Are Climate Models Overpredicting Global Warming?

sunshine hours

The answer is yes.

Weather forecasters know that some models work better than others in specific situations, and they tend to rely on the versions that work best, depending upon the forecast problem. When the issue is a potential big snow along the eastern seaboard, forecasters usually lean upon the model from the European Center for Medium-Range Weather Forecasting (the “Euro” model). When diagnosing shifts in jet stream patterns a week or 10 days ahead, they may place more weight on the American Global Forecast System model.

But the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change simply averages up the 29 major climate models to come up with the forecast for warming in the 21st century, a practice rarely done in operational weather forecasting. As dryly noted by Eyring and others “there is now evidence that giving equal weight to each available model projection is suboptimal.”

Indeed. The authors…

View original post 142 more words

Washington Times: “Tornado Drought” Impacting Democrat Climate Change Narrative

Reblogged from Watts Up With That:

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Nature refusing to play along with climate crisis narratives.

‘Tornado drought’ dampens Democrats’ climate-change narrative

Bernie Sanders pushes climate-change narrative despite last year’s ‘tornado drought’

In the wake of last week’s deadly twister outbreak, Sen. Bernie Sanders declared that climate change is making tornadoes worse, to which the experts say: Not so fast.

Purdue University professor Ernest Agee, who has studied tornadoes for 50 years, said his research and that of other scientists shows that the number of violent U.S. tornadoes has in fact tapered off slightly in recent decades.

What’s more, 2018 was the first year since record-keeping began in 1950 without an EF4 or EF5 tornado, the most devastating twisters, as rated on the Enhanced Fujita Scale from EF0 to EF5, according to the NOAA/NWS Storm Prediction Center.

“We’re definitely not seeing a trend of increase. If anything, we’re seeing a decrease in the number of strong and violent tornadoes,” Mr. Agee said. “And that’s in papers that I’ve published and my students and other colleagues that are prominent in the field.”

Climate change is inevitably blamed for any natural disaster, and Mr. Sanders led the charge following the deadly tornado, saying in a Facebook post, “The science is clear, climate change is making extreme weather events, including tornadoes, worse. We must prepare for the impacts of climate change that we know are coming.”

“He [Sanders] references our study, which says that climate change is shifting eastward. We just don’t know for sure if it’s precisely climate change that’s causing it, and certainly we cannot say at all that climate change caused the Lee County, Alabama, tornado,” Mr. Gensini said. “We’re not there as a science to be able to do that.”

Read more:

Let us hope one of Bernie’s supporters helps Bernie understand that he is making a fool of himself, with his wildly inaccurate claims about climate change and tornadoes.

Solar energy may have caused California’s wildfires

Reblogged from Watts Up With That:

From The Washington Examiner

by Kevin Mooney | March 04, 2019 12:59 PM

Screenshot 2019-03-08 22.05.04

Taxpayer-subsidized, ratepayer-funded utilities that may be on the hook for billions of dollars in liabilities point to climate change as the major factor standing behind the recent California wildfires. PG&E CEO Geisha Williams has argued that dry, arid conditions associated with global warming were to blame for wildfires that devastated parts of northern California in 2018. Edison International CEO Pedro Pizarro has said much of the same with regard to the wildfires of 2017 that ignited in the southern part of the state.

But what if the blame belongs not with climate change, but with climate change policies that the utilities and their benefactors in government favor? There’s some evidence for this that insurance companies and displaced California residents might be interested in learning more about. As taxpayers and utility ratepayers, they are all spending part of their workday financing solar energy schemes that may have led to high-pressure conditions affecting electrical equipment, which in turn sparked the fires. How’s that?

Let’s look at just one example going back to December 2017, when wildfires devastated portions of Ventura and Santa Barbara counties. At the time, what became known as the Thomas Fire was the largest wildfire in California’s history. The fire erupted on Dec. 4, 2017, in the Santa Paula Canyon area just south of Thomas Aquinas College a little before 6:30 p.m., according to reports from the Ventura County Fire Department.

The latest figures show the Thomas Fire burned more than 280,000 acres before it was finally contained on Jan. 12, 2018. The fire destroyed more than 1,000 structures including hundreds of homes.

