice.

Reply to  Ron Long
October 12, 2022 10:10 pm

First cousins to Putin’s FSB !

Gregory Woods
Reply to  Streetcred
October 13, 2022 3:41 am

Suffering from PDS, eh?

Reply to  Gregory Woods
October 13, 2022 8:11 am

I see you are suffering from totalitarian envy.

October 12, 2022 6:26 pm

Whenever someone tries to refer to “THE science” in regard to AGW or ‘vaccines’, I’ve taken to responding with –

“What – there’s only ONE science? That ALL the scientists in the whole world are employed to do? Where do they all fit? Their laboratory must be HUUUUGE! Where is it, this laboratory where THE one science is done?”

Campsie Fellow
Reply to  Mr.
October 13, 2022 1:41 am

Talking of vaccines, remember what these people told us:

Jon R
October 12, 2022 6:32 pm

Trump is a very big disappointment in many of the most important ways

there’s no way I could support him again.

Last edited 3 months ago by codery
Reply to  Jon R
October 12, 2022 7:03 pm

There were disappointments, I’ll agree, but do you believe that the FBI/DOJ was the only part of the Deep State that was working hard to undermine Trump from the day after he was elected?
We got problems that are unlikely to be solved in a month, or in two years, or even six years!

Fred Middleton
Reply to  hiskorr
October 13, 2022 10:24 am

Root purpose in COS – Convention of States. The platform of “open” debate. 16th and 17th Amendments – tools of larceny.

john harmsworth
Reply to  hiskorr
October 13, 2022 12:08 pm

It is apparent now that Obama packed the FBI with creooke3d Dem cops. It was already obvious that the EPA was likewise packed even before that. It seems very likely that this politicization was underway across the civil service. It wouldn’t be very hard to pull off, given the extreme Leftist bias in the universities, where almost all these employees came from.

Reply to  Jon R
October 12, 2022 7:47 pm

thar she blows!

Reply to  Jon R
October 12, 2022 8:44 pm

Support him when? As opposed to who?

I’ve voted Republican in all eleven general Presidential elections – but in only four of those cycles was I able to vote for my first choice. Two of those really don’t count, either, as they were Reagan’s and Trump’s renominations. (Yes, the very first election I was of prime cannon fodder age – and still had an undeveloped brain that believed too much of the “war monger” rhetoric.)

Now, if DeSantis does run this next cycle, which I think is unlikely, I will most likely vote for him over Trump. But if Trump is nominated – once again, I will be one of those “deplorables” who just doesn’t get with the Marxist program.

Reply to  writing observer
October 13, 2022 12:58 am

“(Yes, the very first election I was of prime cannon fodder age – and still had an undeveloped brain that believed too much of the “war monger” rhetoric.)

I tip my hat to you, observer. It took me waaaay longer to wake up. I didn’t leave the Democrat Party until 1992. The Clinton’s did it for me.
Even then, I still believed way too much of the war monger garbage. Yikes, I was dumb.

Reply to  writing observer
October 13, 2022 4:35 am

a desantis GABBARD pairing might be rather good
i see she let rip and quit her speech was excellent even if I dont agree with all her views, shes sane(always useful in a leader) and he seems pretty decent

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  ozspeaksup
October 13, 2022 5:14 am

Have her read a few books, starting with Hazlitt’s ‘Economics in One Lesson’, and she’ll do fine.

Reply to  Frank from NoVA
October 14, 2022 6:11 am

Hazlitt should be required reading in high school. Just sayin’

Mark BLR
Reply to  writing observer
October 13, 2022 5:32 am

Now, if DeSantis does run this next cycle, which I think is unlikely …

Tom Luongo has an “out there” idea for 2024, a Ron DeSantis / Tulsi Gabbard “unity” ticket, which he apparently first advanced publicly back in May.

His … “analysis” (?) of Tulsi Gabbard leaving the Democrat Party — but not, yet, actually joining the GOP : cf Bernie Sanders’ attempts to become the ‘Democrat’ presidential candidate — is worth a read, IMNSHO.


Very unlikely, yes, but it would MPIA (Make Politics Interesting Again).

Reply to  Jon R
October 12, 2022 9:02 pm

Oh for the olden days when politics wasn’t about personalities, charisma, theatre, celebrity.

Just clearly stated policies intended to benefit the nation and its citizens.

When the UN was a forum for negotiation between sovereign nations, not the home of neo Marxism.

Dream on, Mr.

Reply to  Mr.
October 12, 2022 10:19 pm

“Oh for the olden days when politics wasn’t about personalities, charisma, theatre, celebrity.”

Never happened.
Politics has been absolutely dirty as far back as history of politics exists. Not even all of our Founders were honest above-board representatives of the people.
Most were corrupt to some extent, a good number were dangerous to get between them and reporters.

Nor were news publications honest. Most wrote whatever they thought sounded best.
They never apologized for errors, they simply printed up a new imaginary story the next week. It’s why most people said, ‘Just because your read it in black and white, doesn’t make it true’.

Last edited 3 months ago by ATheoK
Reply to  ATheoK
October 13, 2022 1:02 am

Re newspapers in the days of our Founders. Not much has changed.

Jefferson’s comments.

“The man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them, inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors. He who reads nothing will still learn the great facts, and the details are all false.” ~Thomas Jefferson to John Norvell, 1807. ME 11:225

“I deplore… the putrid state into which our newspapers have passed and the malignity, the vulgarity, and mendacious spirit of those who write for them… These ordure’s are rapidly depraving the public taste and lessening its relish for sound food. As vehicles of information and a curb on our functionaries, they have rendered themselves useless by forfeiting all title to belief… This has, in a great degree, been produced by the violence and malignity of party spirit.” ~Thomas Jefferson to Walter Jones, 1814. ME 14:46

“As for what is not true, you will always find abundance in the newspapers.” Thomas Jefferson to Barnabas Bidwell, 1806. ME 11:118

“Advertisements… contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper.” ~Thomas Jefferson to Nathaniel Macon, 1819. ME 15:179

“Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle.”
 Thomas Jefferson to John Norvell, June 11, 1807

Tom Abbott
Reply to  KcTaz
October 13, 2022 5:29 am

Not much has changed.

As the old saying goes: Only believe half of what you see, and none of what you hear.

Reply to  Jon R
October 12, 2022 10:09 pm

Tell your employers, Jon R, that your snide insinuation fell totally flat here.

Reply to  Jon R
October 12, 2022 11:29 pm

I’m not a Trump fan either, but the way in which the extreme left Misleadia chose to vilify a democratically elected leader is much more worthy of our condemnation than Trump.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Redge
October 13, 2022 5:34 am

If we don’t vote for Trump next time, then we let the corrupt, criminal Dictatorial Democrats win.

Their goal was to keep people from voting for Trump and if you don’t vote for Trump, then you are helping the Dictatorial Democrats in their efforts to undermine the Repubic and take over the country, and Democrats rule in perpetuity.

Joseph Campbell
Reply to  Redge
October 13, 2022 9:20 am

Excellent, Redge…

John Larson
Reply to  Redge
October 13, 2022 6:23 pm

I myself didn’t think there was any chance of stopping the “elitists” assault on the American “model” of anti-elitism/rule by consent of the governed, which was blatantly obvious to me when Mr. Trump challenged the elitist wet dream of torching what was left of it. I was pleasantly surprised by his success (for I’m chronically skeptical of human beings and thought he might be faking his outsider/anti-establishment positions).
To me, it seems only people who want the American model to be dead and buried would want him to lose to the elitists, who clearly want it dead and buried, so they don’t have to justify a return to rule by a few elites. So they can just act like it’s a choice between elites . . which they will allow us to vote on, and call that “democracy”.

