Book Review: A Very Convenient Warming

Climate doomerism rests on far shakier ground than its confidence would suggest.

Originally posted at American Greatness

By Lipton Matthews

Few books arrive with a thesis as deliberately provocative as its title. Gregory Wrightstone’s A Very Convenient Warming: How Modest Warming and More CO₂ Are Benefiting Humanity sets out to invert nearly every assumption underlying the modern climate conversation, and it does so armed less with rhetoric than with charts, ice core data, and centuries of documented harvests. A working geologist and executive director of the CO2 Coalition, Wrightstone builds his case on a canvas that stretches from the Carboniferous swamps to next year’s crop yields, and the sheer scale of that canvas is what gives the book its persuasive force.

Rather than opening with alarm, Wrightstone opens with arithmetic. Across the past 600 million years, he calculates, atmospheric CO₂ averaged roughly 2,600 parts per million, nearly seven times the concentration measured today and two and a half times the worst-case scenario the IPCC projects for the year 2100. Framed against that backdrop, today’s 420 parts per million looks less like a crisis and more like a modest recovery from what he calls a long era of carbon starvation, one that bottomed out near 182 parts per million during recent glacial advances, close to the 150 ppm threshold below which most land plants cannot survive at all.

Explaining what drove this decline is where the book’s account of sequestration becomes essential. Two mechanisms did most of the work, by Wrightstone’s reckoning. Roughly 80 percent of removed carbon became calcium carbonate rock, chiefly limestone, precipitated from saturated ocean water or built from the accumulated shells and skeletons of marine life. The remaining 20 percent took a slower, stranger path: algae and, later, lignin-rich trees died and were buried before microbial life had evolved the enzymes needed to decompose them, entombing carbon in what would eventually become coal, oil, and natural gas. Wrightstone leans on this history to reframe fossil fuels themselves, describing coal and oil as nothing more exotic than ancient sunlight, captured by photosynthesis and stored underground until combustion returns it to circulation.

Once that premise is established, the numbers Wrightstone marshals against the “unprecedented CO₂” narrative start to compound. Since the Industrial Revolution, atmospheric concentration has risen roughly 140 parts per million, from about 280 to 420, yet even that increase, he notes, still sits far below the 2,600 parts per million average of Earth’s deeper history and considerably below the levels present during most of the eras when complex life flourished.

If CO₂ truly functioned as the control knob of planetary temperature, as Wrightstone puts it, the geologic record ought to show the two moving in lockstep. Instead, he lines up four separate comparisons, each spanning a different length of time, and each one undercuts the correlation rather than confirming it. Between 1943 and 1976, even as postwar industrial output pushed emissions sharply upward, global temperature fell for 33 consecutive years, a cooling trend severe enough that many scientists of the era were predicting the onset of a new ice age rather than a warming one. Reaching back further, the Central England Temperature record, the oldest continuous instrumental series in existence, shows roughly the first 250 years of post-Little Ice Age warming occurring while CO₂ levels remained at historic lows. The Medieval Warm Period presents a similar puzzle: comparable warmth occurred with concentrations some 140 parts per million below today’s figure. And looking across the full 8,000 years of the Holocene, Wrightstone finds temperatures gradually declining while CO₂ rose, an inversion he labels the Holocene Conundrum.

None of these four windows, spanning decades on one end and millennia on the other, produces the tight correlation the prevailing narrative would predict. Wrightstone instead points to Pacific Ocean cycles, particularly the El Niño Southern Oscillation, as tracking short-term temperature swings far more closely than carbon dioxide concentration ever does, a pattern he illustrates by charting El Niño events directly against satellite temperature records going back to 1950.

Wrightstone extends this skepticism to the computer models underpinning most climate policy, and here the book turns to harder arithmetic still. Citing the analysis of economist Ross McKitrick and atmospheric scientist John Christy, he reports that the models used in the latest IPCC assessment predicted warming of 0.42 degrees Celsius per decade, while satellite measurements actually recorded 0.17 degrees, an overprediction of roughly two and a half times. If natural variability accounts for even half of the warming actually observed, he notes, the models’ error balloons to a factor of five. He adds that recent estimates of climate sensitivity indicate that the temperature rise expected from a doubling of CO₂ runs as low as 0.5 to less than 1.0 degrees Celsius, well beneath the assumptions baked into most model runs. Further, he cites Nobel laureate John Clauser’s contention that the models systematically underestimate the cooling effect of cloud cover, an error Clauser believes runs nearly twice as strong as the warming attributed to CO₂ itself.

The financial stakes Wrightstone attaches to this modeling gap are considerable. He calculates that achieving net zero emissions would cost roughly $275 trillion between 2021 and 2050, or about $9.8 trillion annually, a full tenth of global GDP. Running those figures through the MAGICC climate model, he finds that even a complete elimination of industrialized nations’ emissions starting in 2010 would avert only 0.28 degrees Celsius of warming by 2100, an outcome he prices at roughly $131 trillion for every tenth of a degree Fahrenheit avoided.

Having questioned both the mechanism and the models, Wrightstone turns to the historical record itself, and here the book’s argument sharpens into its most vivid form. Civilizations, he contends, have consistently suffered during cold periods and flourished during warm ones, a pattern he traces across nearly five millennia. His central illustration is the Greek Dark Ages, ushered in when temperatures across Europe fell 1 to 2 degrees Celsius at the close of the Minoan Warm Period around the thirteenth century B.C. Within roughly a century, the Hittite, Mycenaean, Minoan, and Canaanite civilizations had all collapsed, an episode historian David Kaniewski attributes to abrupt climate change that triggered region-wide crop failures and unsustainable conditions. Trade, art, and architecture receded across the region for four centuries or more, and Wrightstone extends the same pattern forward to the Dark Ages of the fifth through ninth centuries and to the Little Ice Age, both marked by famine and demographic collapse rather than the abundance he associates with the intervening warm periods.

Crucially, the book does not treat warmth above today’s alarm thresholds as theoretical. A 2020 study from the University of Barcelona, led by researcher Isabel Cacho, reconstructed Mediterranean temperatures across the last 2,000 years and identified the Roman period as the warmest stretch of that entire span, with conditions persisting for roughly 500 years. That warming, Wrightstone notes, exceeded the 1.5-degree Celsius threshold the IPCC treats as a point of no return, yet it produced no stagnation whatsoever. Instead, it coincided with the zenith of the Roman Empire and the Han Dynasty, an era so hospitable that olive trees grew in Germany’s Rhine Valley and wine grapes ripened as far north as Hadrian’s Wall, cultivation impossible in either location under today’s cooler climate. Sea level evidence corroborates the reconstruction: Pevensey Castle, once a coastal fortification of the Saxon Shore, now sits 1.5 kilometers inland, the submerged coastline having receded as the planet cooled again during the subsequent Little Ice Age.

Building on that historical foundation, Wrightstone devotes his closing chapters to cataloguing tangible benefits he attributes to rising CO₂ and modest warming. Because carbon dioxide is the essential raw material of photosynthesis, he argues that today’s still comparatively low concentrations continue to constrain plant growth and that recent increases have measurably improved agricultural yields worldwide. On natural disasters, he turns the conventional narrative on its head entirely. Citing direct correspondence with a database manager at the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters, he reports that the apparent rise in recorded disasters between the 1970s and late 1990s reflected an expanding global reporting network rather than any actual increase in events, a distortion the organization itself later acknowledged. Once that reporting bias is corrected, the same data show disaster counts declining roughly ten percent since 2000, while global disaster deaths per decade have fallen more than ninety percent, from an average of 54,000 in the 1920s to about 4,500 in the most recent decade covered in the book.

Wrightstone writes for a general readership, and the book largely succeeds at making paleoclimatology, carbon cycle chemistry, and climate modeling approachable without collapsing into oversimplification, aided by more than ninety charts drawn from ice cores, historical temperature series, and disaster databases. It should be read, however, with a clear sense of where it comes from. Wrightstone leads an organization explicitly dedicated to challenging the mainstream scientific consensus on climate change, and that mission shapes which studies he foregrounds and which he leaves aside. Still, judged on its own terms, the book assembles a genuinely substantial body of historical and empirical evidence, not merely assertion, for the claim that the relationship between carbon dioxide, temperature, and human flourishing is considerably less settled than the prevailing public narrative admits. For readers weary of forecasts of imminent catastrophe, Wrightstone’s accumulated evidence, spanning 600 million years of geology and two millennia of documented history alike, makes a strong case that climate doomerism rests on far shakier ground than its confidence would suggest.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
4.9 27 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
247 Comments
Sparta Nova 4
September 22, 2026 10:19 am

One small step for man….

David Wojick
September 22, 2026 11:07 am

Greg is great.

This sentence is not: “Wrightstone leads an organization explicitly dedicated to challenging the mainstream scientific consensus on climate change.”

In this case the “mainstream” runs on the far left side of the river, being made up almost entirely of leftwing academics. Nor is there any consensus among them except that increasing CO2 should cause warming which Greg does not deny.

That it has caused warming I deny but that is another topic.

Reply to  David Wojick
September 22, 2026 11:43 am

Actually, in the middle of the river are the Scientists, the IPCC, the NAS, every National Science Academy in the world, every University in the World, every University textbook on Atmospheric Physics.
Then rolling in the mud at the river’s fringe is a motley collection of uneducated bloggers, conspiracy theorists, flat earthers and Climate Deniers.

David Wojick
Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 22, 2026 12:07 pm

Can you list any group not run by left wing academics?

Reply to  David Wojick
September 22, 2026 1:15 pm

Since the climate follows the Laws of Physics, not Politics, I consider the question irrelevant and without merit.

Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 22, 2026 1:52 pm

Because the early historical record contains substantial regional and decadal warmth at lower CO₂, and because the global aggregate requires reconstruction choices across incomplete coverage, temperature history alone cannot demonstrate a simple, dominant, monotonic CO₂ control of climate. How’s that physics scan for your Warren?

Moreover, the assumptions behind the models are precisely where the politics becomes not only present, but dominant.

Reply to  Willy
September 22, 2026 2:07 pm

Read the work of Fourier, Foote, Tyndall, and Arrhenius done in the 19th century. Then read the scientific paper “Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity” by Manabe and Wetherald (1967). Then follow that up with “Principles of Planetary Climate” by Pierrehumbert. Those resources should help you answer your own questions.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 23, 2026 10:30 am

You have never read the actual papers by Tyndall and Foote or you would not be spouting such nonsense.

Fourier and Arrhenius introduced hypotheses, not conclusions.

You fail.

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
September 23, 2026 10:45 am

You dont even check your own claims, Sparta N:

John Tyndall’s Experiments

  • Built a complex custom apparatus in the 1850s and 1860s to measure radiant heat passing through gases.
  • Proved that abundant atmospheric gases like nitrogen and oxygen are transparent to infrared radiation.
  • Discovered that trace gases like water vapor and carbon dioxide strongly absorb and trap radiant heat, establishing the physical basis for the greenhouse effect. 

Svante Arrhenius’s Calculations

  • Relied on Tyndall’s physical absorption data rather than running new lab tests.
  • Used observational data from other scientists, including Samuel Pierpont Langley’s moon and atmospheric radiation measurements.
  • Spent months performing tedious manual calculations to estimate how changes in carbon dioxide would impact global surface temperatures. 
Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 22, 2026 2:10 pm

The climate follows the laws of physics, as it must. Tyndall proved in 1859 that CO2 was a GHG. Increasing it should warm—the very complicated and all important physics question is, by how much? Nobel prize winning physicists say by not much. Mann (a physics grad student dropout) used unreliable treemometers and faulty novel ‘centered PCA’ to claim a lot.

But climate models for sure do not, despite claims otherwise, because they cannot. The (proven in 1928) CFL theorem on numeric solutions to partial differential equations guarantees that at scales that could ‘follow’ the ‘laws of physics’—for example the Navier-Stokes 5 PDEs concerning real thunder storm convection cells—they would be about 7 Orders of Magnitude computationally intractable. Explained here several times before in illustrated lead posts and then in many comments. Just math.

Warren Beeton, your comment is not even a nice try. Climate skepticism is NOT a reaction to left wing academics and politics, as you assert—altho such a reaction would be reasonable given recent left wing outcomes. It is a more basic reaction to the abject failure of ‘climate science’ itself after now over 40 years. Climate models (with one CMIP6 exception) still produce a tropical troposphere hotspot that does not in reality exist. Sea level rise did not accelerate. Arctic summer sea ice did not disappear. Renewables have proven to be ruinables.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
September 22, 2026 2:41 pm

A weak attempt to obfuscate, Rud Istvan.
Eg, ‘Nobel Prize winners say by not much’. Who? Freeman Dyson , who admitted he’s
not an expert on climate, never published a paper with his critique. Or John Clauser who has no expertise in the field. Or William Happer who is an advocate not a researcher.
And your claim about difficulties with Navier- Stokes has no bearing, because you’re referring to attempts to model regional change, not needed to estimate the effect of CO2 on Climate
No, climate skepticism is not true skepticism , which is an insistence that valid evidence must be presented for either side of an argument. Climate Deniers don’t even try. They look at Manabe and Wetherall and ask what arguments they can create to disprove their conclusions that would be accepted like minded Deniers. It’s not honest, and not true skepticism. .

Mr.
Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 22, 2026 4:50 pm

Let’s cut to the chase, Wazza.

What’s your (and fellow travelers’) personal reward in being an acolyte for such a contested belief topic as CAGW?

I mean, normal people can read an article / opinion / paper on a subject that doesn’t affect anyone’s daily life (other than copping unwarranted tax hits), and decide it’s a load of crap or something they can quietly support.

Now, those who consider that unwarranted tax hits are worth railing against at every opportunity have a clear motive to call it out and put a stop to it.

But what’s the underlying motives for those who are quite ok with paying these unnecessary taxes, and who also rail against those who don’t see the point of the unnecessary tax hits?
I mean, the rational approach by such tax-supporter people would be to just keep schtum and be happy about paying the taxes, and hoping it doesn’t stop.

(Unless of course, they were a beneficiary of the unnecesary extra taxes?)

?

Reply to  Mr.
September 22, 2026 5:35 pm

Speaking of a load of crap — I just read it.

Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 23, 2026 7:22 am

No, climate skepticism is not true skepticism , which is an insistence that valid evidence must be presented for either side of an argument. 

You do not have the chops to denigrate Freeman Dyson! You do not have the knowledge to denigrate Clauser, Happer, or not mentioned by you, Koonin.

Most sceptics have been trained in physical science of some sort. Physics, chemistry, engineering, geology, etc. The fundamental thing you learn in all these is that physical experiments and measurements trump every calculation or hypothesis.

Karl Popper believed that science advances through conjectures that are rigorously tested by experiments, and that a theory’s scientific status is whether it makes falsifiable predictions. Why don’t you tell us how he was wrong!

Richard Feynman taught the following:

  1. Make a guess (a hypothesis, even a wild one).
  2. Work out the consequences of that guess using logic and mathematics.
  3. Compare those predictions with experimental results.

Maybe you can tell us how Feynman was not correct!

To date, there has never been an experiment to prove the GHG theory. The concentration of CO2 causing temperature theory is falsified every time CO2 goes up and temperature goes down.

Trending temperature versus time will never provide more than a mere correlation to anything. If there is any gas that is controlling temperature it is H2O and its vapor phase.

Temperature is not and never will be a good proxy for the heat contained in the atmosphere. That applies at a single weather station or for the entire globe.

You can cast all the aspersions you want, but they carry no weight because you have no evidence to justify it. Sceptics at least have the evidence of faulty predictions being made about CO2 causing CAGW.

As to Happer and Wijngaarden, you have failed to show a study that has a graph that refutes theirs even though I have asked you to show one. Here is the graph. You have another opportunity to show one that refutes the additional 3 W/m² for a doubling of CO2.
comment image

Reply to  Jim Gorman
September 23, 2026 8:15 am

Wrong again Gorman. None of the outlier scientists you mention has ever published a scientific journal paper debunking mainstream science. In fact, no scientific journal paper has ever been published that debunks mainstream climate science, and for good reason: no contradictory evidence exists!
And your feeble attempts don’t either. Nor have you published anything that does (don’t feel bad -/ no one has)

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Jim Gorman
September 23, 2026 8:45 am

“As to Happer and Wijngaarden, you have failed to show a study that has a graph that refutes theirs even though I have asked you to show one”.

Actually Happer and Wijngaarden’s results were essentially the same as others (despite it’s simplistic model and obvious defects).

comment image

Reply to  Anthony Banton
September 23, 2026 2:10 pm

So you agree that a doubling of CO2 from 400 to 800 ppm will only increase the flux by 3 W/m².

What is the difference in temperature between two bodies with one radiating at 1365 and the other at 1368.

[(1365 × 0.7) ÷ 5.67×10⁻⁸]⁰.²⁵ = 360.30K
[(1368 × 0.7) ÷ 5.67×10⁻⁸]⁰.²⁵ = 360.50K

Geez! A whole 0.2K

bdgwx
Reply to  Rud Istvan
September 22, 2026 4:42 pm

Nobel prize winning physicists say by not much.

Arrhenius, Perlmutter, Hasselmann, and Manabe say the warming is significant.

leefor
Reply to  bdgwx
September 22, 2026 8:09 pm

Was that the Arrhenius who tested carbonic acid, water and CO2?

bdgwx
Reply to  leefor
September 23, 2026 9:21 am

Yes. He also predicted 4 C of warming given 2xCO2.

Reply to  bdgwx
September 23, 2026 2:29 pm

So was wrong, then.

bdgwx
Reply to  DavsS
September 23, 2026 5:07 pm

So was wrong, then.

What do you mean?

Reply to  bdgwx
September 23, 2026 7:35 am

… the warming is significant.

Please quantify the subjective word “significant”, including references … or, even better, links … to the relevant scientific papers providing your concrete numbers.

bdgwx
Reply to  Mark BLR
September 23, 2026 9:08 am

I just mean the mean the opposite of “not much”. You make a good point though. Perhaps Rud could define it objectively with concrete numbers.

MarkW
Reply to  bdgwx
September 23, 2026 2:42 pm

In science, “significant” means non-trivial, and trivial means small enough to be irrelevant.

bdgwx
Reply to  MarkW
September 23, 2026 5:07 pm

It sounds like my word choice was appropriate then.

Reply to  bdgwx
September 23, 2026 8:02 am

The IPCC doesn’t really say that. Look at this graph. Other than SSP-8.5, the graphs show an exponential increase, that is, a slowing in growth by 2100. Heck, SSP-2.5 shows a possible decrease by 2100.

comment image

This should give folks disparaging Happer and Wijngaarden a second thought.

David Wojick
Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 22, 2026 2:25 pm

On the contrary this is a policy intensive scientific question so expertise is based on affiliation. Left wing academics do not define science. You have ducked the issue.

David Wojick
Reply to  David Wojick
September 22, 2026 6:01 pm

Of course you duck the question because you have no substantive reply. Policy intensive science is heavily biased by the politics of the scientists.

Reply to  David Wojick
September 23, 2026 8:52 am

You provide no evidence that “expertise is based on affiliation”. That’s called an ‘unsupported assertion’

MarkW
Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 22, 2026 5:59 pm

You can repeat a lie as many times as you want, but it won’t make it true.

Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 23, 2026 2:33 am

Mrs Beeton: There have been dozens of warming and cooling episodes in the Pleistocene, none of which had anything to do with CO2. Why should the present,very mild warming, be different?

Reply to  Graemethecat
September 23, 2026 4:52 am

Carbon dioxide played a critical role in driving and amplifying climate changes during the Pleistocene:

  • Orbital Triggers: Variations in Earth’s orbit (Milankovitch cycles) changed the amount of sunlight reaching high northern latitudes, initiating the growth or melting of ice sheets.
  • Amplifying Feedback: Changes in ice cover and ocean circulation triggered massive carbon feedbacks, causing atmospheric CO2 to drop during ice ages (down to ~180–200 ppm) and rise during warm periods (up to ~280 ppm).
  • Global Synchronization: While orbital shifts started the process, the resulting global rise or fall in CO2 amplified the temperature changes across the entire planet, turning a regional high-latitude nudge into a global climate shift.
  • Low Baseline: Throughout the entire Pleistocene epoch, average CO2 levels remained low (roughly 200 to 250 ppm), meaning human civilization evolved in a fundamentally low-carbon environment. 
Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 23, 2026 7:29 am

Carbon dioxide played a critical role in driving and amplifying climate changes during the Pleistocene:

Global Synchronization: While orbital shifts started the process, the resulting global rise or fall in CO2 amplified the temperature changes across the entire planet, turning a regional high-latitude nudge into a global climate shift.

The Antarctic is included in “the entire planet”, and the last interglacial-to-glacial transition is included in “the Pleistocene” (though admittedly very near its end).

A graph of the Eemian falling edge I copied to WUWT about 22 months ago :

comment image

NB : The timing between the temperature proxy — “dD” or “delta-deuterium” isotope ratios — directly from the ice layers and CO2 measurements from air bubbles depends on the “age model” used, but is probably correct to around a millennium (or two ?).

The temperature falling curve after the Eemian peak ~129 kya includes a relatively smooth “roll-over” from ~122/3 to ~108/9 kya.

CO2 levels, on he other hand, “bounce around” in the 260-280 ppm range from ~128 to ~113/4 kya, before “breaking down” and ramping to the 230 ppm level ~105/6 kya.

The empirical ice-core data clearly shows that for falling edges, at least, CO2 levels follow temperature changes.

Reply to  Mark BLR
September 23, 2026 8:25 am

Not quite. Ice core data shows Milankovitch warming precedes co2 increase, and then a larger wave of warming occurs after the co2 increase due to the rise in atmospheric greenhouse effect (Shakun)

Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 23, 2026 8:06 am

I know you didn’t discover all this by yourself. Not citing where you obtained this information is called plagiarism. Do you want to tell us where this originated?

Reply to  Jim Gorman
September 23, 2026 8:26 am

In the peer reviewed science. You can find it at The NASA website , IPCC Assessments or the NAS

Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 23, 2026 10:50 am

In the peer reviewed science.

That isn’t an appropriate citation. Were you never trained on the correct way to do citations at university level?

Reply to  Jim Gorman
September 23, 2026 10:54 am

I never saw any Denier cite the peer reviewed literature, and usually they (and you) use nothing but their own bonkers opinion or some unsourced internet blog.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 23, 2026 10:32 am

You do not do your own research.

You fail.

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
September 23, 2026 10:42 am

True scientists read and accept the peer reviewed literature as the most reliable source of scientific research.

Deniers brag:
“I did my own research”
I.e., watched
someone else’s
shitty youtube video

Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 23, 2026 10:57 am

True scientists read and accept the peer reviewed literature as the most reliable source of scientific research.

No they do not. Experimental scientists attempt to replicate research and determine results with a view to expanding the conclusions. Some experimental scientists attempt to falsify published research.

Theoretical researchers attempt to delve into the underlying mathematics supporting a hypothesis. Whoops! There is no functional relationship established between CO2 and temperature. 40+ years of “research” and nothing but correlations between temperature and time.

Reply to  Jim Gorman
September 23, 2026 11:06 am

That’s truly a blindingly stupid response, Gorman. Of course Scientists do original experiments and /or replicate others work. But they also read and understand relevant peer reviewed research in order to establish a baseline for their own original work.
It looks like you can’t claim the title of scientist yet, because you can’t even replicate the greenhouse effect even though its done in high school laboratories and been part of standard science for over 100 years.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 23, 2026 10:28 am

“The climate” does not follow the laws of physics. It is a statistical construc.
30-year average of weather.

Once again, you fail.

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
September 23, 2026 11:16 am

So in one single post, Sparta N declares not only that Climate Change does not exist but even the ‘Climate’ does not exist! The stupidity of Deniers is off the chart today.

Reply to  David Wojick
September 23, 2026 6:32 am

Since most STEMmers in any field, except mine – engineering – are “left wing”, maybe not. The facts lean left, so that’s how that works.

Reply to  bigoilbob
September 23, 2026 7:39 am

So you admit that the issue of catastrophic global warming is purely political. Got it.

Reply to  karlomonte
September 23, 2026 8:36 am

Quite the imagination. This bad wiring explains a big fraction of your commentriat.

Reply to  bigoilbob
September 23, 2026 9:09 am

Still the nutter, bob.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  karlomonte
September 23, 2026 10:15 am

And still defaulting to Ad Hom when you run out of substantive replies I see.
Really classy mr karlo

Reply to  Anthony Banton
September 23, 2026 11:27 am

Oh really? Go check any of yer pal Beeton’s posts for ad homs.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 22, 2026 12:54 pm

As expected.

We again laugh at your idiocies.

Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 22, 2026 3:08 pm

Mr. Beeton,

The post is about the benefits of increased warmth and CO2 levels.

Can you and all of the rest of the intellectuals in the middle of the river tell me the optimal temperature and CO2 level to most benefit humanity?

IMO, both of those measurements are still significantly below the optimum.

Reply to  pillageidiot
September 22, 2026 3:30 pm

The best answer to your questions will come from the body of published science. Why don’t you read some?

Phillip Chalmers
Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 22, 2026 4:16 pm

Are you aware that the gatekeepers of the global “science publishing” world have censored almost all of the spectrum of offered reports which go against a publishing policy.
A publishing policy is NOT science. You are either deceived or a knave or a fool. That is morality, not a science either.

Reply to  Phillip Chalmers
September 22, 2026 5:32 pm

I’m aware that peer reviewed journals don’t accept trash from Deniers.

MarkW
Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 22, 2026 6:01 pm

Thank you for admitting that your mind is closed and nothing as trivial as reality will be allowed in.

Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 23, 2026 4:42 am

But are prepared to accept trash from catostrophists.

Reply to  DavsS
September 23, 2026 5:03 am

I accept peer reviewed science, nothing from bloggers.

Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 23, 2026 7:44 am

People give you paragraph after paragraph of problems with mainstream climatology and all you got is your vile “deniers” bile.

Rud has convinced tons more people of his position than you of yours.

Reply to  karlomonte
September 23, 2026 8:28 am

No one has provided any valid “problems” with mainstream climate science, including Rud Istvan

Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 23, 2026 9:10 am

So the vile ad hominenist responds with another lie.

*meow*

Reply to  Phillip Chalmers
September 22, 2026 6:35 pm

Right. So by your logic, we must ignore published science in peer reviewed journals, reports by the IPCC, NASA, the NAS, any University Textbooks, or University reports.
Instead we should read the ramblings of flat earthers, conspiracy theorists, Dunning-Kruger cases, and auto mechanics trying to be physicists.
You have mighty strange bedfellows, Mr Chalmers

leefor
Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 22, 2026 8:11 pm

So published materials trump the actual science, because … proof

Just when is the science settled?

Reply to  leefor
September 23, 2026 4:57 am

Certain published materials, ie, the scientific papers appearing in peer reviewed scientific journals, are the science.

Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 23, 2026 8:28 am

There are views from reputable sources that disagree with you. Blindness to competing views is evidence that you are an Acolyte of the CAGW Bible and simply close your eyes and plug your ears when heretics are speaking. Not a good way to be when discussing science.

Reply to  Jim Gorman
September 23, 2026 8:40 am

No peer reviewed sources disagree with me because that’s what I post.

Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 23, 2026 2:13 pm

No peer reviewed sources disagree with me because I only post the ones I agree with!

There, fixed it for you.

Reply to  Jim Gorman
September 23, 2026 4:08 pm

Wrong again, Gorman. I don’t AGREE OR DISAGREE. But I ACCEPT peer reviewed science.

Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 23, 2026 4:41 pm

But I ACCEPT peer reviewed science sophistry.

Another fix for you.

Reply to  karlomonte
September 23, 2026 4:43 pm

And that’s why you’re considered a Denier

Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 23, 2026 5:44 pm

So you are willing to ACCEPT peer reviewed science even if it is wrong, why am I not surprised.

MarkW
Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 22, 2026 6:00 pm

Published science is nothing more than those papers that manage to get past the ideological gate keepers.

Reply to  MarkW
September 22, 2026 6:41 pm

“Thank you for admitting that your mind is closed and nothing as trivial as reality will be allowed in.”

MarkW
Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 23, 2026 2:46 pm

Glad you agree with me about your unwillingness to entertain anything that doesn’t fit your agenda.

Reply to  MarkW
September 23, 2026 4:11 pm

I accept peer reviewed science. That’s my agenda.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  MarkW
September 23, 2026 10:36 am

You left out they pay hundreds of dollars in publication fees.
Seems money it more interesting to journals than truth.

Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 23, 2026 7:40 am

Sir Robin runs away instead of answering.

Again.

Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 23, 2026 8:24 am

Maybe you should read some rather than making an argumentative fallacy of Appeal to Anonymous Sources.

Anonymous Authority – Logically Fallacious

Appeals to anonymous sources are more often than not, a way to fabricate, exaggerate, or misrepresent facts in order to deceive others into accepting your claim.

Here are some actual resources that give you real information. I see 37°C, 20°C mentioned. Far above today’s temperature which is really pretty cold at 15.5°C.

Global increase in the optimal temperature for the productivity of terrestrial ecosystems

These results suggest that vegetation is acclimating to warming and that the negative impacts of climate change on ecosystem productivity may be less severe than previously thought.

Earth’s Climate History Explains Life’s Temperature Optima – Schipper – 2024 – Ecology and Evolution – Wiley Online Library

Model results supported our proposition whereby organisms with temperature optima up to 37°C were most competitive.

Scientists Identify a Universal Optimal Temperature For Life on Earth : ScienceAlert

But our systematic review of published research found the thermal ranges of animals, plants and microbes living in air and water overlap at 20°C.

Reply to  Jim Gorman
September 23, 2026 8:39 am

Your posts don’t satisfy a proper scientific assessment because the sources must be peer reviewed and a wide survey of both negative and positive effects are needed to determine the net effect. You haven’t done that. The IPCC has

MarkW
Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 22, 2026 5:58 pm

It really is amazing how the only things those on the left are good at, is repeating the party line. Whatever it happens to be today.

There is no science behind the climate alarmism, and never has been.
Just a handful of programs that were programmed from the beginning to output what the programmers wanted to see.

Reply to  MarkW
September 22, 2026 6:17 pm

I think the Science is on the side of peer reviewed journal papers, Universities and University textbooks on atmospheric physics, the 80 National Science Academies, the IPCC, NAS, and NASA.
Deniers have on their side flat earthers, conspiracy theorists, Dunning-Kruger cases, and auto mechanics trying to be physicists.

leefor
Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 23, 2026 12:00 am

Nope. It is apparent that you don’t think. 😉

Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 23, 2026 7:16 am

LOL, the consensus nonsense you run hard on has been wrong many times in the past and some insistence of adhering to then have killed many people too.

Reproducible research is a far more effective way to advance knowledge and understanding.

Most of the CO2 warm forcing occurs in the first 60-80 ppm then a rapid decline to the now feeble 430 ppm level.

Many here are tired of your lies and propaganda which is why your once large crowd of climate cultists have been in decline in recent years when they begin to realize that NONE of the gloom and doom predictions ever shows up and that the lies have been getting exposed by climate realists who runs on real facts and data.

Why don’t you stop being a propaganda victim and think on your own as many does here and elsewhere.

I have been exposing the climate cultists propaganda with hard data in recent years in several forums to see their gross inability to address them while they fall back on the dumb consensus mantra which exposed how profoundly ignorant and stupid climate cults really are.

There is still NO Hotspot, still NO Positive Feedback Loop in existence a reality that rational people can see easily.

Reply to  Sunsettommy
September 23, 2026 8:10 am

Not impressed. You’ve exposed nothing, and you’ve provided no evidence that mainstream consensus has been wrong. In fact, you are the one that’s been wrong, since there is no evidence that contradicts mainstream climate science.

Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 23, 2026 8:46 am

Your ignorance is your prison.

I have posted examples of PAST consensus failures in many places it is easy to find them in a simple internet search.

Here is one from a speech by Dr. Crichton

Aliens Cause Global Warming By Michael Crichton 

Caltech Michelin Lecture January 17, 2003 

Selected excerpt:

Ehrlich answered by saying “I think they are extremely robust. Scientists may have made statements like that, although I cannot imagine what their basis would have been, even with the state of science at that time, but scientists are always making absurd statements, individually, in various places. What we are doing here, however, is presenting a consensus of a very large group of scientists.”

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.

Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics.

Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let’s review a few cases. 

In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth . One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent “skeptics” around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the “pellagra germ.” The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory. Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called “Goldberger’s filth parties.” Nobody contracted pellagra. The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor—southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result—despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.

Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology—until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.

And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy. The list of consensus errors goes on and on.

LINK

Reply to  Sunsettommy
September 23, 2026 9:05 am

Your post contains two wonderful ‘tells’:

1) You cite ‘the Internet’ and an author of fiction as your ‘scientific sources’.
2) And you violated your own rule against “appeal to authority’ – which applies when citing non experts as your authorities!

Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 23, 2026 9:20 am

You didn’t disprove anything Dr. Crichton stated about the well-known numerous consensus failures, and he didn’t mention them all either.

You are producing a failed narrative because you are deep into the Twilight Zone.

Reply to  Sunsettommy
September 23, 2026 9:29 am

I don’t respond to fictional claims by fiction writers

MarkW
Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 23, 2026 2:48 pm

Warren can’t refute them, therefor they are not real science. It’s all in how you duck the hard questions.

Reply to  MarkW
September 23, 2026 4:14 pm

You have it backwards. If it’s not real science, there’s no point in analyzing such tripe.

Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 23, 2026 9:17 am

Notice you didn’t address these claims I made at all, not even these climate cult failures:

Most of the CO2 warm forcing occurs in the first 60-80 ppm then a rapid decline to the now feeble 430 ppm level.

There is still NO Hotspot, still NO Positive Feedback Loop in existence a reality that rational people can see easily.

Enjoy sleeping in the Twilight Zone.

Reply to  Sunsettommy
September 23, 2026 9:28 am

“Most of the CO2 warm forcing occurs in the first 60-80 ppm then a rapid decline to the now feeble 430 ppm level.”
Your assertion is so vague it’s impossible to respond to. You don’t specify the time period, or the beginning CO2 ppmv.
Re: The Hotspot:

“The hot spot is not a unique greenhouse signature and finding the hot spot doesn’t prove that humans are causing global warming. Observing the hot spot would tell us we have a good understanding of how the lapse rate changes. As the hot spot is well observed over short timescales (Trenberth & Smith 2006Santer et al. 2005), this increases our confidencethat we’re on track. That leaves the question of the long-term trend.

What does the full body of evidence tell us? We have satellite data plus weather balloon measurements of temperature and wind strength. The three satellite records from UAHRSS and UWA give varied results. UAH show tropospheric trends less than surface warming, RSS are roughly the same and UWA show a hot spot. The difference between the three is how they adjust for effects like decaying satellite orbits. The conclusion from the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (co-authored by UAH‘s John Christy) is the most likely explanation for the discrepancy between model and satellite observations is measurement uncertainty.”

Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 23, 2026 9:51 am

“Most of the CO2 warm forcing occurs in the first 60-80 ppm then a rapid decline to the now feeble 430 ppm level.”

Your assertion is so vague it’s impossible to respond to. You don’t specify the time period, or the beginning CO2 ppmv.

OMG!

You didn’t know that the CO2 level has been over 100ppm level for at least the last 500 million years and that most of the warm forcing generated is within the first 80 ppm which has been in operation in all that time and the effect of it decreases at higher concentrations.

From this LINK are several chart showings this basic understanding that has been known for many years.

Your ignorance is your prison.

Reply to  Sunsettommy
September 23, 2026 9:57 am

You didn’t specify the time period, or the context, so your post is another abject failure.

Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 23, 2026 10:23 am

Gosh you are truly stupid as CO2 levels has been over 100 ppm level for the last few hundred million years thus more than enough time frame and in context as the changes are exposed in the open in all that time.

The LOG charts in the link show the warm forcing decrease as the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere rises which you are ignoring because you can’t handle it.

Reply to  Sunsettommy
September 23, 2026 10:34 am

“CO2 levels has been over 100 ppm level for the last few hundred million years thus more than enough time frame and in context as the changes are exposed in the open in all that time.”

I can’t tell what you mean exactly because of your very poor grammar, but I will assume you mean that climate science (or myself) say a stable level of CO will lead to a rise in earth’s temperature. But that’s incorrect. Neither science nor I say that. Instead , as long as atmospheric CO2 concentration is stable and other forcing factors, such as the irradiance of the sun, or earths albedo, are also stable, earths temperature should remain stable, as you imply (I think).

And the radiative (warming) forcing from carbon dioxide cannot decrease as its concentration increases; it always stays positive and adds heat, though the rate of increase slows down logarithmically with CO2 concentration.

Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 23, 2026 1:51 pm

There is no experimental evidence nor functional relationship that proves mainstream climate science is correct.

Reply to  Jim Gorman
September 23, 2026 9:23 am

Excellent find will post this in my small but growing Earth Arena section of my forum.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Jim Gorman
September 23, 2026 9:27 am

LOL: From your link ….

Vesalius performed human dissections and published De Humani Corporis Fabrica in 1543
William Harvey In 1628, he argued that the heart pumps the same blood 
Edward Jenner instead pursued smallpox preventio (in 1796)
John Snow suspected contaminated water instead and collected evidence linking an 1854 outbreak to the Broad Street pump
Ignaz Semmelweis in March and August of 1848 no woman died in childbirth in his division.He ordered the students to wash their hands in a solution of chlorinated lime before each examination
Joseph Lister In a letter dated 16 September 1855, recorded the beginnings of his research into inflammation 
Louis Pasteur instead argued that microorganisms came from other microorganisms carried through the environment and decided to attack the problem of rabies in 1882
Alexander Fleming discovered penicillin’s antibacterial effect in 1928
Alfred Wegener proposed in the early 20th century that continents had once been joined and later drifted apart
Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar calculated that a white dwarf above a certain mass could not remain stable. he work contributed to his 1983 Nobel Prize in Physics
Cecilia Payne used stellar spectra and Meghnad Saha’s ionization theory to conclude in her 1925 doctoral thesis that stars consist overwhelmingly of hydrogen and helium.
Oswald Avery, Colin MacLeod, and Maclyn McCarty kept investigating the substance responsible for bacterial transformation and reported in 1944 that DNA carried hereditary information. Their result redirected biology toward the molecule that later became synonymous with heredity itself.
Barbara McClintock’s maize experiments led her to conclude that genetic elements could move around chromosomes and switch neighboring genes on or off. The idea clashed with the prevailing picture of genes occupying stable locations, and her 1951 presentation
Raymond Davis Jr Nobel records describe him as the only scientist in the late 1950s who dared to pursue the measurement that fusion inside the Sun should produce neutrinos
Biochemist Peter Mitchell – The Nobel committee later acknowledged that his 1961 chemiosmotic hypothesis was highly unorthodox and initially supported by little experimental evidence.

Now just how many scientists were working in these fields at the time?
Dozens? – more likely a hand-full if that.
How much modern technology (2000’s) was at play in the research? None.

The field of all sciences has immeasurably advanced from those times, with thousands of scientitists working in them at the same time. (Hence the consensus science published in the IPCC ARs).
It is not remotely the same situation as, say Harvey in 1628.

Just any clutch at a straw … scientists were wrong in the past, then (by inference) are wrong now.

Climate science, and in fact other Earth sciences, such as oceanography, Glaciology, Geology & Geochemistry, Ecology & Biology are not therefore (logically and sensibly) *wrong* now.

Reply to  Anthony Banton
September 23, 2026 10:15 am

You are dishonest as I have posted evidence of strong opposition by consensus groups of the day.

You didn’t refute anything it is YOUR desperate attempt to minimize well documented consensus failures over time.

Are you really this deficient in logic here?

Reply to  Anthony Banton
September 23, 2026 12:25 pm

You miss the point entirely. Consensus experts were wrong, deniers were correct. End of story.

Your emphasis on consensus being the final answer is proven incorrect. It was Einstein who said it only took one to prove him wrong. There is more than one showing your belief is misplaced.

Reply to  Jim Gorman
September 23, 2026 1:59 pm

Consensus experts were wrong, deniers were correct. End of story.”
Now, Gorman. Document where this was proven.

Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 23, 2026 2:14 pm

Put down the catnip, vile-one, he just did. Try rereading his post instead of knee-jerking.

Reply to  karlomonte
September 23, 2026 4:09 pm

I was referring to Gormans first paragraph, not his second.

Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 23, 2026 5:41 pm

You didn’t read the document very well if you didn’t understand that that these people went against the consensus.

You have already tried to dismiss these folks because there were few people working in their fields. What a lame excuse. They all went against the current consensus, if you think that wasnt hard, you are incompetent to judge.

MarkW
Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 23, 2026 2:47 pm

Translation, It’s only science when Warren agrees with it.

Reply to  MarkW
September 23, 2026 4:13 pm

Nope. If it’s peer reviewed, it’s far more likely to be valid science than the random musings of half educated Deniers.

hiskorr
Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 22, 2026 7:42 pm

And which of those groups will be constructing the code to instruct the AI models on how to weigh conflicting studies of the effect of CO2 on “climate”?
I fear it will not be the “motley collection” (no money in that!).

Richard M
Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 23, 2026 5:05 am

Warren, can you explain why the “greenhouse efficiency” of planet Earth has remained constant at 1.652 for the entire 21st century? I’m still waiting for any of your climate priests to explain it.

Reply to  Richard M
September 23, 2026 5:36 am

There is no scientific metric known as “greenhouse efficiency” that has remained constant at 1.652 during the 21st century. 
The premise that Earth’s atmosphere has maintained a fixed or static efficiency in trapping heat contradicts well-established observations in climate science. Over the 21st century, the capacity of Earth’s atmosphere to trap thermal radiation—commonly measured through greenhouse gas concentrations and planetary energy imbalance—has been steadily increasing rather than remaining constant.
The actual scientific consensus on the state of Earth’s greenhouse effect includes the following points: 

  • Rising Greenhouse Gas Concentrations: Far from being static, key greenhouse gases have risen dramatically. According to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have reached record highs. For instance, CO2 has climbed from around 370 parts per million (ppm) at the start of the 21st century to over 420 ppm.
  • Increasing Energy Imbalance: The greenhouse effect has actually become more effective at trapping heat, creating a growing planetary energy imbalance. Earth is currently absorbing more energy from the sun than it radiates back into space, with the excess heat primarily being absorbed by the global oceans.
  • Accelerating Temperatures: Because the atmosphere traps more infrared radiation, global average temperatures have risen continuously throughout the 21st century, pushing the planet closer to crossing the 1.5°C warming threshold above pre-industrial levels. 
Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 23, 2026 7:48 am

Give a big hand for Warren, folks, that’s all for now! Thanks for coming out tonight, he’ll here all week!” — MC

Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 23, 2026 8:33 am

There you go again, copying and pasting non-original information without citing the source. That will get you an F in any class because you don’t prove that you actually understand what you are talking about.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 23, 2026 10:39 am

Cut and paste an AI generated post.

Not you explaining a thing.

You fail.

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
September 23, 2026 10:47 am

The original claim cited no source whatever, only opinion.
Mine is sourced from the peer reviewed literature.

Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 23, 2026 12:15 pm

Give the references.

Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 23, 2026 6:19 am

Scientific breakthroughs that happened because someone ignored the experts

Here is some evidence that proves sceptics have something good to say.

To say these aren’t relevant paints you as the Denier in Chief.

Reply to  Jim Gorman
September 23, 2026 6:50 am

From your link: “Some of science’s biggest advances came when researchers trusted stubborn evidence over prestigious colleagues, accepted theories, rejected grants, or instructions to pursue something safer. These stories are not arguments against expertise, but reminders that science advances precisely because even expert opinion must eventually answer to experiments.”
Exactly! This is the argument for peer review. Because when we hear or read OPINION, expert or non expert , if it lacks supporting evidence, we can ignore it. And of course, this is what Deniers do — push unsupported opinion, invalid evidence, or no evidence. If they had real evidence, they could write a paper and submit to a pr journal. Of course none — I repeat NO Denier had done so. So we await your work product Gorman

Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 23, 2026 10:26 am

BWAHAHAHAHA!!!

You didn’t address the content of his link at all because you are in total denial that it happened many times.

Consensus errors are well known.

Reply to  Sunsettommy
September 23, 2026 10:36 am

‘Consensus errors are often imagined in the fevered dreams of Deniers.’ Fixed it for you.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 23, 2026 10:39 am

Peer review is not an experiment.

You fail.

Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 23, 2026 11:44 am

Exactly! This is the argument for peer review. 

Peer review is not verification of anything. Science is doing experiments to prove/disprove hypothesis’ that have adequate functional relationships to allow the design of experiments.

Most of the peer review papers you reference have no experimental results. They are merely statistical analysis of some data that is either peripheral to CO2 being the driver of temperature or of blaming a change on climate change with no actual link.

There is a difference between statistical analysis of data points to affirm a change and statistical analysis of data from experimental results that replicate the change.

Climate science is still in the analysis phase of determining if a change is natural variation or not. There is no analysis of any physical experimental results that provide a functional relationship to anything. Is it the sun? Is it orbital? Is it CO2? Is it water vapor? Is it cosmic radiation? Is it ocean currents?

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 23, 2026 10:27 am

Since you claim that the Trans-Reality Alarmists are middle of the river, you cannot claim any immunity to politics.

Gotta love you spouting absolutes again.

Time for catnip.

We are laughing at your idiocies.

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
September 23, 2026 10:38 am

When a Climate Denier speaks from the mud along the river’s fringe, he might say anything no matter how disconnected from reality.

Reply to  David Wojick
September 22, 2026 12:38 pm

https://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/04/in-defense-of-the-greenhouse-effect/

“THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT WORKS…FOR NOW

The greenhouse effect is supported by laboratory measurements of the radiative absorption properties of different gases, which when put into a radiative transfer model that conserves energy, and combined with convective overturning of the atmosphere in response to solar heating, results in a vertical temperature profile that looks very much like the one we observe in nature.

So, until someone comes along with another quantitative model that uses different physics to get as good a simulation of the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere, I consider objections to the existence of the �greenhouse effect� to be little more than hand waving.

There are skeptics and then there are cranks.

David Wojick
Reply to  Eldrosion
September 22, 2026 12:47 pm

The dragon slayers have advanced specific arguments that you need to address. But this is not relevant to Greg’s book.

Note too that the forcing from the CO2 increase need not cause a temperature rise and as I see it has not done so. The dynamics of the system can easily negate that small forcing.

David Wojick
Reply to  David Wojick
September 22, 2026 12:56 pm

My point about no CO2 increase induced warming is based on observation. All of the warming in the UAH satellite record occurs in small steps coincident with big El Niños. It looks like residual energy but in no case is there any evidence of warming due to the steady CO2 buildup. There is no warming during the periods between the El Niños but each flat period is a little warmer than the one before.

Reply to  David Wojick
September 22, 2026 1:06 pm

Here are (from UAH) the annual averages for El Niño years:

1983: −0.17°C
1998: +0.34°C
2016: +0.38°C
2024: +0.76°C

Looks like warming to me.

David Wojick
Reply to  Eldrosion
September 22, 2026 1:08 pm

Yes there is warming, as I said. Just no CO2 increase warming.

Reply to  David Wojick
September 22, 2026 5:01 pm

You said there was no warming:

The satellite record showed no warming from 78 until 97 so that was a sound argument.”

MarkW
Reply to  Eldrosion
September 22, 2026 6:05 pm

My point about no CO2 increase induced warming”

From the post you responded to.
Why do you lie about things so easily checked?

Reply to  Eldrosion
September 23, 2026 8:43 am

You don’t read well do you?

There is no warming during the periods between the El Niños

Between the El Ninos is the operative phrase that you apparently did not understand.

Reply to  David Wojick
September 22, 2026 6:20 pm

You said this: “There is no warming during the periods between the El Niños”
Now you say this: “Yes there is warming, as I said. Just no CO2 increase warming.”
Which is it, Mr Wojick?

Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 23, 2026 10:30 am

Try reading again,

There is no warming during the periods between the El Niños

Thus, stating it was ONLY during El-Nino phases that it is warming.

You sure have a hard reading simple sentences.

MarkW
Reply to  Eldrosion
September 22, 2026 6:03 pm

It was warming at the same right prior to CO2 levels increasing.
This is nothing more than the continuation of the Earth’s warming out of the Little Ice Age.

Reply to  MarkW
September 22, 2026 6:21 pm

What is your science source for this remarkable statement?

Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 23, 2026 2:35 am

How do explain the global cooling between 1940 and 1980?

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Graemethecat
September 23, 2026 4:39 am

I am sure you have seen this posted up here before – I myself have done so many times – but hey-ho just the usual whack-a-moling at WUWT …..

comment image

Look at the aerosol curves (man and volcanic) you will see that there is a heavy -ve forcing element from them in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s whilst GHG forcing is still low, suppressing GMTs. This -ve forcing lessens through the 30’s/40’s as volcanic aerosols decrease, allowing a sustained rise in GMT over though those decades (along with both the AMO/PDO cycles turning +ve ) – thereafter ramp-up of industry after WW2 and the AMO/PDO cycles both turning -ve at the same time, stalls warming thru to the 70’s. Two things happen after that – clean air acts come in around the world and fossil emission markedly increases the GHG +ve forcing.

comment image

Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 23, 2026 7:25 am

LOL, are you that dumb as it was warming for about 200 years BEFORE CO2 started its increase from 280 ppm in the 1880’s.

Reply to  Sunsettommy
September 23, 2026 8:21 am

Thank you! You just confirmed what climate scientists already know: that planetary warming causes outgassing of co2 into the atmosphere and an uptick in co2 concentration after the warming– and then the added CI2 causes a subsequent warming, often larger than the initial Milankovitch warming. Ie, co2 amplifies Milankovitch effects.
Thanks again for confirming the peer reviewed science, Sunsettommy

Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 23, 2026 10:11 am

What a dishonest reply you made as I was specifically showing that for around 180 years of warming since 1700 there was NO corresponding increase of CO2 in that time.

Reply to  Sunsettommy
September 23, 2026 10:16 am

Wrong again: In 1700, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration stood at roughly 280 parts per million (ppm), while by 1880, they had risen to approximately 290 ppm

Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 23, 2026 11:54 am

Hehehe — 280 to 290 is “risen”.

MarkW
Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 23, 2026 2:54 pm

A 10 ppm increase has as much influence on temperature as did the 140ppm increase that followed it.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Sunsettommy
September 23, 2026 10:09 am

It Increased by ~ 20ppm during the 19th ct …

comment image

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Eldrosion
September 23, 2026 10:44 am

Of course it looks like warming to you.
You are programmed to perceive as such without question.

Reply to  David Wojick
September 23, 2026 8:41 am

It is the earth purging itself of stored heat in the western ocean. I believe at some point enough will have been purged that we will see cooling steps downward.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  David Wojick
September 23, 2026 9:43 am
Reply to  David Wojick
September 22, 2026 1:08 pm

See here: https://gml.noaa.gov/aggi/aggi.html

2.33 W/m^2 forcing from CO2 alone as of 2024.

David Wojick
Reply to  Eldrosion
September 22, 2026 1:50 pm

Yes but a small forcing in a complex nonlinear system need not cause any discernible change and this one appears to have not.

Reply to  David Wojick
September 22, 2026 5:04 pm

It’s not a transient or trivial forcing (unlike most natural variability). It is the estimated persistent radiative forcing from increase in CO2 concentrations since 1750.

Reply to  Eldrosion
September 23, 2026 8:50 am

It’s not a transient or trivial forcing (unlike most natural variability).

Why? You need some evidence. The Little Ice Age occurred, what triggered it? The Little Ice Age ended, what caused that? Is CO2 the culprit? If not, why not?

The same can be said for most of the last 10,000 years. What caused the warming periods? What caused the cooling periods. If you can’t explain those using CO2, then there is a big hole in your logic when saying something entirely new, like CO2, comes along.

Reply to  Eldrosion
September 22, 2026 1:50 pm

The step from “CO₂ changes infrared flux in a specified atmospheric state” to “therefore CO₂ caused XX degrees of observed warming over period YY” requires assumptions that cannot be avoided and cannot be validated. In other words, you aren’t quite right.

Reply to  Eldrosion
September 23, 2026 7:58 am

With 0.01 W/m2 resolution?

Don’t make me laugh.

Reply to  David Wojick
September 23, 2026 8:34 am

“The dynamics of the system…” is indeed the proper context in which to consider the likely influence of the incremental IR absorbing power of rising CO2. The computed static effect does not constrain the end result.

This is the essence of what Simpson and Brunt explained to Callendar in 1938. The “static” vs “dynamic” framing is still the main point of disagreement, it seems.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/03/15/open-thread-181/#comment-4174555

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Eldrosion
September 22, 2026 12:55 pm

As expected. 2009.

We again laugh at your idiocies.

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
September 22, 2026 1:01 pm

Does physics have an expiration date?

David Wojick
Reply to  Eldrosion
September 22, 2026 1:51 pm

Physics beliefs certainly do.

MarkW
Reply to  Eldrosion
September 22, 2026 6:06 pm

Tell that to believers in lumineforus ether.

Reply to  MarkW
September 23, 2026 7:59 am

Exactly my reaction.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Eldrosion
September 23, 2026 10:47 am

Catnip worked again.

We are laughing at you.

Phillip Chalmers
Reply to  Eldrosion
September 22, 2026 4:25 pm

The effect of atmosphere on energy flow in and out of the planet is a constant over time, not a rigid flat line but an oscillating effect which is subject to the surface energy of the planet, a dependent variable, not a causative variable.
There is a real contribution of all components of the atmosphere to the averages at any one time but that mechanism alongside all the other mechanisms is trivial. There is NEVER equilibrium.
That is borne out by data, not by ideas or opinions.

Reply to  Phillip Chalmers
September 22, 2026 6:44 pm

Do you also deny the atmospheric greenhouse effect?

leefor
Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 22, 2026 8:17 pm

Which part? Global greening? No. Of course particle pollution is not GHG, and that lead to warming. 😉

Reply to  leefor
September 23, 2026 4:54 am

Is that a Yes or a No?

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 23, 2026 10:50 am

Yes. I deny there is such a thing as a greenhouse effect in the atmosphere.
The earth coupled energy systems reside in an open system.
Any greenhouse effect is due to a closed system, aka a greehouse.

“Greenhouse effect” is a contrived term with no scientific basis in atmospheric physics or couple energy systems or the thermodynamic open system definition.

More catnip.
This is fun.

Laughing at your idiocies.

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
September 23, 2026 10:56 am

You should know these basics, but you don’t:

The atmospheric greenhouse effect and a literal glass greenhouse both warm a space, but they use different physical mechanisms. A real greenhouse traps warm air physically by stopping convection, while Earth’s atmosphere traps energy by absorbing and re-emitting infrared radiation using gases. 

  • Real Greenhouse:
  • Glass lets visible sunlight enter to heat the inside soil and plants.
  • The physical solid barrier of the glass stops warm air from rising and mixing with cold outside air (convection).
  • It blocks convective heat loss, which is the main way it stays warm. 
  • Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect:
  • Sunlight passes through the air to warm Earth’s surface.
  • The warm surface radiates heat back up as infrared radiation.
  • Greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and water vapor absorb that infrared energy and send it back in all directions, preventing it from escaping directly into space.
  • There is no physical roof or barrier stopping air from rising into space.
Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 23, 2026 11:56 am

“preventing” — heheheheh

Richard M
Reply to  Eldrosion
September 22, 2026 8:11 pm

Scientific data shows there is a greenhouse effect. It also shows that effect is not increasing.

comment image?resize=720%2C656&quality=75&ssl=1

It appears you and the rest of the climate cult are the cranks.

Derg
Reply to  Eldrosion
September 23, 2026 1:19 am

The earth is not a greenhouse.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Derg
September 23, 2026 5:06 am

So what would you expect the Earth’s temperature to be without an atmosphere?
It being the glass roof of a hypothetical garden “Greenhouse”.

Reply to  Anthony Banton
September 23, 2026 7:29 am

LOL, CO2 is just .0435% of the atmosphere and has a very limited IR absorption range while the vast majority of outgoing IR is outside of the main CO2 absorption band.

You as usual fail because you reside in the Twilight Zone.

Reply to  Sunsettommy
September 23, 2026 9:16 am

Someone should plot the absorption spectrum of borosilicate glass against the CO2 absorption spectrum; likely already done but I’ve not seen it.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Sunsettommy
September 23, 2026 10:31 am

“You as usual fail because you reside in the Twilight Zone.”

If the “Twilight Zone” Is that accepting the science on the subject then consider me guilty as charged your honour.
Happy to be there amongst those that pioneered the science, wrote the text books and continue to report the results they gain via observation.

If it comes between me accepting the contrarian view or concluding that all Earth scientists studying AGW are either incompetent or blindly going along with a scam then …. there is zero contest.

Reply to  Anthony Banton
September 23, 2026 9:22 am

Without an atmosphere, there is no atmospheric temperature! Why don’t you discuss the ocean and land temperatures derived from insolation to make that argument?

Without an atmosphere albedo over land would be pretty small. Let’s just say 0.1. That means 90% of the insolation would be absorbed.

Assuming a sphere with the sun over the equator.

The peak temperature at zenith would be:
I = 1365 × 0.9 = 1228.5
(1228.5÷5.67×10⁻⁸)⁰.²⁵ = 384K (111C or 231F)

Without knowing the gradient at night, the temperature at sunrise is unknown.

Tell us again how CO2 warms the earth.

Another good question for you is what is the albedo without water or water vapor and only CO2?

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Anthony Banton
September 23, 2026 10:52 am

The atmosphere is not a roof, not is it a solid surface.

Catnip!

Laughing at you.

Derg
Reply to  Anthony Banton
September 23, 2026 4:12 pm

What a stupid response

Reply to  Eldrosion
September 23, 2026 8:39 am

The greenhouse effect is something that occurs when ALL the radiating gases are examined. That includes the BIG one, water vapor. Climate science has instead settled on CO2 as the one and only culprit. You will find that most sceptics have a large doubt about that and consequently are against spending trillions of dollars, that could be going to help poor people, in order to take us back to the Little Ice Age temperatures.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Eldrosion
September 23, 2026 10:42 am

Those lab measurements are made in closed systems.
The earth is an open system.

Failure 1.

Then put into models.

Failure 2.

And you have to reach back 17 years to get a conjecture which you then present as “proof.”

We are laughing at your idiocies.

September 22, 2026 11:09 am

Earth is cooler with the atmosphere, water vapor and 30% albedo not warmer.
Ubiquitous greenhouse effect energy balance graphics do not balance and violate both GAAP and the Laws of Thermodynamics.
Kinetic heat transfer processes of the contiguous atmospheric molecules render a black body surface and “extra” greenhouse effect energy impossible.
GHE = bogus & CAGW = scam.

CO2 has zero effect on the terrestrial system thermal behavior.

Reply to  Nicholas Schroeder
September 22, 2026 11:43 am

What is the scientific source for your post?

Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 23, 2026 9:24 am

See my previous reply to you about no atmosphere. The earth would be pretty warm. Then tell us the albedo with no water or water vapor. What would the surface temperature be with only CO2, N2, and O2?

Reply to  Jim Gorman
September 23, 2026 9:53 am

Go for it:
Assume Earth absorbs as much energy from Sun as it radiates to space:
Incoming Solar Power (Pin): Calculated using the solar constant (𝑆
≈1361W/m2, Earth’s cross-sectional area (𝜋r^2), and planetary albedo (𝑎≈0.3),(representing reflected light): Pin=S×(1−a)×πr^2
Outgoing Thermal Power (Pout): Calculated using the spherical surface area (4𝜋𝑟^2) and the Stefan-Boltzmann Law (𝐹=𝜎𝑇^4), where σ is 5.67×10^−8W/m^2K^4): Pout=4πr^2×σT^4

Equate the two and solve for T:
T= (S(1-a)/4σ))^(1/4) = 255K (-18C or 0F.)

Todays temperature with greenhouse gases is measured and is a bit over 60F. Since greenhouse gases elevate earths temperature by 60F, and since GHGs have increased substantially since pre-industrial times, and are continuing to increase, the earth is warming. Got it? (I’m not holding my breath)

Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 23, 2026 1:27 pm

Incoming Solar Power (Pin): Calculated using the solar constant (𝑆

≈1361W/m2, Earth’s cross-sectional area (𝜋r^2), and planetary albedo (𝑎≈0.3),(representing reflected light): Pin=S×(1−a)×πr^2 4803

A planetary albedo of 0.3 with no atmosphere? You want to try again? Remember, no atmosphere, no water vapor, no clouds. No flora, no fauna. Just bare land and ocean.

Earth’s cross-sectional area (𝜋r^2)

Using the cross-sectional area is based upon 2D geometry. Only simpletons would do that.

Insolation is a plane wave and has the same intensity at EVERY point on the wave. The plane wave touches EVERY point on the earth with the same intensity. The only difference is the angle of incidence.

If you want to find an average temperature. You would do the following.

An average of a sine function is I × 0.64
1228.5 × 0.64 = 786 W/m² at any point on the equator.

From the equator to a pole the average is the cosine function, I × 0.64
786 × 0.64 = 492 W/m² average for the whole earth.
(492÷5.67×10⁻⁸)⁰.²⁵ = 305K (32C or 90F)

32C average is not what life would experience. As I showed before the Max temperature would be 111C on the equator when the sun was directly overhead. It could be even higher if the earth retains energy through the night. The insolation increase in energy would be added to that.

Remember, the SB equation is really only good for determining a bodies temperature if you know what it is radiating. It doesn’t give you an absolute temperature when it is receiving radiation because it doesn’t take into account what the starting temperature actually is. It is just one more fallacy that climate science uses.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Nicholas Schroeder
September 22, 2026 12:57 pm

Again, I recommend not using Generally Accepted Accounting Practices in your post.

The graphic is bogus for many more reasons than you list.

jvcstone
September 22, 2026 11:44 am

Sounds like an interesting read. Will have my favorite bookie order it when next in town.

September 22, 2026 12:41 pm

A very good review!

Growing grapes at Hadrian’s Wall. It’s was warmer in the past than it is today. There is no climate crisis.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Tom Abbott
September 22, 2026 12:58 pm

The Hadian’s Wall grapes is still contested.

Other than that, spot on.

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
September 22, 2026 9:14 pm

Van der Veen, M. (2008). Food as an embodied material culture: Diversity and change in plant food consumption in Roman Britain. Journal of Roman Archaeology, 21, 83-109

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Redge
September 23, 2026 10:54 am

I said contested, which by definitions some propose data in support and some propose data that does not support. There are other sources that contradict that paper.

Editor
September 22, 2026 12:43 pm

Pevensey Castle is a good choice for illustrating sea level decline. In Northern Britain, isostatic rebound could be a factor. At Pevensey Castle, though, the land has been sinking slightly.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Mike Jonas
September 22, 2026 12:59 pm

Mike, do not let the minor detail like a fact get in the way of a crisis claim. 😉

1saveenergy
Reply to  Mike Jonas
September 23, 2026 2:11 am

Also, Harlech (1285) & Beaumaris (1295) Castles both built watergates that are no longer near the sea.
Harlech, built on a sea cliff, has a railway station & level crossing on the floor of the dock; the sea is now 1/2mile away & ~10 m lower, thanks to a combination of the Little Ice Age, isostatic rebound, & longshore drift.
https://www.dreamstime.com/aerial-view-out-to-sea-above-imposing-harlech-castle-harlech-wales-aerial-view-out-to-sea-above-imposing-harlech-image381376496

You can see the old high-water line in the centre of this pic; everything to the left of the treeline was the old seabed.
https://www.alamy.com/aerial-view-of-the-skyline-of-harlech-with-its-12th-century-castle-wales-united-kingdom-image184640322.html
also …
https://www.alamy.com/aerial-drone-view-of-harlech-castle-a-hilltop-medieval-fortification-in-gwynedd-wales-july-2023-image558964199.html

Gregory Woods
September 22, 2026 1:25 pm

Story Tip

California and New York sue to block deals canceling offshore wind projects

‘New York, California sue to block deals canceling offshore wind projects’

Just blowing in the wind…

September 22, 2026 3:20 pm

Ah, another one of these: “You know how, for years, we told you that there hasn’t been any warming? Well, now that a blind man on a galloping horse can see that it really is warming like the scientists said it would all along, we’re going to pretend that all that ‘no warming stuff never happened and now instead say, “warming is good!”

It’ll work too, because nobody here ever checks anything for themselves.

David Wojick
Reply to  TheFinalNail
September 22, 2026 4:28 pm

The satellite record showed no warming from 78 until 97 so that was a sound argument. The small warming since then is likely beneficial.

Reply to  David Wojick
September 22, 2026 5:00 pm

From Jan. 1979 – Dec. 1997, UAH shows a warming rate of 0.09°C per decade.

Way to prove TFN right, David.

Derg
Reply to  Eldrosion
September 23, 2026 1:26 am

From the 70s to present my town turned into a suburban city with 5x the population and concrete and asphalt replacing woods and farm fields 😉

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Derg
September 23, 2026 5:11 am

As AW pointed out recently, the USCRN has just recorded the warmest contiguous USA summer temperature.
It is actually warming a little faster that tehan ClimDiv stations.
The UHI element has been removed from that series.
And your city is not the world’s land/sea surface.

Derg
Reply to  Anthony Banton
September 23, 2026 4:13 pm

lol asphalt jungle

Reply to  Eldrosion
September 23, 2026 2:42 am

A warming of 0.09°C per decade is far smaller than the instrumental uncertainty of the thermometers used to measure it.

Why are you climate kooks so ignorant of measurement error and uncertainty?

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Graemethecat
September 23, 2026 5:16 am

instrumental uncertainty of the thermometers used to measure it.”

So you don’t think that 10’s of thousands of those thermometers reduce the instrumental uncertainty?
You think that the vast majority are biased warm?
It’s called averaging and the law of large numbers.

Why are you “sceptic” kooks so ignorant of statistics?

And of course the UAH TLT satellite series happens to have almost identical measurement error and uncertainty does it?

Reply to  Anthony Banton
September 23, 2026 8:08 am

Ah yes, always retreat to the “everything is random, Gaussian, and cancels!” excuse.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  karlomonte
September 23, 2026 10:21 am

No.
It’s a clear example that the straw-clutching of “uncertainty” has no credence.

The record of UAH TLT vs all the surface temp series are essentially the same.
And are totally different methods of observation.

Reply to  Anthony Banton
September 23, 2026 11:32 am

Your ignorance of basic metrology and measurement uncertainty knows no bounds.

Reply to  Anthony Banton
September 23, 2026 10:32 am

So you don’t think that 10’s of thousands of those thermometers reduce the instrumental uncertainty?

10’s of thousands do not reduce measurement uncertainty. They only place the mean of the distribution more accurately. The mean still lies within an interval determined from the standard deviation of the measurement’s distribution.

The uncertainty of the mean (standard error) is only applicable to multiple measurements of the SAME ITEM.

From Dr. Taylor’s book An Introduction to Error Analysis.

Suppose that the measurements of x are normally distributed about the true value X with width parameter σₓ. We now want to know the reliability of the average of the N measurements. To answer this, we naturally imagine repeating our N measurements many times; that is, we imagine performing a sequence of experiments, in each of which we make N measurements and compute the average. We now want to find the distribution of these many determinations of the average of N measurements. 

Please note the statement about the reliability of the average of the N measurements. This is not measurement uncertainty, it is how well the mean is determined. In statistical terms, it is the uncertainty in the mean due to sampling error.

So no, a multitude of instrument readings does not reduce measurement uncertainty. Measurement uncertainty is well defined in the GUM. It is the standard deviation that describes the dispersion of the measurements taken on a measurand.

B.2.18 

uncertainty (of measurement) 

parameter, associated with the result of a measurement, that characterizes the dispersion of the values that could reasonably be attributed to the measurand 

NOTE 1 The parameter may be, for example, a standard deviation (or a given multiple of it), or the half-width of an interval having a stated level of confidence. 

NOTE 2 Uncertainty of measurement comprises, in general, many components. Some of these components may be evaluated from the statistical distribution of the results of series of measurements and can be characterized by experimental standard deviations. The other components, which can also be characterized by standard deviations, are evaluated from assumed probability distributions based on experience or other information. 

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Anthony Banton
September 23, 2026 11:04 am

You really need a basic course on instrumentation uncertainties.

Catnip?

Reply to  Anthony Banton
September 23, 2026 12:49 pm

Listen, Gummy: 10,000 probes manufactured, calibrated, installed, and maintained the same way may share errors — ie, not be independent. For trend detection, you usually want independence across things like instruments, calibration, aging, microenvironments, etc etc. If this independence assumption does not hold, then no matter how many probes are involved, you aren’t going to reduce the measurement error.

Reply to  Eldrosion
September 23, 2026 8:05 am

Way to illustrate the Deadly Sin of Reification.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Eldrosion
September 23, 2026 10:59 am

0.09 C per decade.
0.009 C per year.
0.000025 C per day.

Even the 0.09 C falls within the measurement error band.

Reply to  TheFinalNail
September 22, 2026 4:28 pm

As for warming, your horizon is too short, and people around here have been saying warming is good for years. Much to my irritation, since climate alarmists and others who don’t know the facts would equate such statements to be in support of CO2 warming.

Phillip Chalmers
Reply to  TheFinalNail
September 22, 2026 4:52 pm

What buzz do you get by lying? The erroneous claim that the recently observed mild slow warming was totally caused by the human use of fossil fuel since the start of the Industrial Revolution is rejected by all known observations.
We deny AGW on facts, more of which accumulate with each passing year.
The warming is NOT denied, the prime cause is rejected on the basis of records of observations made from stations uncorrupted by urban heat island effect or changes in measuring instruments and methods and by having a good knowledge of the historical record.
If I were American and could identify you, I could sue your ass off for slander and defamation of character. If you are Australian, I can give you choice of location in a local pub and put you right in the beer garden, man to man.
I use my real name.

Reply to  Phillip Chalmers
September 22, 2026 5:05 pm

We deny AGW on facts, more of which accumulate with each passing year.”

No. Not really.

MarkW
Reply to  Eldrosion
September 22, 2026 6:10 pm

Yes, actually.

Reply to  MarkW
September 22, 2026 6:46 pm

What is your source for your ‘facts’?

Mr.
Reply to  TheFinalNail
September 22, 2026 5:02 pm

You’re here, so “nobody” includes you not ever checking anything for yourself.

MarkW
Reply to  Mr.
September 22, 2026 6:11 pm

Climanistas were never big on logic.

Reply to  MarkW
September 23, 2026 4:51 am

But they do like to cling together for mutual support.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  DavsS
September 23, 2026 5:31 am

Oh the irony.
Sorry but WUWT is is not the go-to of the world of science advocates.
Instead it is that of science sceptics (or that that they do not like).

As far as science advocates and the experts in the field of climate science goes it pays zero part in their professional lives.
It’s just a blog and I suspect others like me who come on here, do so as a *hobby* – in my case to brush-up my knowledge (via fact checking the bollocks that many post) and getting to see the psychology of ideological bias at work.
Of course *we* will be swamped by the attack-dogs here and to imagine that just shouting louder constitutes a win is just sad.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Anthony Banton
September 23, 2026 11:08 am

Any scientist worthy of the title is a skeptic
It is a requirement of science.

You fail.

May I offer some more catnip?

We are laughing hysterically at you.

Reply to  DavsS
September 23, 2026 12:58 pm

“But they do like to cling together for mutual support.”

Look up and down this and every other WUWT body of commentary. Then, per Anne and Abby, seek counselling, starting with counselor provided exercises in self awareness.

MarkW
Reply to  TheFinalNail
September 22, 2026 6:09 pm

Translation:
Even after I, time and time again, insult anyone who fails to worship as I do, they still insist on clinging to beliefs that go against party principles.

Obviously, no one here bothers to think for themselves.

Reply to  TheFinalNail
September 22, 2026 9:16 pm

It’ll work too, because nobody here ever checks anything for themselves.

Just checked this statement; it’s false.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  TheFinalNail
September 23, 2026 10:57 am

I love absolutes.

By claiming “nobody here ever checks anything for themselves” and you posting here, means it applies to you.

We know you do not do anything but parrot the Trans-Reality Alarmism.

More catnip?

Continuing to laugh at you.

Bob
September 22, 2026 4:48 pm

Very nice. CAGW has no scientific ground to stand on. It is past time to move on.

Edward Katz
September 22, 2026 6:02 pm

Naturally civilization has benefited from the long-term warming described here, and one doesn’t have to go back any further than 1900 to see the benefits. The global population has more than quadrupled, life expectancy has increased from 42 years to 73, agricultural output has steadily grown, almost all nations have seen increases in their GDPs, infant mortality has dropped, etc. All this and more despite the deadliest and most destructive wars in history. Except such facts run counter to the alarmists’ narratives, so the mainstream media, which gets plenty of donations from them, makes certain to downplay or ignore the benefits of a warmer planet.

Reply to  Edward Katz
September 22, 2026 6:47 pm

Some of your cohorts on this forum deny there’s been any warming, One even claims the climate has been cooling. Do Deniers have multiple sets of facts as well as theories?

Derg
Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 23, 2026 1:28 am

I love CO2 as much as the plants and trees do.

Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 23, 2026 2:44 am

The problem for you is the mid-century cooling. Doesn’t fit your beliefs.

Reply to  Graemethecat
September 23, 2026 4:35 am

Show me the data that indicated global mid century cooling.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 23, 2026 8:07 am

From the book ‘The Complete Ice Age’ edited by Brian Fagan,published in 2009.

“As Lowell Ponte (1976) summarized:

Since the 1940s the northern half of our planet has been cooling rapidly. Already the effect in the United States is the same as if every city had been picked up by giant hands and set down more than 100 miles closer to the North Pole. If the cooling continues, warned the National Academy of Sciences in 1975, we could possibly witness the beginning of the next great Ice Age.”

Reply to  Dave Andrews
September 23, 2026 8:34 am

The slight global temperature drop from roughly 1940 to 1970—was primarily caused by a massive spike in human-made industrial air pollution, specifically sulfate aerosols, which reflected incoming sunlight back into space.
Key Factors Behind Mid-Century Cooling
• Sulfate Aerosols (Air Pollution): Rapid post-World War II industrialization and the burning of sulfur-heavy fossil fuels (like coal) pumped enormous amounts of sulfur dioxide into the air. These tiny particles formed reflective hazes that bounced solar energy away from the Earth, temporarily overpowering greenhouse gas warming.
• Volcanic Eruptions: Major volcanic events, such as the 1963 eruption of Mount Agung in Indonesia, injected large quantities of reflective ash and aerosols directly into the stratosphere, enhancing the cooling effect.
• Leveling Solar Activity: Natural solar radiation, which had increased earlier in the century and helped warm the planet, leveled off and showed little net variation during this period.
Why the Cooling Ended
The cooling trend stopped in the 1970s after governments passed major environmental legislation—such as the U.S. Clean Air Act—to reduce dangerous sulfur pollution and acid rain. As the skies cleared of reflective aerosols, the underlying warming effect of accumulating carbon dioxide emerged and resumed dominance

Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 23, 2026 10:41 am

Did all this occur to start the Little Ice Age also.

Reply to  Jim Gorman
September 23, 2026 10:49 am

Why would you assume (stupidly, I might add) the same phenomenon was at work, Gorman? (especially since there was no industry at that time). Truly bizarre thinking by you

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Graemethecat
September 23, 2026 5:21 am

No it fits the play out of all the forcings present at that time – many of them -ve. ……………

See this post …

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/09/22/book-review-a-very-convenient-warming/#comment-4244333

Reply to  Graemethecat
September 23, 2026 6:45 am

Yes, the temperatures cooled by over 2.0C from the 1930’s to the 1970’s, while CO2 was steadily increasing during that time period.

CO2 concentrations go up for decades while the temperatures cooled for decades. Just the opposite of climate alarmist claims for CO2.

So what do climate alarmists do about this discrepancy? Why, they lie and claim there was no such cooling and point to the bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick chart as their evidence.

Talk about Deniers! The climate alarmists deny the written, historic temperature record. They say the “Ice Age Cometh” scare of the 1970’s was a nothing-burger. They have to say this to keep the fiction going.

Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 23, 2026 8:10 am

More vile bile.

Its all you got.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 23, 2026 11:10 am

You lie.

No one denies temperature variation over the years, warming and cooling.

Laughing at your idiocies.

Edward Katz
Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 23, 2026 1:38 pm

It’s immaterial whether there’s been either warming or cooling. The facts show that humanity has made progress in science, technology and medicine during the past 150 years at least, and the only things that have impeded even more are these devastating civil and international wars which, thanks to more efficient ways of dealing out death and destruction, have put certain brakes on even more population growth. It’s not a warming climate that’s doing it.

Reply to  Edward Katz
September 23, 2026 2:03 pm

Your post does nothing to disprove the well established facts that
Earth is Warming
Human Activities are the Cause
Scientists Agree
The Net Effects are Strongly Harmful
We Have the Technology to Fix It.

Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 23, 2026 2:19 pm

The Net Effects are Strongly Harmful

We Have the Technology to Fix It.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHH

The Climate Comedy Show rolls on…

Bruce Cobb
September 22, 2026 7:56 pm

It is the thing which humanity-hating, brainwashed Climate Caterwaulers despise the most: good news for humanity, and for life itself. Our CO2, instead of being bad, is actually good for the planet. Any slight warming effect it may have had is a bonus. All of the crying, shrieking and hand-wringing about our climate, and how we have wrecked it (or something) is total nonsense, and much ado about nothing.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
September 23, 2026 6:49 am

Exactly!

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
September 23, 2026 7:34 am

Yeah, the growth of life of the planted is obvious from satellite as NASA explained 10 years ago.

Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds
Excerpt:

From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.

An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.

LINK

Sparta Nova 4
September 23, 2026 11:14 am

Yes. I am a denier!

I deny that our “favorite” flame warriors have anything original or intelligent to say.
I deny that our “favorite” flame warriors come to contribute to the conversation or actually discuss the posted topics.

I could go on, but the point is made.