But there was also a second, related fire that broke out in Ojai, a small city in Ventura County, located a little northwest of Los Angles. This one hasn’t received as much attention in the national press, but it could be the key to unraveling what’s really going down with California’s misguided, big government policies. That fire broke out about an hour later after a transformer reportedly exploded in a residential area on Koenigstein Road. There are local witnesses who say they saw the flash of the explosion on the pole with the transformer, and others who say they heard the explosion.

Homeowners who have filed lawsuits against Southern California Edison in connection with the Thomas Fire argue that the utility, which is a subsidiary of Edison International, was negligent in terms of how it maintained the power lines. One of the lawsuits filed on behalf of an Ojai couple specifically addresses the explosion of the Edison transformer on Koenigstein Road, which was mounted on a pole. The couple lost their home in the fire.

Let’s take a hard look at the facts.

The transformer exploded around 7 p.m. at the end of a sunny day. Around that time, because of the solar energy mandates implemented under former Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat, California’s power grid must ramp up in the evening with conventional energy when the sun goes down. This cannot be done incrementally and gradually. Instead, California’s power grid experiences what is known as a “duck curve” as solar energy drops off and conventional energy ramps up.

So, the key questions are: “Did solar power cause the Thomas Wildfire?” Did it cause other wildfires?

There’s no denying the pressure that was put on the Edison transformer, and for that matter other transformers throughout the state. Certainly, correlation is not necessarily causation. But utilities and fire departments must have information and data associated with damaged transformers and other electrical equipment that could be insightful. The Thomas Wildfire is a good starting point for an investigation, but it is just one part of a larger story.

Keep in mind that Southern California Edison is also the subject of litigation filed in response to wildfires that broke out in 2018. So far, 170 homeowners and business owners who suffered damage in connection with the Woolsey Fire that broke out in November 2018 have filed suit in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties claiming the utility’s electrical equipment was responsible for the fire. Meanwhile, PG&E has announced that it will file for bankruptcy since it is now drowning under “at least $7 billion in claims from the Camp Fire,” according to news reports. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection has also blamed PG&E for some of the 2017 wildfires.

Without intervention from lawmakers and regulators, PG&E appears to be doomed. The Camp Fire is now on record as the deadliest fire in state history in terms of fatalities and destruction to infrastructure. Williams, the CEO, has announced that she is stepping down.

Read the Full Story Here.

Kevin Mooney (@KevinMooneyDC) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. He is an investigative reporter in Washington, D.C. who writes for several national publications.

Bias Or Corruption Of Temperatures

Reblogged from Musings from the Chiefio:

Here are two very good videos per issues in the Temperature Record.

The first, at 15 minutes, is a short overview of motivations of government employee “science” and some of the issues involving just how unimportant any actual warming might be. Touches on the point that government only gets what it pays for, and it pays for alarmist results. By Roy Spencer at “America First Energy Conference”. Titled “Climatologist Roy Spencer – The Bias In Climate Science”.

The second is longer, at about 53 minutes. By Tony Heller and titled “Evaluating The integrity Of The Official Climate Records”; it has a great set of A/B comparisons of what they said then vs now. Demonstrates graphically the way that the past is “mailable” in the hands of NASA / NOAA / IPCC. It is from 2 years ago, and similar to his other presentation from last year, but still good.

In particular, at the Q&A part, he tells how he digs up all those lovely old news articles about the very hot 30’s and the very cold 70’s. Useful information, that.

What Warming 1978 to 1997?

Science Matters

Flawed thermometers can lead to false results.

Those public opinion surveys on global warming/climate change often ask if you believe the world has gotten warmer in the last century. Most all of us answer “Yes,” because that is the data we have been shown by the record keepers.  Fred Singer, a distinguished climate scientist, asks a disturbing question: “What if trends in surface average temperatures (SAT) were produced by biases of the instruments themselves, rather than being a natural fact?.  He makes his case in an article at The Independent The 1978-1997 Warming Trend Is an Artifact of Instrumentation  Excerpts below in italics with my bolds.(H/T John Ray)

Now we tackle, using newly available data, what may have caused the fictitious temperature trend in the latter decades of the 20th century.

We first look at ocean data. There was a great shift, after 1980, in the way Sea Surface…

View original post 593 more words

Climate Science’s Myth-Buster

Reblogged from City Journal

It’s time to be scientific about global warming, says climatologist Judith Curry.