Reply to  Jon R
October 13, 2022 12:54 am

If you think Trump did a bad job, then I presume you LOVE the job Biden is doing. We’re only on the brink of WW III and Biden is warning us of an Armageddon coming. This is a situation created directly by Biden and his stupidity. Enjoy!

Gregory Woods
Reply to  KcTaz
October 13, 2022 3:46 am

Trump’s foreign policy was no better than Biden’s…

Reply to  Gregory Woods
October 13, 2022 4:59 am

Oh yeah? How abut the Abraham Accord,…eh?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Gregory Woods
October 13, 2022 5:35 am

Please elaborate in an upcoming Open Thread.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
October 13, 2022 8:16 am

Trump opposed Putin’s attempts to restore the Soviet Union.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Gregory Woods
October 13, 2022 4:58 pm

You are a flat idiot.

John Larson
Reply to  Gregory Woods
October 13, 2022 6:31 pm

Trump’s foreign policy was no better than Biden’s…”

Argument by assertion. (What will they think of next? ; )

joe x
Reply to  Jon R
October 13, 2022 3:43 am

you don’t have to support him, but i bet you will enjoy the gas prices at $2.50/gal.

Reply to  joe x
October 13, 2022 11:05 am

Never $2.50 again in California.

Last edited 3 months ago by Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Jon R
October 13, 2022 3:56 am

Ahh.. a staunch, never-say-dribble, Biden voter, hey Jon r !

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Jon R
October 13, 2022 5:25 am

“Trump is a very big disappointment in many of the most important ways”

Don’t do it here, but in the next Open Thread please list the very big disappointments you have had in Trump.

Trump is by far the best person to be leading the United States. His personality is secondary. He’s the one who sees the Big Picture, like none of the others do, or at least none of the others have demonstrated they see the Big Picture the way Trump does. We should stick with a proven winner who has proven he sees the Big Picture.

Trump had a lot on his plate. Doing something about the Endangerment Finding Lie may not have been as high on his piority list as yours, but it might have been on the list, but he didn’t get four more years.

Reply to  Jon R
October 13, 2022 8:12 am

So you believe that Biden is an improvement?

James B.
Reply to  Jon R
October 13, 2022 8:43 am

Not even if the alternatives are Joe “dementia” Biden, Kamala cackles Harris, or God forbid, Hillary “Benghazi” Clinton?

Damn Nitpicker
Reply to  Jon R
October 13, 2022 3:35 pm

One, deliberately inflammatory, off-topic post, and the bunch of you take it, like a worm on a hook.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Jon R
October 13, 2022 5:01 pm

He did more for this country than any president in my lifetime. And he also made the modern progressive fascists show their true gorgon face.
People like you disgust me, Jon.

Reply to  Jon R
October 14, 2022 6:22 am

A bigger disappointment than, say, the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaigns which were fined a total of $113,000 by the Federal Election Commission for their roles in funding the Steele Dossier, a fabricated document upon which millions of taxpayer dollars of U.S. intelligence agency hours were wasted investigating? Not to mention the involement of the FISA court with a fabricated document as the basis for its review.

Talk about undermining our democratic processes…!!! Aside from the 06 Jan 2021 incident appearing rather blase’ compared to some of the protests I witnessed in the 60s and 70s, the DNC and Clinton campaigns were actively engaged in activities to unseat a democratically-elected president based on utterly fabricated documents. Hello…!!!

October 12, 2022 6:36 pm

The legal basis cited in the GHG Finding of Endangerment is Ethyl Corp v EPA in which the judge determined EPA is a policy agency NOT a science agency and therefore EPA does NOT need a scientific basis for its regulation.

Unless the court overturns Ethyl Corp v EPA this suit will lose.

Not withdrawing the GHG Finding of Endangerment (because his daughter told him not to) was one of Trump’s big failures.

Reply to  tgasloli
October 12, 2022 7:01 pm

Beat me to it, re: Ivanka. That was my understanding, too. It was certainly one of his major POLICY failures. Other failures, such as not shutting up, and insulting everyone, were what got him unelected.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  BobM
October 12, 2022 7:48 pm

‘Other failures, such as not shutting up, and insulting everyone, were what got him unelected.’

Lots of women think that. Personally, I think Trump’s approach of insulting people who deserved to be insulted was justified given that 99.9% of corporate media was / is in the tank for the Left.

Reply to  Frank from NoVA
October 12, 2022 8:47 pm

Exactly. Trump insulted people who absolutely deserved it.

Now we have Biden – and his entire illegitimate Administration – that insults more than half of the COUNTRY on a daily basis.

Reply to  Frank from NoVA
October 13, 2022 1:05 am

This woman did not. Trump always punched at his level, or above. He never punched down. Biden and the Democrats always punch down and insult we, the people. They really do hate us, billionaires excluded if they’re on the Left, of course.

Martin Buchanan
Reply to  BobM
October 12, 2022 10:52 pm

You say “insulted”…I say was willing to call a spade a spade…

Richard Page
Reply to  tgasloli
October 12, 2022 11:04 pm

I was under the impression that West Virginia v. EPA meant that the EPA was not a policy agency and only congress could determine policy?

Reply to  Richard Page
October 13, 2022 1:06 am

Yes, that is recent and I was under that impression, as well. I do hope you are right. Of course, the Biden EPA may just choose to ignore it.

October 12, 2022 6:38 pm

As I noted previously, the atmosphere below 500mb is opaque to IR and it is convection that does the heavy lifting.

Happer is saying much the same.

The luke-warm position that WUWT has increasingly advocated needs re-examination.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  ferdberple
October 12, 2022 8:10 pm

Where did Happer say that so-called GHGs don’t have any effect on radiative heat transfer to space?

Damn Nitpicker
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
October 13, 2022 3:21 pm

Where did Happer say …

In fact, Frank, van Wijngaarden & Happer 2020 ACKNOWLEDGE that GHG really do have an effect on radiative heat transfer.

van Wijngaarden & Happer 2020: ”Doubling the current concentrations of CO₂, N₂O or CH₄ increases the forcings by a few per cent.”     

In fact, so did David Coe:

Coe, Fabinski & Wiegleb 2021: ”It is clear that significant amounts of radiated energy are absorbed by both CO₂ and H₂O. It is also clear that there is considerable overlap of the absorption bands of CO₂ and H₂O with the H₂O absorption being the dominant factor.”  

Coe, Fabinski & Wiegleb 2021: ”The HITRAN calculations show that atmospheric absorptivity has increased from 0.727 to 0.730 due to the increase of 140㏙ CO₂, resulting in a temperature increase of 0.24Kelvin. This is, therefore, the full extent of anthropogenic global warming to date.”

Coe 2020: ”There is not, and never can be, a climate tipping point.”    

Coe, Fabinski & Wiegleb 2021: There is no impending climate emergency, and CO₂ is not the control parameter of global temperatures; that accolade falls to H₂O.”

Regarding Happer,

The Dean of the Faculty, Princeton University: ”He [Happer] was one of the first to investigate the effects of light with a wavelength slightly different from the atomic resonance, and he studied several effects including the rotation of the light polarization and Raman atomic transitions. … He [Happer] also studied the unique properties of spin relaxation collisions between alkali-metal atoms, … ”  

That sort of experience makes Happer an expert on the interaction of infrared radiation with ‘greenhouse gases’ … IR is simply a different wavelength of light, and resonance is a slightly different absorption method, as is molecular rotation, spinning, vibration, or stretching.   