Winter 2019


We’ve all come across the images of polar bears drifting on ice floes: emblematic victims of the global warming that’s melting the polar ice caps, symbols of the threat to the earth posed by our ceaseless energy production—above all, the carbon dioxide that factories and automobiles emit. We hear louder and louder demands to impose limits, to change our wasteful ways, so as to save not only the bears but also the planet and ourselves.

In political discourse and in the media, major storms and floods typically get presented as signs of impending doom, accompanied by invocations to the environment and calls to respect Mother Nature. Only catastrophes seem to grab our attention, though, and it’s rarely mentioned that warming would also bring some benefits, such as expanded production of grains in previously frozen regions of Canada and Russia. Nor do we hear that people die more often of cold weather than of hot weather. Isolated voices criticize the alarm over global warming, considering it a pseudoscientific thesis, the true aim of which is to thwart economic modernization and free-market growth and to extend the power of states over individual choices.

Not being a climatologist myself, I’ve always had trouble deciding between these arguments. And then I met Judith Curry at her home in Reno, Nevada. Curry is a true climatologist. She once headed the department of earth and atmospheric sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, until she gave up on the academy so that she could express herself independently. “Independence of mind and climatology have become incompatible,” she says. Do you mean that global warming isn’t real? I ask. “There is warming, but we don’t really understand its causes,” she says. “The human factor and carbon dioxide, in particular, contribute to warming, but how much is the subject of intense scientific debate.”

Curry is a scholar, not a pundit. Unlike many political and journalistic oracles, she never opines without proof. And she has data at her command. She tells me, for example, that between 1910 and 1940, the planet warmed during a climatic episode that resembles our own, down to the degree. The warming can’t be blamed on industry, she argues, because back then, most of the carbon-dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels were small. In fact, Curry says, “almost half of the warming observed in the twentieth century came about in the first half of the century, before carbon-dioxide emissions became large.” Natural factors thus had to be the cause. None of the climate models used by scientists now working for the United Nations can explain this older trend. Nor can these models explain why the climate suddenly cooled between 1950 and 1970, giving rise to widespread warnings about the onset of a new ice age. I recall magazine covers of the late 1960s or early 1970s depicting the planet in the grip of an annihilating deep freeze. According to a group of scientists, we faced an apocalyptic environmental scenario—but the opposite of the current one.

But aren’t oceans rising today, I counter, eroding shorelines and threatening to flood lower-lying population centers and entire inhabited islands? “Yes,” Curry replies. “Sea level is rising, but this has been gradually happening since the 1860s; we don’t yet observe any significant acceleration of this process in our time.” Here again, one must consider the possibility that the causes for rising sea levels are partly or mostly natural, which isn’t surprising, says Curry, for “climate change is a complex and poorly understood phenomenon, with so many processes involved.” To blame human-emitted carbon dioxide entirely may not be scientific, she continues, but “some find it reassuring to believe that we have mastered the subject.” She says that “nothing upsets many scientists like uncertainty.”

This brings us to why Curry left the world of the academy and government-funded research. “Climatology has become a political party with totalitarian tendencies,” she charges. “If you don’t support the UN consensus on human-caused global warming, if you express the slightest skepticism, you are a ‘climate-change denier,’ a stooge of Donald Trump, a quasi-fascist who must be banned from the scientific community.” These days, the climatology mainstream accepts only data that reinforce its hypothesis that humanity is behind global warming. Those daring to take an interest in possible natural causes of climactic variation—such as solar shifts or the earth’s oscillations—aren’t well regarded in the scientific community, to put it mildly. The rhetoric of the alarmists, it’s worth noting, has increasingly moved from “global warming” to “climate change,” which can mean anything. That shift got its start back in 1992, when the UN widened its range of environmental concern to include every change that human activities might be causing in nature, casting a net so wide that few human actions could escape it.