The Dean: “In what has become a trademark of all his research, Will [Happer] combined experimental measurements with the development of rigorous theoretical models and simple intuitive explanations.” 

This makes Happer a subject-matter expert on modelling, and measuring. 

The Dean: “Will  [Happer] was one of the first to realize the importance of van der Waals molecule formation during collisions between atoms, and he developed a detailed theory of spin-exchange optical pumping.” 

Modern main-stream ‘climate science’ has yet to discover the strange agglomeration of molecules, clinging together in ways that Bohr didn’t model. They interact in the infrared.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Damn Nitpicker
October 14, 2022 9:08 am

Thanks for the many references. I have one of the Cliff Notes versions here:

My point, above, was questioning the incorrect implication that Happer isn’t a ‘luke-warmer’.

Reply to  ferdberple
October 12, 2022 8:34 pm

For 8 micron IR, the atmospheric window is about 80% transparent down to 30% at 14 microns, averaging 70% over that range. Weins law says those emitting temps correspond to +90 C to -65 C, covering the entire earthly temperature range….so opaque it ain’t….

Damn Nitpicker
Reply to  DMacKenzie
October 13, 2022 1:13 pm

DM, to what extent, is your comment, a salient point? Does opaque mean 0% transmittance (optically “black”)? Is your 80%, (transmittance) “clear”? Technically, you are sorta correct, but, really, does 20% transmittance, fail to qualify as opaque?



  1. not able to be seen through; not transparent.
  2. “the windows were opaque with steam”

Oxford Languages 

Reply to  Damn Nitpicker
October 13, 2022 7:59 pm

Opaque means 0% transmittance to normal technical folks….

Damn Nitpicker
Reply to  ferdberple
October 13, 2022 12:14 pm

Ferd, you’re right, CONVECTION is key; most “Latent heat” (as seen in radiation budgets, such as Stephens 2012, many of Wild’s papers) ends up radiating to space, but well above the “heat-trapping GHG ‘blanket’ of IR opacity” you refer to. Willis, NASA, others agree with you.

Ramanathan wrote a (flawed) RANT in 2014 (“Climate change and protection of the habitat: empirical evidence for the greenhouse effect and global warming.”) in which he calculated that “… hu𝑴𝒂𝒏𝒏 activities have thickened the greenhouse blanket by 2.3%”.

That ≈3% increase in blankeg-thickness isn’t much, at all. As you indirectly pointed out, very little heat escapes from the surface, directly to space, since most all of infrared radiation is attenuated by the large humidity near the surface, and a little bit from CO. There is the primary “window”, in which about ≈6% of surface heat escapes (NASA, 40.1W/㎡ out of 239.1W/㎡ =5.982%)

… but the rest of that portion of the heat, has to fight its way to space. NASA (url above) shows the atmosphere ends up with the amount ≈170W/㎡ which is apart from the thermals, or “sensible heat” (≈18W/㎡) and latent heat (≈86W/㎡). The two are about 104W/㎡. While that ≈3% “increase in thickness of that “heat-trapping blanket” slightly impedes the portion called the “atmosphere” emissions (in that NASA diagram) ≈86W/㎡, it means almost nothing to the latent heat (and the sensible heat, going along for a ride in the updrafts) of CONVECTION. Surface-incident IR generally results in evaporation of water. That makes the air, moist, and probably, warmer. Warmer air is more buoyant (“warm air rises”) but, moist air is also less dense than dry air, so moist air, rises. The two intermingle, and, as an updraft forms, it takes moist air (latent heat) AS WELL AS entrained dry, warm air (sensible heat) aloft.

While this parcel of air will radiate, just like any other parcel of air, in proportion to its temperature, raised to the fourth power … this effect, in this rising parcel of air, is essentially equal to some other, non-rising parcel of air, so, in this discussion of the DIFFERENCE between CONVECTION and stillness, the two cancel out, so, let’s not discuss that, any more here.

Above that IR-opaque layer, while CO is not absent (it still has about the same parts-per-million), all gases are farther apart, due to the reduction in atmospheric pressure.

Rycroft, Israelsson & Price 2000: ”The atmospheric density decreases exponentially with increasing height, … ”  

You cited 500㍱, and if you divide the many, many, layers of clouds, into three (low, medium, and high) the transition between medium and high, is ≈440㍱, so the only thing “above” is classified as “High Clouds”. (Radley 2015). So, we’ve established that the majority of the “heat-trapping blanket” is below our “parcel of air” that we’re following, but, also the low clouds, and the middle clouds. So, even though clouds do act like GHG do, we can show that is below our 500㍱ level.

Plus, water vapour, at that level and slightly above, condenses (and even freezes) and falls down, so the air above 500㍱ is much more dry. IR photons don’t expand with reduced pressure, so, the odds of colliding with CO or H0 are greatly reduced “up there”. …

Of note, in this discussion, what most people don’t notice, is that this “heat-trapping blanket of GHG” IS NOW BEHIND US, and, when one of our hot gas items actually manages to radiate an IR photon (which goes in a random direction) … those that go “downward” are now inhibited by that “heat-trapping blanket” from affecting the surface.

Much of that heat, in the latent and sensible heat category, that manage to get involved in this CONVECTION, bypass most of that “heat-trapping” on the way up, and, when the latent heat is released by water vapour condensing and freezing, that “heat-trapping blanket” stops any downward IR radiation at this level (or higher) from reaching the surface, just as much as it inhibits the hot surface from radiating upwards … i.e, partially, but none of the alarmist folk seem to notice or acknowledge this. CO₂ in the atmosphere, below, will, in an equal fashion, absorb and re-emit this radiation back upwards. 

While not 100%, latent heat and sensible heat are not affected by CO or Methane or Nitrous Oxide GHG. Again, not 100%, but …. Let’s look at some numbers. Sunshine is ≈+340W/㎡, albedo reflection is ≈-100W/㎡, leaving 240W/㎡ that heats Earf. But, Earf radiates ≈240W/㎡ back into space, so this looks balanced, because I used very rough numbers. Lots of scientists have estimated the supposed heat imbalance, each has different values, so I use Dean Roemmich 2015 “ocean heat” estimate, which is ½W/㎡. Note that this figure is the sum-total of all planetary heating, FROM ANY AND ALL CAUSES. Not all of it comes from 𝑴𝒂𝒏𝒏kind. The sum of sensible and latent heat is ≈104W/㎡. Let’s say 100. If this CONVECTION were to be increased by 0.05, or half a percent, then this increase in CONVECTION would totally eliminate the supposed imbalance. All of “Global Warming” from any and all causes, by just a half a percent increase in CONVECTION.

Willis: ” … near the Equator, whenever the sun is stronger, there is an increase in thunderstorms. The deep upwelling caused by the thunderstorms is moving huge amounts of energy through the core of the thunderstorms, slipping it past the majority of the CO₂, to the upper atmosphere, where it is much freer to radiate to space. This is one of the mechanisms that I discussed in my post ❝The Thermostat Hypothesis❞.”

NASA: Evaporation and convection processes in the atmosphere transport heat from the surface to the upper Troposphere, where it can be much more efficiently radiated into space, since it is above most of the greenhouse-trapping water vapor.”