Scientific research should be based on skepticism, on the constant reconsideration of accepted ideas: at least, this is what I learned from my mentor, the ultimate scientific philosopher of our time, Karl Popper. What could lead climate scientists to betray the very essence of their calling? The answer, Curry contends: “politics, money, and fame.” Scientists are human beings, with human motives; nowadays, public funding, scientific awards, and academic promotions go to the environmentally correct. Among climatologists, Curry explains, “a person must not like capitalism or industrial development too much and should favor world government, rather than nations”; think differently, and you’ll find yourself ostracized. “Climatology is becoming an increasingly dubious science, serving a political project,” she complains. In other words, “the policy cart is leading the scientific horse.”

This has long been true in environmental science, she points out. The global warming controversy began back in 1973, during the Gulf oil embargo, which unleashed fear, especially in the United States, that the supply of petroleum would run out. The nuclear industry, Curry says, took advantage of the situation to make its case for nuclear energy as the best alternative, and it began to subsidize ecological movements hostile to coal and oil, which it has been doing ever since. The warming narrative was born.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration played a role in the propagation of that narrative. Having ended its lunar expeditions, NASA was looking for a new mission, so it built some provisional climate models that focused primarily on carbon dioxide, because this is an easy factor to single out and “because it is subject to human control,” observes Curry. Even though it is just one among many factors that cause climate variations, carbon dioxide increasingly became the villain. Bureaucratic forces at the UN that promote global governance—by the UN, needless to say—got behind this line of research. Then the scientists were called upon and given incentives to prove that such a political project was scientifically necessary, recalls Curry. The UN founded the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988 to push this agenda, and ever since, climatologists—an increasingly visible and thriving group—have embraced the faith.

In 2005, I had a conversation with Rajendra Pachauri, an Indian railway engineer, who remade himself into a climatologist and became director of the IPCC, which received the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize under his tenure. Pachauri told me, without embarrassment, that, at the UN, he recruited only climatologists convinced of the carbon-dioxide warming explanation, excluding all others. This extraordinary collusion today allows politicians and commentators to declare that “science says that” carbon dioxide is to blame for global warming, or that a “scientific consensus” exists on warming, implying that no further study is needed—something that makes zero sense on its face, as scientific research is not based on consensus but on contradictory views.

Curry is skeptical about any positive results that might follow from environmental treaties—above all, the 2016 Paris Climate Accord. By the accord’s terms, the signatory nations—not including the United States, which has withdrawn from the pact—have committed themselves to reducing greenhouse-gas emissions in order to stabilize the planet’s temperature at roughly its present level. Yet as Curry elaborates, even if all the states respected this commitment—an unlikely prospect—the temperature reduction in 2100 would be an insignificant two-tenths of a degree. And this assumes that climate-model predictions are correct. If there is less future warming than projected, the temperature reductions from limiting emissions would be even smaller.

Since the Paris Climate Accord was concluded, no government has followed through with any serious action. The U.S. pullout is hardly the only problem; India is effectively ignoring the agreement, and France “misses its goals of greenhouse-gas reduction every year,” admits Nicolas Hulot, the French environmental activist and former minister for President Emmanuel Macron. The accord is unenforceable and carries no sanctions—a condition insisted upon by many governments that wouldn’t have signed on otherwise. We continue to live in a contradictory reality: on the one hand, we hear that nothing threatens humanity as much as rising atmospheric carbon dioxide; on the other hand, nothing much happens practically to address this allegedly dire threat. Most economists suggest that the only effective incentive to reduce greenhouse-gas levels would be to impose a global carbon tax. No government seems willing to accept such a levy.

Is there an apocalyptic warming crisis, or not? “We’re always being told that we are reaching a point of no return—that, for instance, the melting of the Arctic ice pack is the beginning of the apocalypse,” Curry says. “But this melting, which started decades ago, is not leading to catastrophe.” Polar bears themselves adapt and move elsewhere and have never been more numerous; they’re less threatened by the melting, she says, than by urbanization and economic development in the polar region. Over the last year or so, moreover, the planet has started cooling, though “no one knows whether it will last or not, or whether it will put all the global-warming hypotheses in question.” According to Curry, the truly dramatic rupture of the ice pack would come not from global-warming-induced melting but from “volcanic eruptions in the Antarctic region that would break up the ice, and these cannot be predicted.” Climatologists don’t talk about such eruptions because their theoretical models can’t account for the unpredictable.

Does Curry recommend passivity, then? Not at all. In her view, research should be diversified to encompass study of the natural causes of climate change and not focus so obsessively on the human factor. She also believes that, instead of wasting time on futile treaties and in sterile quarrels, we would do better to prepare ourselves for the consequences of climate change, whether it’s warming or something else. Despite outcries about the proliferation of extreme weather incidents, she points out, hurricanes usually do less damage today than in the past because warning systems and evacuation planning have improved. That suggests the right approach.

Curry’s pragmatism may not win acclaim in environmentalist circles or among liberal pundits, though no one effectively contests the validity of her research or rebuts the data that she cites about an exceedingly complex reality. But then, neither reality nor complexity mobilizes passions as much as myths do, which is why Judith Curry’s work is so important today. She is a myth-buster.

Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW); A Tangled Web Strangling Its Creators and Proponents

Reblogged from Watts Up With That:

Guest opinion: Dr. Tim Ball

Two recent events triggered the idea for this article. On the surface, they appear unconnected, but that is an indirect result of the original goal and methods of global warming science. We learned from Australian Dr, Jennifer Marohasy of another manipulation of the temperature record in an article titled Data mangling: BoM’s Changes to Darwin’s Climate History are Not Logical.” The second involved the claim of final, conclusive evidence of Anthropogenic Global Warming ((AGW). The original article appeared in the journal Nature Climate Change. Because it is in this journal raises flags for me. The publishers of the journal Nature created the journal. That journal published as much as it could to promote the deceptive science used for the untested AGW hypothesis. However, they were limited by the rules and procedures required for academic research and publications. This isn’t a problem if the issue of global warming was purely about science, but it never was. It was a political use of science for a political agenda from the start. The original article came from a group led by Ben Santer, a person with a long history of involvement in the AGW deception.


An article titled Evidence that humans are responsible for global warming hits ‘gold standard’ certainty level” provides insight but includes Santer’s comment that “The narrative out there that scientists don’t know the cause of climate change is wrong,” he told Reuters. “We do.” It is a continuation of his work to promote the deception. He based his comment on the idea that we know the cause of climate change because of the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). They only looked at human causes, and it is impossible to determine that, if you don’t know and understand natural climate change and its causes. If we did know and understand then forecasts would always be correct. If we do know and understand then Santer and all the other researchers and millions of dollars are no longer necessary.

So why does Santer make such a claim? For the same reason, they took every action in the AGW deception, to promote a stampede created by the urgency to adopt the political agenda. It is classic the sky is falling” alarmism. Santer’s work follows on the recent ‘emergency’ report of the IPCC presented at COP 24 in Poland that we have 12 years left.

One of the earliest examples of this production of inaccurate science to amplify urgency was about the residency time of CO2 in the atmosphere. In response to the claims for urgent action of the IPCC, several researchers pointed out that the levels and increase in levels were insufficient to warrant urgent action. In other words, don’t rush to judgement. The IPCC response was to claim that even if production stopped the problem would persist for decades because of CO2’s 100-year residency time. A graph produced by Lawrence Solomon appeared showing that the actual time was 4 to 6 years (Figure 1).


Figure 1

This pattern of underscoring urgency permeates the entire history of the AGW deception.

Lord Walter Scott said, “What a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.” Another great author expanded on that idea but from a different perspective. Mark Twain said, “If you tell the truth you don’t have to remember.” In a strange way, they contradict or at least explain how the deception spread, persisted, and achieved their damaging goal. The web becomes so tangled and the connection between tangles so complicated that people never see what is happening. This is particularly true if the deception is about an arcane topic unfamiliar to a majority of the people.

All these observations apply to the biggest deception in history, the claim that human production of CO2 is causing global warming. The objective is unknown to most people even today, and that is a measure of the success. The real objective was to prove overpopulation combined with industrial development was exhausting resources at an unsustainable rate. As Maurice Strong explained the problem for the planet are the industrialized nations and isn’t it our responsibility to get rid of them. The hypothesis this generated was that CO2, the byproduct of burning fossil fuel, was causing global warming and destroying the Earth. They had to protect the charge against CO2 at all cost, and that is where the tangled web begins.

At the start, the IPCC and agencies supporting them had control over the two important variables, the temperature, and the CO2. Phil Jones expressed the degree of control over temperature in response to Warwick Hughes’ request for which stations he used and how they were adjusted in his graph, He received the following reply on 21, February 2005.