NASA: “So in short, it is this convective overturning of the atmosphere — poorly represented in computer models of global warming — that primarily determines the temperature distribution of the surface and upper Troposphere, not radiation balance.”

Most of Earf is water, some 70% of the surface area. Johnson & Xie 2010: “Deep convection over tropical oceans is observed generally above a threshold for sea-surface temperatures, which falls in the vicinity of 26°C to 28°C.” So, there is a non-linear threshold temperature, above which, massive convection happens. NON-LINEAR, exponential increase in CONVECTION before a Sea-Surface Temperature of ≈30˚C. All we need is half-a-percent, or so, increase in CONVECTION.

Damn Nitpicker
Reply to  ferdberple
October 13, 2022 12:41 pm

Below, I botched the “window” … ≈16% (not the 6% in my previous post) … The NASA diagram shows 40.1W/㎡ out of 239.1W/㎡  … but that isn’t 6%. Sorry.

Reply to  Damn Nitpicker
October 13, 2022 8:18 pm

You are somewhat comparing the entire IR spectrum with the “window” of 8-14 microns plus how much of Earth’s real window (in that range) is blocked by clouds, but then so do the Trenberth-type radiation balance diagrams…
The window has this transmittance, see the 8-14 micron range.
comment image

Last edited 3 months ago by DMacKenzie
October 12, 2022 6:42 pm

In the real world, the “science” behind the claim that human carbon emissions are heading us toward some kind of planetary catastrophe is not only not “settled,” but actually non-existent.”

Best thing I’ve read today.

Reply to  Mike
October 12, 2022 11:14 pm

Sounds like what Wolfgang Pauli said once about a physics paper:
“Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig; es ist nicht einmal falsch!”
“That is not only not right, it is not even wrong.”

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Mike
October 13, 2022 5:39 am

“Best thing I’ve read today.”

And the most accurate.

Reply to  Mike
October 13, 2022 7:08 am

Not accurate enough:

Since 1850, a nearly +50% increase of CO2 was accompanied by only a +1 degree C. global average temperature increase. Even if CO2 was the only cause of that warming, which is unlikely, we have strong evidence that CO2 emissions have been completely harmless. What science tells us is that the next +50% increase of CO2 will cause less global warming than the last +50% increase of CO2. Which would also be harmless.

October 12, 2022 6:42 pm

It is way too coincidental that the 1/2 mass height of the atmosphere times the lapse rate = 33C. The exact same value as the ghg effect.

Rule 39. There is no such thing as coincidence.

Nowhere in the calculation of lapse rate does CO2 appear.

Philip Mulholland
Reply to  ferdberple
October 12, 2022 11:44 pm

Nowhere in the calculation of lapse rate does CO2 appear.

Quite so.
Here is an alternate climate model that incorporates both meteorology and radiative physics:
The Application of the Dynamic Atmosphere Energy Transport Climate Model (DAET) to Earth’s semi-opaque troposphere.

Reply to  ferdberple
October 13, 2022 3:44 am

Your last sentence is not strictly true. The basic lapse rate is -g/Cp. G is gravity and Cp is specific heat of dry air.

The specific heat of dry air includes, through the Shomate equation, CO2.

So CO2 does appear and as the ppm increases the lapse rate is changing however slight.

Damn Nitpicker
Reply to  ferdberple
October 13, 2022 1:22 pm

Ferd … a third of a dollar, is 33 cents. Coincidence? I mean, if you fold a dollar bill, into three equal pieces. …

Volokin & ReLlez 2014: “… Earth’s atmospheric Greenhouse Effect (GE) is about 90K instead of 33K … mathematically incorrect, owing to Hölder’s inequality between integrals …”  

I have yet to see a refutation of Nikolov & Zeller’s 2014 point. Not that I understand it …

Volokin D, ReLlez L., 2014. “On the average temperature of airless spherical bodies and the magnitude of Earth’s atmospheric thermal effect.” SpringerPlus       

Ned Nikolov & Karl Zeller: “As authors of this article (Volokin and ReLlez 2014) we would like to clarify that our real names are Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller. We created the pseudonyms Den Volokin and Lark ReLlez by spelling our names backward.” 
Volokin & ReLlez 2014: “… Greenhouse Effect (GE), this near-surface Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement (ATE) …” 
Volokin & ReLlez 2014: “Often quoted as 33K for Earth, [Greenhouse Effect (GE), or Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement (ATE)] is estimated as a difference between planet’s observed mean surface temperature and an effective radiating temperature calculated from the globally averaged absorbed solar flux using the Stefan-Boltzmann (SB) radiation law. This approach equates a planet’s average temperature in the absence of greenhouse gases or atmosphere to an effective emission temperature assuming ATE≡GE. The SB law is also routinely employed to estimating the mean temperatures of airless bodies. We demonstrate that this formula as applied to spherical objects is mathematically incorrect owing to Hölder’s inequality between integrals and leads to biased results such as a significant underestimation of Earth’s ATE.
Volokin & ReLlez 2014: “… we show that Earth’s total [Greenhouse Effect (GE), or Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement (ATE)] is ≈90Knot 33K, and that ATE=GE+TE, where GE is the thermal effect of greenhouse gases, while TE>15K is a thermodynamic enhancement independent of the atmospheric infrared back radiation. It is concluded that the contribution of greenhouse gases to Earth’s ATE defined as GE = ATE – TE might be greater than 33K, but will remain uncertain until the strength of the hereto identified TE is fully quantified by future research.”  

October 12, 2022 6:57 pm

great report – please follow up in future post to keep us up to date on the court proceeding

Mayor of Venus
Reply to  Deacon
October 12, 2022 11:00 pm

Court proceeding updates. That reminds me we haven’t had an update from Mark Steyn for a long time on his case vs M. Mann. Has that case past the 10 year milestone yet? Courts can be experts at procrastination.

October 12, 2022 7:16 pm

Another reason that climate ‘science’ has no proper basis is that Lorenz’s butterfly effect shows that the climate models can never work for climate prediction. That’s because trying to build up a model of the global climate from minutiae (as the modellers try to do) can only lead to chaos. But I doubt that any court of law could ever understand that, no matter how carefully it is explained to them.

Reply to  Mike Jonas
October 12, 2022 11:55 pm

Pat Frank has pointed this out several times.

Reply to  Mike Jonas
October 13, 2022 7:11 am

There is one computer program that could be called a model — the Russian INM model — and it may appear to be somewhat accurate by chance.

All others are computer games that make wrong predictions.
Wrong predictions mean they are NOT models of the climate on Earth/

Joe Born
Reply to  Mike Jonas
October 13, 2022 9:58 am

I don’t profess any particular expertise in the matter, but I’m inclined not to over-emphasize the chaos aspect. Yes, weather is chaotic: it’s too sensitive to initial conditions to be predicted very far into the future.

As Steven Koonin observed in Unsettled, though, climate isn’t weather; it’s the average of weather over decades, and chaotic systems often exhibit attractors whose averages over long periods actually can be known pretty well. So, although climate models come in for heavy criticism in the book’s “Many Muddled Models” section, his criticism doesn’t rest much on chaos.

CD in Wisconsin
October 12, 2022 7:16 pm

“The gist of the Happer/van Wijngaarden work is that the greenhouse effect of CO2 in the atmosphere is almost entirely saturated, such that additional CO2 can have almost no warming effect. Here is a chart prepared by Sheahen to illustrate the Happer/van Wijngaarden results”

The knowledge and understanding of the saturation effect of GHG’s isn’t exactly anything new, is it?. A paper from 1971 (and ironically co-authored by Steven Schneider) seems to suggest something similar:

Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate | Science

“It is found that, although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.”