“We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.”

Control over the global temperature data continued until the first satellite data appeared in 1978. Despite the limitations, it provided more complete coverage; the claim is 97 to 98%. This compares with the approximately 15% coverage of the surface data.

Regardless of the coverage, the surface data had to approximate the satellite data as Figure 2 shows.


Figure 2

This only prevented changing the most recent 41 years of the record, but it didn’t prevent altering the historical record. Dr. Marohasy’s article is just one more illustration of the pattern. Tony Heller produced the most complete analysis of the adjustments made. Those making the changes claim, as they have done again in Marohasy’s challenge, that they are necessary to correct for instrument errors, site and situation changes such as for an Urban Heat Island Effect (UHIE). The problem is that the changes are always in one direction, namely, lowering the historic levels. This alters the gradient of the temperature change by increasing the amount and rate of warming. One of the first examples of such adjustments occurred with the Auckland, New Zealand record (Figure 3). Notice the overlap in the most recent decades.


Figure 3

The IPCC took control of the CO2 record from the start, and it continues. They use the Mauna Loa record and data from other sites using similar instruments and techniques as the basis for their claims. Charles Keeling, one of the earliest proponents of AGW, was recognized and hired by Roger Revelle at the Scripps institute. Yes, that is the same Revelle Al Gore glorifies in his movie An Inconvenient Truth. Keeling established a CO2 monitoring station that is the standard for the IPCC. The problem is Mauna Loa is an oceanic crust volcano, that is the lava is less viscous and more gaseous than continental crust volcanoes like Mt Etna. A documentary titled Future Frontiers: Mission Galapagos reminded me of studies done at Mt Etna years ago that showed high levels of CO2 emerging from the ground for hundreds of kilometers around the crater. The documentary is the usual, people are destroying the planet sensationalist BBC rubbish. However, at one point they dive in the waters around the tip of a massive volcanic island and are amazed to see CO2 visibly bubbling up all across the ocean floor.

Charles Keeling patented his instruments and techniques. His son Ralph continues the work at the Scripps Institute and is a member of the IPCC. His most recent appearance in the media involved an alarmist paper with a major error – an overestimate of 60%. Figure 4 shows him with the master of PR for the IPCC narrative, Naomi Oreskes.


Figure 4

Figure 5 shows the current Mauna Loa plot of CO2 levels. It shows a steady increase from 1958 with the supposed seasonal variation.


Figure 5

This increase is steady over 41 years, which is remarkable when you look at the longer record. For example, the Antarctic ice core record (Figure 6) shows remarkable variability.


Figure 6

The ice core record is made up of data from bubbles that take a minimum of 70 years to be enclosed. Then a 70-year smoothing average is applied. The combination removes most of the variability, and that eliminates any chance of understanding and predetermines the outcome.

Figure 7 shows the degree of smoothing. It represents a comparison of 2000 years of CO2 measures using two different measuring techniques. You can see the difference in variability but also in total atmospheric levels of approximately 260 ppm to 320 ppm.


Figure 7

However, we also have a more recent record that shows similar differences in variation and totals (Figure 8). It allows you to see the IPCC smoothed the record to control the CO2 record. The dotted line shows the Antarctic ice core record and how Mauna Loa was created to continue the smooth but inaccurate record. Zbigniew Jaworowski, an atmospheric chemist and ice core specialist, explained what was wrong with CO2 measures from ice cores. He set it all out in an article titled, “CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time.” Of course, they attacked him, yet the UN thought enough of his qualifications and abilities to appoint him head of the Chernobyl nuclear reactor disaster investigation.

Superimposed is the graph of over 90,000 actual atmospheric measures of CO2 that began in 1812. Publication of the level of oxygen in the atmosphere triggered collection of the CO2 data. Science wanted to identify the percentage of all the gases in the atmosphere. They were not interested in global warming or any other function of those gases – they just wanted to obtain accurate data, something the IPCC never did.


Figure 8

People knew about these records decades ago. The record was introduced into the scientific community by railway engineer Guy Callendar in coordination with familiar names as Ernst-Georg Beck noted,

“Modern greenhouse hypothesis is based on the work of G.S. Callendar and C.D. Keeling, following S. Arrhenius, as latterly popularized by the IPCC.”

He deliberately selected a unique set of the data to claim the average level was 270 ppm and changed the slope of the curve from an increase to a decrease (Figure 9). Jaworowski circled the data he selected, but I added the trend lines for all the data (red) and Callendar’s selection (blue).


Figure 9

Tom Wigley, Director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and one of the fathers of AGW, introduced the record to the climate community in a 1983 Climatic Change article titled, “The Pre-Industrial Carbon Dioxide Level.” He also claimed the record showed a pre-industrial CO2 level of 270 ppm. Look at the data!

The IPCC and its proponents established through cherry-picking and manipulation the pre-industrial CO2 level. They continue control of the atmospheric level through control of the Mauna Loa record, and they control the data on annual human production. Here is their explanation.

The IPCC has set up the Task Force on Inventories (TFI) to run the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Programme (NGGIP) to produce this methodological advice. Parties to the UNFCCC have agreed to use the IPCC Guidelines in reporting to the convention.

How does the IPCC produce its inventory Guidelines? Utilising IPCC procedures, nominated experts from around the world draft the reports that are then extensively reviewed twice before approval by the IPCC. This process ensures that the widest possible range of views are incorporated into the documents.

In other words, they make the final decision about which data they would use for their reports and as input to their computer models.

This all worked for a long time, however, as with all deceptions even the most tangled web unravels. They continue to increase the atmospheric level of CO2 and then confirm it to the world by controlling the Mauna Loa annual level. However, they lost control of the recent temperature record with the advent of satellite data. They couldn’t lower the CO2 data because it would expose their entire scam, they are on a treadmill of perpetuating whatever is left of their deception and manipulation. All that was left included artificial lowering of the historical record, changing the name from global warming to climate change, and producing increasingly threatening narratives like the 12 years left and Santer’s certainty of doom.

NOTE: In my opinion, I do not give the work of  Ernst-Georg Beck in Figure 8 any credence for accuracy, because the chemical procedure is prone to error and the locations of the data measurements (mostly in cities at ground level) have highly variable CO2 levels. Note how highly variable the data is. – Anthony

A Critical Framework For Climate Change

Science Matters

This dialogue framework was proposed for a debate between William Happer and David Karoly sponsored by The Best Schools.  As you can see it reads like an high hurdle course for alarmists/activists.  There are significant objections at every leap in connecting the beliefs.

Happer’s Statement: CO₂ will be a major benefit to the Earth

Earth does better with more CO2.  CO2 levels are increasing

Atmospheric transmission of radiation: Tyndall correctly recognized in 1861 that the most important greenhouse gas of the Earth’s atmosphere is water vapor. CO2 was a modest supporting actor, then as now.

Radiative cooling of the Earth: Clouds are one of the most potent factors controlling Earth’ s surface temperature.

The Schwarzschild equation:  The observed intensity I of upwelling radiation comes from the radiation emitted by the surface and by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere above the surface. The rate of change of the intensity with altitude…

View original post 1,453 more words

BBC Retract Fake IPPR Extreme Weather Claims


By Paul Homewood


Politicians and policymakers have failed to grasp the gravity of the environmental crisis facing the Earth, a report claims.

The think-tank IPPR says human impacts have reached a critical stage and threaten to destabilise society and the global economy.

They say since 2005, the number of floods across the world has increased by 15 times, extreme temperature events by 20 times, and wildfires seven-fold.

Readers will recall the BBC’s naive coverage of that IPPR report last month, which claimed environmental breakdown was imminent, partly because of climate change.

As I pointed out at the time, the claim they trumpeted was a totally fake one, which merely reflected the fact that more disasters are reported now than in the past, rather than more actually occurring.

I therefore sent in a formal complaint to the BBC.

They first tried to fob me off:

I refused to accept this…

View original post 204 more words

Critique of the new Santer et al. (2019) paper

Climate Etc.

by Ross McKitrick

Ben Santer et al. have a new paper out in Nature Climate Change arguing that with 40 years of satellite data available they can detect the anthropogenic influence in the mid-troposphere at a 5-sigma level of confidence. This, they point out, is the “gold standard” of proof in particle physics, even invoking for comparison the Higgs boson discovery in their Supplementary information.

View original post 2,605 more words