The $64,000 question then is: Are we dealing with scientists who were not aware of this or were they (and the IPCC) simply ignoring it for the 3+ decades of the CAGW theory?

Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
October 12, 2022 9:30 pm

Of course they know it. Their own literature continually quotes sensitivity in deg per CO2 doubling, a defacto admission that CO2’s effects are logarithmic.

The entire debate should have started and ended with “CO2’s effects are logarithmic”. All the hand waving and obfuscation are designed to hide that fact, despite it being in every single IPCC report.

Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
October 12, 2022 10:22 pm

It is “climate deniers” bigotry. Holding on to some dull simple messages, while not realizing where the action is..

Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
October 12, 2022 10:24 pm

That is what the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity for a doubling of CO2 concentration is all about

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  AndyHce
October 13, 2022 4:06 am

All other things held equal – which they have never been, are not, and will never be. The “feedbacks” are negative, offsetting on balance, and the ACTUAL, as opposed to HYPOTHETICAL,,”effect” of CO2 on temperature cannot be distinguished from ZERO.

Which is what observations support.

CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  AndyHce
October 13, 2022 8:08 am

I can see how ECS and the logarithmic saturation effect must be related to each other. As the saturation effect increases, the ECS of the climate to GHG’s must go down. And given that clouds from increased water vapor are a negative-feedback and are still significantly not understood, the catastrophic warming theory becomes bunk.

This explains why the paleoclimate ice core studies do not show CO2 driving temperature through the ages. The problem here is getting the rest of the world to understand that and the U.N. and the world’s govts to admit it. And getting XR to understand it as they continue to prognosticate gloom and doom from business as usual. Blocking roadways in Britain and the U.S. is pointless.

Leslie MacMillan
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
October 13, 2022 8:25 am

Again, you are conflating a logarithmic mathematical function with the physical phenomenon of saturation.

Mayor of Venus
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
October 12, 2022 11:13 pm

Their expectation was a positive feedback from more water vapor in the atmosphere….carbon dioxide doubling alone was calculated to have about 1 degree warming. But more water vapor could increase cloud cover, a negative feedback. I attended a talk in 1980 where it was admitted clouds were the big unknown. They still are now.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Mayor of Venus
October 13, 2022 5:49 am

“I attended a talk in 1980 where it was admitted clouds were the big unknown. They still are now.”

The science is not settled.

Yet our elected officials proceed as if it is, to the detriment of society.

Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
October 13, 2022 1:22 am

No, they are not ignoring it, they are using their fantasy science to achieve their goals. They have stated it out loud. They’re not shy about their designs for the world at all.

“The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself.“
– Club of Rome 1993,

“The Earth has cancer
and the cancer is Man.”
– Club of Rome

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we
are setting ourselves the task of intentionally,
within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model
that has been reigning for at least 150 years since the Industrial Revolution.”
–– Christiana Figueres
Fmr UN Climate Chief (UNFCCC)

“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.“
– Timothy Wirth,
Fmr President of the UN Foundation

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
– Maurice Strong, founder of UNEP

“Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the
affluent middle class – involving high meat intake,
use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and
suburban housing – are not sustainable.”
– Maurice Strong Rio+20 Earth Summit 1992,
founder of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP))

“It is the responsibility of each human being today to choose
between the force of darkness and the force of light.
We must therefore transform our attitudes, and 
adopt a renewed respect for the superior laws of Divine Nature.”
– Maurice Strong Rio+20 Earth Summit 1992,
founder of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)

UN Climate Chief Says Communism Is Best To Fight Global Warming | Climatism

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we
are setting ourselves the task of intentionally,
within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model
that has been reigning for at least 150 years since the Industrial Revolution.”
–– Christiana Figueres
Fmr UN Climate Chief (UNFCCC)

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  KcTaz
October 13, 2022 5:49 am

Nice compilation!

Tom Abbott
Reply to  KcTaz
October 13, 2022 5:51 am

Thanks for the reminders.

Ronald Havelock
Reply to  KcTaz
October 14, 2022 3:08 pm

Very good quotes. They explain a lot, but I would add Malthus and Paul Ehrlich. When you hear the word “sustainability,” and Tim Worth’s excuse, you should realize that these folks are not progressives in any sense. They imagine that things were lot better in the Garden of Eden. Is Eden-ism a liberal or progressive idea? I don’t think so.

Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
October 13, 2022 7:14 am

Thiat CO2 alone is a weak greenhouse gas above 400ppm is the consensus science. That consensus science goes off the rails with an imaginary water vapor positive feedback that amplifies the effect of CO2 by about 3x (2x to 4x) Please send $64,000.

Damn Nitpicker
Reply to  Richard Greene
October 13, 2022 3:06 pm

❝… is the consensus science❞ Ah, yes, ask the the right question carefully, and scientists will blame 𝑴𝒂𝒏𝒏. But, ask them detailed questions …

Ahn 2012: Understanding the Carbon cycle is thus very important for accurately predicting, managing and adapting to future climate. The relationship between climate and the Carbon cycle remains incompletely understood, however.”


Goto 2017: “… our current understanding of the … global Carbon cycle, is still insufficient [e.g., Le Quéré 𝑒𝑡 𝑎𝑙., 2016].”   

Barker 2021: “The global atmospheric emission budgets of both CH₄ and CO₂ still remain uncertain, with the balance between total anthropogenic and biospheric sources and sinks yet to be fully understood and accounted for.”  

Friedlingstein 2014: “The future of the land Carbon cycle is significantly more uncertain, even for a given RCP scenario.  There is no overall agreement across models on the sign of the land Carbon sink by the end of the 21ˢᵀ century, …”   

Friedlingstein 2014: “… most climate simulations use prescribed atmospheric CO₂ concentration, and therefore do not, interactively, include the effect of Carbon cycle feedbacks.”
Frank 2010: ”But the magnitude of the climate sensitivity of the global Carbon cycle … is under debate, giving rise to large uncertainties in global warming projections … Approximately 40% of the uncertainty related to projected warming … stems from the unknown behaviour of the Carbon cycle¹⁰, … ”      

Frank, D. C., 𝑒𝑡 𝑎𝑙. 2010. <b>”Ensemble reconstruction constraints on the global Carbon cycle sensitivity to climate.”</b> <i>Nature Letters</i>      

Friedlingstein, Pierre, 𝑒𝑡 𝑎𝑙. 2014. “Historical and future land Carbon cycle, results from the 5ᵀᴴ Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5).” <i>EGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts

Ahn, Jinho, 𝑒𝑡 𝑎𝑙. 2012. “Atmospheric CO₂ over the last 1000 years: A high‐resolution record from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) Divide ice core.” Global Biogeochemical Cycles

Barker P. A., 𝑒𝑡 𝑎𝑙. 2021. “Airborne quantification of net Methane and Carbon dioxide fluxes from European Arctic wetlands in Summer 2019.”

Goto, Daisuke, 𝑒𝑡 𝑎𝑙. 2017. “Terrestrial biospheric and oceanic CO₂ uptakes … CO₂ mole fraction, δ¹³C, and δ (O₂/N₂) at Ny‐Ålesund, Svalbard.Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences
researchgate Terrestrial biospheric and oceanic CO₂ uptakes estimated from long-term … .pdf  

Leslie MacMilla
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
October 13, 2022 8:24 am

“Logarithmic” and “saturation” are not the same thing. The former increases without bound, albeit with progressively declining slope. The latter approaches a bounded limit asymptotically. So global temperature can rise at some constant amount per doubling of CO2 concentration (a logarithmic function) without ever displaying saturation (which it doesn’t, certainly not at the top of the atmosphere where heat transfer to space occurs.)

Leslie MacMillan
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
October 13, 2022 8:41 am

Comment of mine I inadvertently left the terminal “n” off my name, sending it to moderation. No intent to spam or other psychopathy.

October 12, 2022 7:19 pm

Sheahen shows the stunning agreement between the calculations of van Wijngaarden and Happer (W & H) with satellite observations of outgoing infrared radiation emitted by the earth going to space”

W&H essentially just looked up the hitran database. I guess they used another spectral database as well, but that only gave the same results. There is really not much to it. These databases on the other side are based on lab spectral measurements and satellite observations. So of course they match, more or less.

October 12, 2022 7:31 pm

Good job, good luck to you.

Reply to  Bob
October 12, 2022 8:00 pm

How is a Judge with little to no background in Science, to be able to understand what it is all about.

I fear that only a collapse of the energy system, & with it Wesrern civilisation will finally sort this mess out.

Step one is to get the message out that this whole thing has nothing to do with Global Warmi g sea level rise,& Climate.

That is just the smoke screen.

It’s all about a Authaterian form of government.

We have already had a preview with the Russian Revolution, 1917 to 1991.

Step one is to wreak the present World Economy..

Step two ” We can save you””.

Michael VK5ELL

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Michael
October 13, 2022 5:58 am

“How is a Judge with little to no background in Science, to be able to understand what it is all about.”

The primary requirement of a judge is to be able to determine whether they are dealing with evidence or with assumptions and assertions.

A logical, intelligent person should be able to see that all the alarmist claims about CO2 and any harmful effects, are all speculation, assumptions and assertions.

As it says in this article above: The science is not only not settled, it is non-existent. A competent, unbiased judge ought to be able to see that even without a scientific education.

Any logical, intelligent person ought to be able to see this if they delve deeply enough into the subject.

October 12, 2022 8:55 pm

it was never about the truth

October 12, 2022 10:07 pm

That’s going to make a lot of stinky bricks in the pants of alarmists.
It’s amazing how much pleasure can come from a small graphic.

the Manhattan Contrarian is on the job — along with a hardy band of intrepid warriors with which I am associated. On Friday of this week, my co-counsel and I, on behalf of a small group of plaintiffs, will be filing an opening appeal brief in the DC Circuit challenging the 2009 “finding” made by the EPA that emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases constitute a “danger” to human health and safety.”

Have terrific good luck in pursuing that endangerment challenge!

Mike Dubrasich
October 12, 2022 10:23 pm

Regardless of the morbidity of the Debate, or whether or not Happer and Wijngaarden’s models are correct, the warmth that might allegedly be caused by CO2 is NOT a danger to anything or anyone. More warmth would be a boon and a blessing to life.

No danger, no endangerment.

October 12, 2022 10:28 pm

I agree that just agreeing that we have to get on with it, and then pointing out how totally unrealistic that actually is from the materials required point of view, has had 10^4 times more cut-through with my friends who are ardent renewables advocates.

Three of them have changed from anti-nuclear to at least luke-warm on it.

The thought that pretty much anywhere suitable deposits were found that they would need to be mined (national parks, the ocean, under cities) and that the bulk of the water available would need to go to mining and mineral processing even had one wonder which was the least damaging option.

October 12, 2022 11:59 pm

The best and simplest argument is to ask why ecological and climatic disaster did not befall the Earth last time CO2 was above 500 ppm.

Gregory Woods
Reply to  Graemethecat
October 13, 2022 3:56 am


John Larson
Reply to  Graemethecat
October 13, 2022 7:41 pm

They’ve got so many “extinction events” on tap now, so to speak, that they can just call one up and say there was ecological/climate disaster, it seems to me. I’ve already seen some of them “linked” to “global warming” rhetorically . .

Reply to  Graemethecat
October 14, 2022 12:49 am


Historic atmospheric CO2 levels of thousands of PPM and yet the oceans did not turn into malodorous acid baths – reducing all sea life to a primeval soup!

Perhaps the Mock Turtles did not leave the water fast enough to survive?

“Will you walk a little faster?” said a whiting to a snail,
“There’s a porpoise close behind us, and he’s treading on my tail.
See how eagerly the lobsters and the turtles all advance!
They are waiting on the shingle—will you come and join the dance?
    Will you, won’t you, will you, won’t you, will you join the dance?
    Will you, won’t you, will you, won’t you, won’t you join the dance?

Lewis Carroll

Reply to  KAT
October 14, 2022 1:02 am

Mock Turtle flees just in time from acidic ocean.

File:Mock Turtle detail.png – Wikimedia Commons

October 13, 2022 12:50 am

Sheahen’s major point is that, because of the exceptionally good agreement between observational data and the calculations of W & H, we conclude that their model has now been validated. That embodies the scientific method. In that case, it is reasonable to use it to study other hypothetical cases. It is not possible to do so with IPCC models, which have never achieved agreement with observation. . . .”

You presume the “Green” scientists care about data? They do not.The CC-AGW ” scientists only care about models.

From the Climategate emails.

“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations 
on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
– Prof. Chris Folland,

Damn Nitpicker
Reply to  KcTaz
October 13, 2022 1:32 pm

That Folland quote comes from a meeting, held in Asheville, North Carolina, 13 August 1991

Robert B
October 13, 2022 1:06 am

There is no science, as in the method. All we have is a more elaborate version of the old trick – you know I’m right because you are so smart.

October 13, 2022 3:28 am

I used to think that if global warming stopped completely or even turned into global cooling that it would stop the climate change juggernaut, but now I doubt anything can. Its objectives go well beyond anything relating to climate.

Reply to  Tom.1
October 13, 2022 7:18 am

No global cooling since 2066 using every surface and satellite global average temperature compilation.

October 13, 2022 5:10 am

or explaining with ln function : you have to put more and more CO2 to get same radiative forcing difference :

October 13, 2022 6:58 am

This effort will FAIL.
Science is not the important issue
There is general agreement that CO2 above 400ppm is a weak greenhouse gas that ought to impede Earth’s ability to cool itself by some amount that is not dangerous. There is not much controversy over the effect of CO2 alone.

The real controversy is over an imaginary water vapor positive feedback that allegedly triples the effect of CO2 alone (2x to 4x). That imaginary theory converts AGW into CAGW. There is some science behind a positive feedback theory — a warmer troposphere does hold more water vapor, which would be a positive feedback to any warming caused by CO2.

The facts that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and there is some water vapor positive feedback are unproductive subjects for debate. That debate would be a “My science is better than Your science” debate. The government bureaucrat scientists can never lose such a debate, because of their “authority”*Appeal to Authority). The worst they can do is a draw.

What needs to be debated is he imaginary huge water vapor positive feedback which drives the CAGW predictions by scientists and their beloved computer models (except the Russian INM model).

How does one debate a huge positive feedback theory when it has never happened? It is just a prediction. Not reality.

You debate a prediction by pointing out the sorry track record of previous climate predictions — 100% wrong. Then you add other related and always wrong predictions of environmental doom — also 100% wrong since the 1960s.

You use the horrible track record of past predictions to discredit the government bureaucrat scientists who make wrong predictions for a living. You character attack the people who made wrong predictions for the past 50 years.

Trying to refute CAGW with science has failed since the 1979 The Charney Report. It makes no sense to use the same strategy again and expect a victory. You can not refute much science behind AGW because there is so little science to debate. There is general agreement that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and those gases affect the climate.

But there is no science, and no data, supporting claims of a huge water vapor feedback in response to a warming troposphere. No data now, or at any time in the past 4.5 billion years. That is the weak point of CAGW — a predicted huge feedback that has never happened. Without that alleged huge feedback, CAGW becomes AGW, and AGW is mild and harmless.

CAGW is predictions, not science.
Attack the predictions, and the people who make them !

Damn Nitpicker
Reply to  Richard Greene
October 13, 2022 2:45 pm

❝a warmer troposphere does hold more water vapor, which would be a positive feedback to any warming caused by CO2.❞… not so fast. First off, if said increase of water vapour occurs, in the correct place, it would amplify warming FROM WHATEVER CAUSE, not being limited to CO₂ …

Trenberth, Fasullo & Smith 2005: ”As climate warms, the amount of moisture in the atmosphere, which is governed by the Clausius–Clapeyron equation [C-C relationship], is expected to rise much faster than the total precipitation amount, which is governed by the surface heat budget through evaporation (Trenberth 𝑒𝑡 𝑎𝑙. 2003).”   

Dessler & Davis 2010: ”[7] For understanding the water vapor feedback, our focus is on the tropical mid and upper Troposphere.”   

Second, we’re not speaking of the whole Troposphere, just the upper Troposphere, when we are looking for that “amplification”. Not the LOWER Troposphere. We’re talking Tropopause-level air masses, for this water-vapour-amplification. For this “AGW” multiplier effect, the water vapour around 300㍱ to 100㍱ matters most. 

Third, it isn’t universal. “Water Vapour Amplification” is muted in the Tropics.

Frolov 2009: ”However, in regions with high absolute humidity, an increase in humidity provides a very modest heating force. Tropical regions that already have high humidity, do not gain much additional heating from an increase in humidity.”   

… and, Water Vapour Amplification would be difficult in extremely cold areas, like Antarctica, due to humidity removal from condensation.

Dunn 2020: ”The water vapor feedback is determined mainly by the mid- to upper-Troposphere (Allan 𝑒𝑡 𝑎𝑙. 1999; Held and Soden 2000), because the radiative effect of water vapor is proportional to relative changes in water vapor (John and Soden 2007) and not to the absolute amount.”  

With certain assumptions, the Clausius–Clapeyron [C-C] relationship, says that a warmer atmosphere CAN HOLD more water. Doesn’t mean that it WILL hold all that it CAN. It’s those assumptions that aren’t always satisfied, that’s the kicker. 

Follow this preposterous, imaginary example. Suppose a region of air, way up there, near the Tropopause, gets significantly heated. Sure, it COULD hold more water. But, up there, where is the water, going to come from? There’s no contact with a water surface. It had been cold, up there, before we artificially imagined that this parcel got heated, so the air was dry, to begin with. Now, back to reality.

There has to be a source of water, and it has to survive the cooling effect of the tropospheric lapse rate, which tends to condense (even freeze) water, which then falls out of the air. It is difficult to get moisture “up there” … again, LOWER Troposphere water, doesn’t do it; neither mid-Troposphere water (Umm, well, LESS in mid-troposphere levels.)

Pierrehumbert 2022: ”Water vapour in the atmosphere is out of thermodynamic equilibrium with the moisture source at the ocean surface — in equilibrium, it would be saturated everywhere. It is kept from equilibrium by an intricate interplay of turbulent mixing and removal by condensation, which ultimately determines the probability distribution of humidity (Pierrehumbert, Brogniez & Roca 2007)”   

Consider the air, up there. Upper Troposphere. Where did it recently come from? … … …

Updrafts into thunderstorms. Warm, moist air rises up, and condenses (forming a lower pressure, which sucks air up even more) and inertia (from the rising updrafts) spreads it out, and LEAVES the area of the thunderstorm, as DRY air.

Takahashi 2013: ”Fundamentally, water vapor and convection are controlled by thermodynamics (e.g., Clausius-Clapeyron (CC) relationship) and [physicaldynamics (e.g., rising or sinking motion), respectively. From a large-scale perspective, both [physical] dynamics and thermodynamics play an important role in affecting clouds and water vapor [Bony 𝑒𝑡 𝑎𝑙., 2004].   

Consider the complex “dynamics” in very simple terms: wind.  Wind on the ocean produces waves, and waves fragment into spray droplets, and the wind carries them. The high surface-area to mass ratio of these small drops, which intensifies as the droplets become smaller, provides more surface area for evaporation. Just because an energy difference allows for evaporation, doesn’t mean that the physical circumstances support that evaporation. There has to be water! Again, it is difficult to get moisture “up there” … not LOWER Troposphere water, neither mid-Troposphere water (well, umm, LESS). “Water-Vapour Amplification of Warming” happens mostly in the UPPER Troposphere (perhaps in the lower Stratosphere, but, that would be another post).

Trenberth, Fasullo & Smith 2005: ”Precipitable water variability for 1988 to 2001 is dominated by the evolution of ENSO, and especially the structures that occurred during and following the 1997 to 1998 El Niño event.” 

Takahashi 2013: ”It is shown that the variations of water vapor during the 2006 to 2007 El Niño are mainly controlled by the thermodynamic component, whereas both dynamic and thermodynamic components control the water vapor anomalies during the 2009 to 2010 El Niño. … ”  

Spencer, Roy, June 9ᵀᴴ, 2021, from his blog: ”But in the mid- and upper- Troposphere, [800㍱ up to 100㍱] detrained air from precipitation systems largely determines humidity. The fraction of condensed water vapor that is removed by precipitation determines how much is left over to moisten the environment. The free-tropospheric air sinking in clear air even thousands of ㎞ away from any precipitation systems, had its humidity determined, when that air ascended in those precipitation systems, days to weeks before. As demonstrated by Renno, Emanuel, and Stone (1994) with a model containing an explicit atmospheric hydrologic cycle, precipitation efficiency determines whether the climate is cool or warm, through its control on the main greenhouse gas, water vapor.”   

Last edited 3 months ago by Damn Nitpicker
Gerald Machnee
Reply to  Richard Greene
October 14, 2022 2:02 pm

Correction: A warmer troposphere CAN hold more water vapor. You have to measure it to state whether it actually does hold it.

Laws of Nature
October 13, 2022 7:47 am

Aww.. I hope this is finally a public work mentioning R. McKitrick fundamental critizm on how attribution from climate models is performed.

As for the graph at he end of this teaser you need additional constrains for this to be true. The average free path length and thermalization time of any molecule increases with the height in the atmosphere as the density decreases an with that additional CO2 will have an additional effect up there.
If you mean lower Troposphere, say it, but that of course means there are other parts of the atmosphere where anthropogenic CO2 is active.
Three word sentences always have the danger of not being quite right.

October 13, 2022 8:20 am


October 13, 2022 8:21 am

In the real world, the “science” behind the claim that human carbon emissions are heading us toward some kind of planetary catastrophe is not only not “settled,” but actually non-existent !

Pat from kerbob
October 13, 2022 9:09 am

This was one of the areas where Trump failed badly
This should have been tackled in 2017, he should have forced an open scientific debate
No more denier, no more settled science, open debate on facts only

This was his biggest failure

Ronald Havelock
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
October 14, 2022 3:25 pm

I would not say his “biggest,” but it is one of the reasons. I would put the same question to the major oil companies and oil-producing states.

October 13, 2022 9:12 am

The nonlinear effect of CO2 with effect of each additional PPM being less than the effect of the previously added PPM is well known, and even stated by the IPCC as logarithmic within the range of atmospheric CO2 concentration that the world has had in the past few hundred thousand years and through the range that is projected in the RCPs. Their usual figure for effect of increase of CO2 is 3.7 W/m^2 per doubling of CO2.

October 13, 2022 10:33 am

Don’t stop pointing out that renewables cannot replace fossil fuels. Also, continue to demand that the EP and the “scientists” present scientific, objective, evidence that changing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere changes the global temperature (whatever that is).

Pat from kerbob
October 13, 2022 11:24 am

Saturation effect in the atmosphere is not really any different than the concept of increasing installed renewables in a geographical area, like in germany.
They have 2 times average grid load in installed wind yet it only provides 40% of total electricity they use, because when the wind dies it dies.
Doubling it again means more power they cannot use when the wind blows and none when it doesn’t, so it cannot add to the total electricity used.
It only makes sense if you have $$trillions of installed magic batteries and we know that won’t happen

Marty Cornell
October 13, 2022 6:00 pm

Any challenge to the Endangerment Finding must address the latest EPA denial of petitions issued in 2022:
EPA’s Denial of Petitions Relating to the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.

There were four of these petitions submitted between 2017 and 2019; from the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEP), the Concerned Household Electricity Consumers Council (CHECC), the FAIR Energy Foundation (FAIR), and the Texas Public Policy Foundation.

The technical task is to challenge what, exactly, is endangered. Issues to address include:
·       The EPA claim that the four petitions submitted nothing new to that which was covered in the 2009 petitions.
·       The EPA’s preferential consideration of assessment reports and consensus.
·       The EPA’s dismissal of any document considered to be non-peer reviewed (especially Wallace et al.)
·       The EPA’s dismissal of any data, however relevant, submitted “after the period for public comment” ending in 2010.
·       The EPA’s contention that the petitioners failed to demonstrate that any of their objections “[are] of central relevance to the outcome of the rule.”
·       The EPA’s contention that none of the petitioners have submitted sufficient evidence rebutting these lines of evidence:
o Physical understanding of GHG, natural, and other human factor
o Historical (paleoclimate proxy?) data
o Climate models
·       The EPA’s contention that these lines of evidence were not the basis for the Endangerment Finding, but rather based on “observed and projected effects of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere…” This is strange since “projections” are the emergent properties of climate models.
·       The EPA’s deferring to tenuous attribution studies.
·       The EPA’s claim that assessment reports don’t cherry-pick (this claim is easily picked apart, the Soon et al. paper on solar effect is an egregious recent example that was ignored in the AR6)
·       The EPA’s oft-made claim that the petitioners cherry-pick data, time frames, etc.
·       The dismissal of the Wallace et al. reports:
o Superficial peer review: “critiques from a report that has not been peer reviewed do not provide credible evidence” page 27. [The 2017 publication is indeed a report, not a paper published in a science journal. This is a flaw when used as evidence.]
o Cherry pick start of 1951; hypothesis does not hold if start date is 1871
·       The EPA’s dismissal of the Tropical Hot Spot as not being part of IPCC TRs
o The assertion that models agree with observations; Karl 2009
o The EPA claim that the TMT Hot Spot does not represent the whole atmosphere, despite the CEI use of the use of CMIP6 results for both the TMT as well as the total atmosphere
o The EPA citing Santer 2021 that “observations have historically underestimated tropospheric warming.” vs. climate model results and theorical projections.  Incredibly, Santer claims it’s the observations that are wrong!
o The EPA assertion that the CMIP6 models have improved (page 23), yet they are more divergent from reality and from each other than they were with the CMIP5 suite of models. 
· “EPA further explained that the CAA [Clean Air Act] did not require consideration of the eventual impacts of implementing the statute if it made an endangerment finding as part of the endangerment finding itself.” Page 25. Apparently Cost-Benefit calculations are not relevant for a health issue.
· “Nor is it dispositive that developing countries such as China and India are poised to increase greenhouse gas emissions substantially over the next century: A reduction in domestic emissions would slow the pace of global emissions increases, no matter what happens elsewhere.)” Page 26. Again, the EPA asserts that efficacy of their ruling has no relevance.
·       The lack of an increase in the frequency or severity of extreme weather events was dismissed as not relevant to the endangerment finding. page 28
·       The Social Cost of Carbon [Social Benefit of Carbon] are declared not relevant to the EF, page 30
·       Page 31 “the Administrator concluded that “the body of evidence points towards increasing risk of net adverse impacts on U.S. food production and agriculture, with the potential for significant disruptions and crop failure in the future.” The evidence is strong and growing that a CO2-rich atmosphere is highly beneficial to plant productivity, with enhanced plant water use efficiency.

Next Steps? I suggest consulting with each of the four petitioners for their reaction to the dismissal and systematically demolish the EPA “reasoning”.

October 16, 2022 6:47 am

Todays government “scientists” are little different than the educated clergy of the monarchies of yore who provided the “science” of the day of the kings right to rule by divine providence. They then got to share in the plunder of the peasants and the crown avoided the messy use of the sword by getting the peasants to voluntarily give up their liberty and property. As Ike stated, “Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”

Dwight Eisenhower

October 17, 2022 12:50 pm

The Rules of the Lebensraum game with no CO2 Climate Crisis.

1.The earth has now reached a population level which has generated a battle for Lebensraum, i.e. energy and food resources, in Ukraine. The associated covid pandemic, and global poverty and income disparity increases, threaten the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. During the last major influenza epidemic in 1919 world population was 1.9 billion. It is now 7.8 billion+/ – an approximate four fold increase.

The IPCC and UNFCCC post modern science establishment’s “consensus” is that a modelled future increase in CO2 levels is the main threat to human civilization. This is an egregious error of scientific judgement.  A Millennial Solar ” Activity” Peak at 1991  correlates with the Millennial Temperature Peak at 2003/4 with a 12/13 year delay because of the thermal inertia of the oceans. Earth has now entered a general cooling trend which will last for the next 700+/- years.
Because of the areal distribution and variability in the energy density of energy resources and the varying per capita use of energy in different countries, international power relationships have been transformed. The global free trade system and global supply chains have been disrupted.

Additionally, the worlds richest and most easily accessible key mineral deposits were mined first and the lower quality resources which remain in the 21st century are distributed without regard to national boundaries and demand. As population grows inflation inevitably skyrockets. War between states and violent conflicts between tribes and religious groups within states are multiplying.

2 The Millennial Temperature Cycle Peak.
Latest Data (1)
Global   Temp Data 2003/12 Anomaly 0.26 : 2022/9 Anomaly 0.24 Net cooling for 19 years
Tropics   Temp Data 2004/01 Anomaly 0.22 : 2022/9 Anomaly 0.03 Net cooling for 19 years.
USA 48   Temp Data 2004/03 Anomaly 1.32 : 2022/9 Anomaly 0.59 Net cooling for 19 years.
There is obviously NO CO2 Caused Climate Crisis…………….
For more see

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights