While the Climate Always Has and Always Will Change, There Is no Climate Crisis
By Dr. Manheimer, Physicist at MIT
Click the URL to get the PDF
The emphasis on a false climate crisis is becoming a tragedy for modern civilization, which depends on relible, economic, and environmentally viable energy. The windmills, solar panels and backup batteries have none if these qualities.
This falsehood is pushed by a powerful lobby, which Bjorn Lomborg has called a climate-industrial complex, CIC, comprising some scientists, most media, industrialists, and legislators.
The CIC has somehow managed to convince many, CO2 in the atmosphere, a gas necessary for life on earth, one which we exhale with every breath, is an environmental poison.
In fact, globally, increased CO2 has resulted in a steady increase in yields of wheat (and other crops), as measured in tons per hectare, with some of the highest being in China.
Multiple scientific theories and measurements show, there is no climate crisis.
Radiation forcing calculations, by both skeptics and believers show, the CO2 radiation forcing is about 0.3% of the incident radiation, far less than other effects on climate.
Over the period of human civilization, the temperature has oscillated between quite a few warm and cold periods, with many of the warm periods being warmer than today.
During geological times, it and the CO2 level have been all over the place, with no correlation between them.
Modern civilization needs plentiful, reliable, low-cost energy.
Before fossil fuel became widely used, this energy was provided by people and animals. Because this constituted so little energy, civilization could only be a thin veneer atop a vast mountain of human squalor and misery, a veneer maintained by such institutions as feudalism, an entitled “noble/religious class”, slavery, colonialism and tyranny.
Fossil fuel has extended the benefits of modern civilization to billions, but its job, in this respect, is not yet complete.
There are still billions on earth, who derive very little benefit from this power source, and billions more who derive only minimal benefits.
To spread the benefits of modern civilization to the entire human family would require much more energy, as well as newer sources of energy.
Thirty years ago, one could envision the spread of fossil fuel, to be gradually replaced by nuclear energy, to be fueled, at first, by mined uranium, and then, by breeding fissile material, either by nuclear fission or nuclear fusion; and possibly even by fusion itself.
This author has published 2 papers very recently on this very topic, one in this journal (Manheimer 2022 a), and one in the American Nuclear Society’s journal Fusion Science and Technology, special issue on "Wide-range and exotic applications of fusion technology" (Manheimer 2022 b).
However thirty years ago, a gigantic monkey wrench was thrown into this plan. This is the fear that the continued burning of fossil fuel would put too much CO2 into the earth’s atmosphere and cause possibly catastrophic climate change in a short time, a decade or two.
Based on this fear, the Western World is in the process of switching its power source to wind and solar, with battery backups for times when there is insufficient windspeed (or too much windspeed) or sunshine.
This author published in this journal a long analysis of wind and solar power, as well as battery backups. It, and many references therein, as well as many other sources, have concluded that wind and solar are not viable power sources.
The bitter experience of those countries (England and Germany) and regions (Texas and California), that have implemented wind/solar on a large scale, have shown, wind/solar to be unreliable, very expensive, and environmentally disastrous, 1) locally, including onshore wind killing bats and birds, offshore wind killing whales, and 2) in the areas where they mine the material for it, and 3) in the areas where they dispose of its trash (Manheimer 2022 a).
Accordingly, this author has investigated the motivating factor for the wind and solar transition, namely the fear of CO2-induced of climate change.
In a single sentence, this fear is vastly overblown, mostly by a cabal of self-serving special interests and uninformed/misinformed lay people
There is certainly no scientific basis for expecting a climate crisis from too much CO2 in the atmosphere in the next century or so.
Hence, there is no reason why civilization cannot advance using both fossil fuel power and nuclear power, gradually shifting to more and more nuclear power.
With very little evidence to back it up, many sources have asserted, regarding climate change, ‘the science is settled’; there is no need for believers to debate skeptics.
For instance in his Dec 30, 2018 show Meet the Press, devoted to climate change, the moderator Chuck Todd said:
"We're not going to debate climate change, the existence of it. The Earth is getting hotter. And human activity is a major cause, period. We're not going to give time to climate deniers and skeptics. The science is settled, even if political opinion is not.”
Chuck Todd is not a scientist, but presumably has spoken to some.
But, has he ever spoken to Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, Will Happer, Patrick Moore, Judith Curry…….?
These are scientists with impeccable reputations and expertise, who would give him a very different viewpoint.
Unlike Chuck Todd, this paper will not describe the combatants with the pejorative terms ‘deniers’ or “skeptics”, but will use the more neutral terms ‘skeptics’ and ‘believers’.
This paper will present counter arguments to those of the believers. There is a tremendous amount of data backing up these arguments.
Of course, climate science is a vast field, involving physics, chemistry, biology, earth science, astronomy, agriculture, manufacturing…… No one person can possible master all of it.
In fact, this author would dispute anyone can call himself a ‘climate scientist’.
Accordingly, this paper can hardly do a complete job. However, it does give a glimpse of the vast amount of data and theory disputing that we are in anything like a climate crisis.
To begin, one of this era’s leading physicists, Steven Koonin (Koonin 2021) has recently published a book entitled Unsettled, giving it that name presumably to mock the claims of believers that ‘the science is settled’.
In the book, he gives many reasons for uncertainty and doubt, of an impending ‘climate crisis’.
Also, two of the world’s leading environmentalists, Patrick Moore (Moore) and Michael Shellenberger (Shellenberger) have written recent books disputing the added CO2 in the atmosphere is causing a climate crisis.
Of course, there is the classic by H.H. Lamb (Lamb), often regarded as the father of climate science. The effect of CO2 on climate does not even appear in his book (issued in 1995) until page 330, hardly a confirmation that he saw it as the “main control knob” of the earth’s temperature.
Perhaps one of the best statements used to cast doubt on the an approaching climate crisis is by Richard Lindzen, perhaps the world’s leading authority on geological fluid motions:
“What historians will definitely wonder about in future centuries is how deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that CO2 from human industry was a dangerous, planet-destroying toxin. It will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world- that CO2, the life of plants, was considered for a time to be a deadly poison.”
Lindzen is definitely right about one thing, there is now certainly ‘a coalition of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone in the world, CO2 from human industry is a dangerous, planet-destroying toxin’.
Bjorn Lomborg has described this coalition as 'The climate-industrial complex' (Lomborg).
The tight, self-serving, relationship between the groups echoes the relationship among weapons makers, researchers and the U.S. military during the Cold War. President Dwight Eisenhower famously warned about the might of the "military-industrial complex," cautioning that "the potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." He worried that "there is a recurring temptation to feel, some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties."
This is certainly true of climate change. We are told, very expensive carbon regulations and taxes are the only way to respond to global warming, despite ample evidence that this approach does not pass a basic cost-benefit test. We must ask whether a "climate-industrial complex" is emerging, pressing taxpayers to fork over more and more money to subsidize those who stand to gain.
The partnership among self-serving businesses, grand-standing politicians, and alarmist campaigners truly is an unholy alliance. The climate-industrial complex does not promote discussion on how to overcome this challenge in a way that will be best for everybody. We should not be surprised, or impressed, that those self-servers, who stand to collect decades of subsidies and profits are among the loudest calling for politicians to act.
This author is a scientist with over 50 years of experience. Accordingly, he has looked at the data as an experienced scientist, but not a ‘climate scientist’, and has concluded that Lindzen, Lomborg and many others, are indeed correct.
In fact, CO2 is necessary for life on this planet.
Till now, the main effect of the added CO2 in the atmosphere has been to increase the greening of the earth (per CO2 coalition), because CO2 is vital plant food.
Without atmospheric CO2, the earth would be a dead planet.
Few of the “believers” seem cognizant of this undeniable fact.
Believers should answer a simple question: What do they think is the optimum level of atmospheric CO2 and why?
In fact, believers in a “fast-approaching climate crisis”, seem, in the opinion of this author, to be more like members of a religious cult, than like practicing, skeptical scientists.
As pointed out, modern civilization depends on plentiful, low-cost energy.
Right now, we have a reasonable energy infrastructure, and the possibility of converting to much more nuclear power in coming decades.
If we dismantle our existing power infrastructure, and convert to wind and solar, and if wind and solar are insufficient, because of minimal wind speed and sunshine, which happens at random throughout the year, it would be the end of modern civilization.
It would be especially tragic, when this new infrastructure will fail to perform as promised, and it turned out to have been entirely unnecessary, after spending $trillions for decades, and after trashing large portions of the environment.
Wake up now, because the stakes are enormous.
Section 2 describes the main tall aspects of the climate industrial complex, if you will.
Section 3 describes a few of the many predictions of climate crisis believers, predictions which the passing of time have proven erroneous. It also mentions many highly qualified scientists, who do not accept the climate crisis dogma.
Section 4 discusses the radiation forcing of the atmospheric CO2. Both the believers and skeptics show, the radiation forcing, by itself, is not nearly sufficient to cause a climate crisis for at least a century or two.
Section 5 discusses evidence of climate change over the period of human civilization, the past 10,000 years.
Section 6 discusses the climate during geological times,
Section 7 discusses a simple way for anyone, anywhere, any time, to check out the predictions of a particular potential catastrophe, for instance increasing frequency and severity of tornados.
Section 8 summarizes the conclusions.
2. Chicken Littles of the Climate-Industrial Complex
One cannot listen to national and world leaders very long without learning false information about there being a climate crisis, which we have very little time to solve.
Here are some statements from the Glasgow COP, Nov 2021, international conference on climate change. There are many more statements like this:
“Humanity has long since run down the clock on climate change. It’s one minute to midnight on that Doomsday clock and we need to act now.” Boris Johnson, ex UK PM
“Our addiction to fossil fuels is pushing humanity to the brink. We face a stark choice: Either we stop it — or it stops us. It’s time to say: enough.” Antonio Guterres, secretary general of UN
“Quite literally it is the last-chance saloon. We must now translate fine words into still finer actions.” King Charles III
“President Biden is committed to cutting greenhouse gas emissions 50-52 percent below 2005 levels in 2030, reaching a 100% carbon-pollution-free power sector by 2035, and achieving a net-zero economy by no later than 2050.” White House statement, November 2021
“The scientific community is telling us in no uncertain terms, we have less than 11 years left to transform our energy system away from fossil fuels to energy efficiency and sustainable energy, if we are going to leave this planet healthy and habitable for ourselves, our children, grandchildren, and future generations.” Bernie Sanders, presidential campaign 2020 web site
This author, a practicing scientist with over 50 years of experience, gets very nervous on hearing politicians say they are following ‘the scientific community’.
This confers on us 1) a unanimity, which we don’t have, and 2) an authority, which we don’t want.
To this author, it is basically a way for the politician to say ‘Do what I tell you, or else!’
But, should someone have missed these statements by politicians, all one has to do is turn to the New York Times, WSJ, Washington Post, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, MSNBC, or CNN that parrot and amplify the same messages
What about scientific journals, do they permit deviations from the orthodoxy?
Few articles of skeptics are accepted for publication in most standard journals.
Almost all skeptical articles are published in blogs.
Here is a quote from the editorial in Science Magazine, one of the most prestigious scientific journals, by the editor Marcia McNutt (McNutt):
But now with climate change, we face a slowly escalating, but long-enduring global threat to food supplies, …to support a population of more than 7 billion people.
The time for debate has ended. Action is urgently needed…..to reduce their per-capita fossil fuel emissions even further...
But in case anyone still does not get the idea, Dr. McNutt went on to say, skeptics belong in one of the circles of Dante’s inferno.
Figure 3, is her selected image of Dante's Inferno, taken from her Science Magazine editorial.
Figure 1. “where [would]...Dante...place all of us, who are borrowing against this Earth...?”
Dr. McNutt’s picture of one of the circles of hell, where the skeptics of human-induced climate change ought to go.
Social Media Serving as Gatekeepers to Aid and Abet the Believers
If somebody does manage to get over all the publishing hurdles to have a skeptical article on climate change in one of the major journals, does he or she have a chance of spreading its conclusions on social media?
Here is Facebook’s statement November 2021:
We have a responsibility to tackle climate misinformation on our services, which is why we partner with more than 80 independent fact-checking organizations globally to review and rate content, including content about climate change. When they rate content as false, we reduce its distribution so fewer people see it, and we show a warning label with more context. And we apply penalties to people who repeatedly share false information.
Here is Twitter (this may be changing with Elon Musk):
Twitter is banning misleading advertisements that go against the scientific consensus of climate change, the company announced on Friday, which was Earth Day.
“We believe climate denialism shouldn’t be monetized on Twitter, and misrepresentative ads shouldn’t detract from important conversations about the climate crisis,” Twitter said in a blog post.
Here is Google (October 2021):
That’s why today, we’re announcing, a new monetization policy for Google advertisers, publishers and YouTube creators that will prohibit ads for, and monetization of, content, that contradicts well-established scientific consensus around the existence and causes of climate change.
This includes: 1) content referring to climate change as a hoax or a scam, 2) claims denying long-term trends show the global climate is warming, and 3) claims denying greenhouse gas emissions or human activity contribute to climate change.
Scientific Journals Serving as Gatekeepers to Aid and Abet the Believers
Here is the American Physical Society:
Multiple lines of evidence strongly support the finding, anthropogenic greenhouse gases have become the dominant driver of global climate warming observed since the mid-twentieth century.
Here is the American Meteorological Society:
“Warming of the climate system now is unequivocal, according to many different kinds of evidence.” It goes on to say, “It is clear from extensive scientific evidence, the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases …”
Can all of these authoritative sources be wrong?
It seems inconceivable, but they most certainly are!
It is particularly disheartening to see these learned scientific societies make such definitive claims, when so much contrary information is readily available.
They do not even put error bars on their statements!
Don’t they realize, 1) the radiative forcing from the excess CO2 in the atmosphere is much less than 1% of the total radiation input, and 2) there are other climate and meteorological effects that are much more dominant?
Don’t they recognize, for much the last 10,000 years, the earth has almost certainly been warmer than today?
Don’t they know, in those 10,000 years, there have been many oscillations between warm and cold periods, not so different from today’s warm period?
Don't they realize, in the warm periods, civilization flourished and grew, in the cold periods it suffered and shrank?
Don’t they realize, in its geological history, the earth’s temperature and CO2 varied widely with little correlation to each other?
This information, by very well established sources, such as NOAA, NASA, The National Hurricane Center, The IPCC ….. is very simple to obtain using the Google search engine, the very search engine of a company that specifically says, it will not provide information on ‘claims denying that long-term trends show the global climate is warming’.
3. Some Naked Emperors of the Climate-Industrial Complex, and Others
To start, we consider two naked emperors. We can now compare their predictions of 30 years ago with today’s reality.
James Hansen, the leader of the Goddard institute at Columbia University, in1988, predicted great warming over the next few decades for a variety of CO2 atmospheric inputs.
The world’s actual CO2 input was greater than his maximum assumption.
In Fig. (2) are shown his predictions of temperature rise from 1988 to 2030, and the actual measurements up to 2012 (Watts).
Figure 2. James Hansen’s prediction of world temperature rise for various assumptions of CO2 emission. His maximum case (case A) for CO2 emission considerably underestimated the actual CO2 input. The actual temperature rise is shown in black
Undoubtedly, computer modelers have new simulations that give perfect agreement from 1960 to 2022, except predict calamity in the next 10 or 20 years.
But how many bites from the apple do the modelers get before they lose all credibility?
After all, it was John von Neuman who said “With 4 parameters, I can simulate an elephant; with 5, I can get him to wiggle his trunk”.
All these climate simulations have many more than 5 parameters (Vossen).
In fact a reasonable image of an elephant has been simulated with 4 parameters; it wiggled his trunk with 5 (Mayer). The image of the elephant wiggling his trunk is shown in Figure (3).
Figure 3. The simulated elephant wiggling his trunk
Hansen is hardly the only one who got the prediction of future temperature wrong.
John Christy (Christy) presented testimony to Congress showing a whole variety of numerical simulations of future heating as compared to reality.
The red line, an average temperature of the subjective computer simulations, is significantly higher than the objective balloon and satellite data, which coincide, because they measure the same atmosphere parameters.
Figure (4) is from what he presented to Congress.
The image shows objective satellite and balloon data
Figure 4. From Christy’s testimony to Congress.
NOTE: The bottom dotted, squiggly graph (it looks like an extension of the balloon and satellite data) is the Russian Model (IMM-C-M4), which is close to the balloon and satellite data....
NOTE: All of the simulations predicted much greater temperature increases than was actually measured.
Since all of the simulations overestimated the temperature, they are not making random errors; if they were, some would underestimate the temperature rise.
One cannot escape the conclusion, a “believer-bias” toward heating is built into all the computer codes.
In fact, several people (Vossin, Kooning, Manheimer 2020) have pointed out the difficulties with these simulations.
Yet on the basis of these simulations, which cannot even predict the present, the Climate-Industrial-Complex is planning to spend $trillions to take apart our existing energy infrastructure, and replace it with something that does not even work.
It does not always take 30 years to expose an incorrect prediction.
In 2008 Hansen predicted, there would be no summer time Arctic ice after 5 or 10 years (Predictions).
In Figure (5) are shown NOAA measurements of Arctic ice in March (the maximum) and September (the minimum) (Climate).
Figure 5. The actual measured extent of Arctic ice from 1979 to 2020 in March (the maximum) and September (the minimum)
Another well-known scientist who missed on an important prediction is Professor Kerry Emanuel of MIT. He had recently been celebrated (see BBVA) for his study which concluded, the warming of the ocean would make hurricanes more frequent and intense:
Besides unraveling the mechanisms of how hurricanes develop, Emanuel was the first to link them with the warming of sea surface waters, driven by climate change.
His models currently predict a 5% increase in hurricane intensity, i.e., higher wind speed, for each one degree rise in ocean temperatures.
However, Figure (6) is a plot from NOAA of the ocean surface temperature over the last century and a half (Buchholz).
Figure 6. A plot of ocean surface temperature over the last 140 years from NOAA, showing that in the last 60 years the ocean surfaces have warmed by ~ 1oC. Professor Emanuel’s prediction is, this should have given a significant increase in hurricane frequency and intensity
Figure (7) is a plot from NOAA (Spencer 2018) of the number of strong hurricanes striking the American East coast over the past 140 years.
Clearly the number of strong hurricanes has been decreasing from the 1950’s to the present, as the ocean has warmed, This is just exactly the opposite of what Professor Emanuel predicted.
Now We Consider Some Emperors Still Wearing Clothes
In 2006, 32,000 scientists, including 9,000 PhDs, signed a petition disputing the believers view of the climate (www.petitionproject.org).
The petition was led Fred Seitz, at the time the president of the National Academy of Science (NAS).
This year a new organization, Clintel (https://clintel.org/world-climate-declaration/) has been formed. It has put out a similar statement. Already over 1,000 professional scientists from all over the world have signed on.
This certainly contradicts the assertion, “the science is settled”
While the raw number scientists, who signed these statements, are certainly an important data point, this author is even more impressed by the quality of some of the leading skeptics.
Richard Lindzen (world’s leading expert on geophysical fluid dynamics and the youngest person elected to NAS),
William Happer (one of the world’s world leading authorities on the interaction of radiation with atoms and molecules, and inventor of the sodium guide star, an earth based method of correcting for atmospheric turbulence in large telescopes, and leading member of NAS),
Roy Spencer and John Christy (in charge of the NOAA/NASA/UAH space based temperature data collection. Christy has testified before congress),
Patrick Moore (originator of Greenpeace, resigned when he thought it became too extreme, he recently wrote a book critical of the climate alarmism [Moore], and has testified several time before congress),
Judith Curry (former chairwoman of the earth and atmospheric science department at Georgia Tech but resigned from her academic post when the academic atmosphere became too stultifying for her),
Ivar Giaever (Nobel Prize winner in physics, resigned from the American Physical Society, because of its stand on climate change),
Steven Koonin (one of today’s leading physicists, he also recently wrote a book; to mock the claim of the alarmists that ‘the science is settled’, he titled his book ‘Unsettled’[Koonin] ),
Patrick Michaels (Retired from the atmospheric department of the University of Virginia, and chief Virginia climatologist),
Michael Shellenberger (leading environmentalist and originator of Environmental Progress, also wrote a book criticizing climate alarmism),
Mark Mills (the leading energy expert of the Manhattan Institute).
Then there a few more who are no longer with us.
Fred Seitz (former head of the Rockefeller University and former president of the National Academy of Science),
Fred Singer, (retired professor University of Virginia, designed many of the space-based instruments used for environmental measurements),
Freeman Dyson (long time scholar at Princeton Institute of Advanced Studies, probably the greatest physicist who has NOT won a Nobel Prize), and many, many others.
This author certainly has respect for both Kerry Emanuel and James Hansen. They played in the arena as best they could, and certainly contributed a lot to their field of endeavor.
I certainly do not point to their wrong predictions with any sense of superiority, having made several wrong predictions in my own corner of the scientific world.
However unlike the “predictions” of Emanuel and Hansen, nobody is wasting $trillions on my wrong predictions
Perhaps those making predictions should act with less hubris, and pay a bit more attention to Yogi Berra’s timeless wisdom: “Predictions are tough, especially about the future”.
4. A Brief Tour of CO2 Induced Radiation Forcing in the Atmosphere
We will take a look at the physics of CO2 in the atmosphere.
If there is one CO2 molecule and radiation coming up from the earth hits it at the right infra-red frequency, the molecule absorbs some radiation, gets into an excited state, nearly immediately reradiates in all directions, including sending some of that radiation back to earth.
If there are many CO2 molecules, the simplistic temptation might be to add up the heating from each molecule, but that is incorrect.
For one thing, no matter how many molecules there are, they can never reradiate in that frequency range more than a black body would at that temperature, i.e., the radiation at that frequency can saturate, it is limited!
To calculate what is called a CO2 radiative forcing, one needs a start date and a final date (or equivalently an initial CO2 concentration and a final concentration).
One then one calculates the added radiation coming down to earth, in W/m2 from this added concentration.
The IPCC calculation from their Sixth Assessment report is shown in (IPCC)
Their Figure 2.10, reproduced as our Fig (8), gives their calculated radiative forcing of about 1.75 W/m2, from 1900 (CO2 concentration of ~280 ppm) to 2020 (~420 ppm)
. Figure 8. Calculated CO2 and other greenhouse gas forcing as reported in the IPCC 6th assessment report (2021). Their CO2 forcing is about 1.75 W/m2, from 1900 to 2020.
Recently, Wijngaarden and Happer (W&H) have made an extremely detailed calculation of the radiation transport considering the 5 most common greenhouse gases (Wijngaarden).
Their main results are shown as Fig. (9). The smooth blue curve is the black body radiation of the earth at 287 degrees Kelvin, or 287 - 273 = 14C, the average temperature of the planet surface.
This is what the earth would radiate back to space, if the atmosphere had no effect.
The greenhouse gases tend to make the actual curve lower than the black body curve, meaning the earth is reabsorbing some radiation, which is heating the planet.
The green curve is the radiation with all greenhouse gases, excluding CO2
The black curve is the radiation with 400 parts per million of CO2, approximately today’s concentration.
The red curve is the radiation, if the CO2 concentration were doubled.
CO2 is shown four times, because it absorbs at four frequencies; the latter three are inconsequential.
Figure 9. The Planck radiation curve (blue); with all greenhouse gases, except CO2 (green); with today’s concentration of CO2 (400 ppm, black); with double today’s concentration (800 ppm, red)
W&H find a radiative forcing of ~3 W/m2.
The W&H calculation and the IPCC calculations cover different time periods, or equivalently, different initial and final CO2 conditions, so it is difficult to determine the extent to which they agree or disagree.
For our purposes here, we will use the W&H calculation, as it is a more detailed one.
Among other things, W&H developed numerical algorithms allowing them to examine and analyze individually, hundreds of thousands of molecular rotational and vibrational states using only a PC.
In any case, the scientists (IPCC and W&H) are basically on the same page, it is the lay, charlatan, self-serving, politicians and their media lackeys that have wildly different, scare-mongering interpretations.
NOTE: 100 C = 373 K; 0 C = 273 K; -273 C = 0 K, the temperature of empty space of the universe
W&H calculate, a temperature increase on the earth surface of 1-2oC, depending on their assumptions.
Since the radiative forcing of 3 W/m2 is ~ 0.3% of the incident solar radiation, and a 1oK temperature increase is ~ 0.3% of the Kelvin temperature of 300OK, these estimates are reasonably consistent with one another.
In fact, Figure 114 of (Lamb) gives his graph, which is predicting, increasing CO2 in the atmosphere from 400-800 parts per million would increase the earth temperature by ~1.5oC, not far off of the W&H estimate.
If the world keeps using fossil fuels (oil, gas, coal) at 136,000 TWh, as it did by end of 2021, this adds about 2 ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere per year, i.e., it would take 200 years to double the CO2 concentration and increase the temperature by about 2C; the 136,000 TWh is rapidly increasing. See URL
However long before CO-2 doubling happens, the world likely will make a transition to nuclear power, perhaps fueled by fusion breeding (Manheimer 2022 a).
In no case is it ‘one minute to midnight’ (Boris Johnson), nor are we in the ‘last chance saloon’ (Prince Charles).
However, the amazing thing is, the forcing, as calculated by the IPCC scientists (the believers), and as calculated by W&H (the skeptics) are not that different.
The scientists basically agree!
In fact, had they calculated the forcing over the same time periods (i.e. same initial and final atmospheric CO2 concentrations), who knows how close their calculations would have been, perhaps they would have gotten very nearly the same result.
It is strictly a matter of different predictions from similar results.
The IPCC believers predict, a forcing of 0.3% will cause a calamity.
The skeptics predict, a forcing of 0.3% will cause something more like a 0.3% temperature rise on the Kelvin scale, namely 1 to 2oC. To this author, the latter prediction seems much more reasonable.
In fact, given the objective satellite and balloon temperature measurements of the lower atmosphere over the past ~ 45 years, one can very roughly test the effect of the CO2 forcing.
Figure 10 is a measurement of this temperature (Spencer 2022) from 1979 (CO2 concentration of ~ 335 ppm) to 2022 (~415ppm), or an increase of 80ppm.
Figure 10. The space based temperature measurement of the lower atmosphere
Clearly, during this period, the temperature, averaged over many fluctuations, has increased by ~ 0.6oC, or ~0.2% of the temperature on the Kelvin scale.
The IPCC estimated, a forcing of 1.75W/m2 with a 140 ppm increase, or ~ 1 W/m2 with an 80 ppm increase, or about about a 0.1% increase of the temperature on the Kelvin scale.
W&H estimated, their 0.3% increase in forcing would increase the temperature by ~ 0.3-0.6%, not far off Lamb’s estimate. This all seems to hang together.
Of course Figure 10 cannot be taken as confirmation of W&H’s estimate of 1 to 2 degrees.
The atmosphere is much too complicated to be described by simply the CO2 content.
For instance Figure 11 shows a NOAA (NOAA) graph of the temperature from 1880 to the present, based on many ground based measurement stations.
Much of the time of these measurements was before the era of satellite measurement, which this author believes is the most accurate and complete by covering the entire planet.
However, in this earlier era, before satellite measurements, and before significant CO2 accumulated in the atmosphere, there was still a great deal of variation in temperature.
The variation from 1920 to 1950, when CO2 levels were quite low, there was nearly a 1oC increase in temperature, an increase greater than from 1979 to the present, according to Figure 10, where the temperature rise might have been due to CO2.
From 1979 to the present, the ground-based and satellite measurements certainly do not follow one another exactly. There is a significant uncertainty even a comparison of one type of measurement to another.
Figure 11. NOAA measurements of world temperature from 1880 to the present, based on dubious ground station measurements from stations around the world
All of these theories, and the measurements, certainly do not support the assertion of a rapidly approaching climate crisis.
5. The Climate Change over the Period of Human Civilization
Let us now consider the temperature record for about 10,000 years, the time of human civilization.
When believers say, this or that is a record heat spell, or hurricane, or whatever, they are talking about one particular place on the planet, and only during the time official records were kept, perhaps a bit more than a century.
However, civilization goes further back than that, and other measurements indicate oscillating hot and cold periods, with many hot periods warmer than today’s.
Skeptics tend to look over much longer periods of time.
One way of measuring this temperatures during previous eras is with the ratio of 18O to 16O in the Greenland ice cores.
About 0.1% of oxygen on earth is the heavier isotope.
Water containing the heavier and lighter oxygen isotopes evaporate at a slightly different rates, a difference dependent on temperature.
Hence, measuring the isotope ratio as a function of depth in the ice caps (i.e. as a function of year) gives a very good indication of temperature as a function of year.
This is not a local Greenland measurement.
The snow on Greenland is from ocean evaporation over a large part of the earth south and west of Greenland. It comes from water evaporated from the tropics and mid-latitudes and carried by the prevailing westerly winds, and then carried up to the northern latitudes by general circulation.
Hence it is an indication of the average temperature over a large patch of earth at those times.
Graphs of this ratio abound in a Google images search. Most are very choppy, but some also average over the rapid time oscillations (Easterbrook, McVetanovic) and normalize the isotope ratio to temperature. One of these is in Figure 12.
Figure 12. A smoothed plot of average temperature over the last 10,000 years as measured by the Greenland ice caps
This graph was from a Google search; a search from the very organization “announcing a new monetization policy (which)….prohibits ads for, and monetization of, content that contradicts well-established scientific consensus around the existence and causes of climate change. This includes content ….denying that long-term trends show the global climate is warming, and claims denying that greenhouse gas emissions or human activity contribute to climate change”.
Google’s Figure (12) certainly denies 'long-term trends show the global climate is warming’.
On the contrary, it shows, for the period human civilization existed on earth, the climate bounced back and forth between warm and cold periods.
It is no coincidence, civilization advanced in the warm periods and degressed in the cold periods.
As convincing as Figure 12 is, it is far from the only evidence, these earlier warm periods were warmer than today.
Figure 13 is a plot of most of the northern hemisphere showing the northernmost limits of forest 4000 years ago, in the Holocene Climate Optimum, about the time of the biblical exodus; and today (Lamb).
Remnants of these northern forests from 4000 years ago are still in place and can be examined today.
Again, it is obviously not a local measurement. 4000 years ago these forests extended ~ 200 miles further north than they do today, indicating a considerably warmer climate then.
Lamb has several similar examples, for instance remnants of forests at higher altitude on mountains, forests that cannot exist at these altitudes today.
Figure 13. The smaller blue triangles are the limits of northernmost forest 4000 years ago, during the Holocene climate optimum; and the larger red triangles, today.
Clearly the Holocene climate was sufficiently warmer than today, so that the forests could exist ~ 200 miles further north. Redrawn from Figure 46 of (Lamb)
Another example is the well established fact, during the Roman Climate Optimum, the Romans had vineyards all over England (Brown), extending up to Hadrian’s wall.
The map in Figure 14 shows places where Roman pruning hooks, used in vineyards, were excavated in England.
Also it shows where the remnants of six Roman vineyards were found.
Virtually all the literature on Roman wine in England point out, Britain then was considerably warmer than today.
Grapes that survive now in, say Quebec or Minnesota today, are newer hybrid grapes, bred to thrive in cold climate (Perry).
Figure 14. A map of England showing where the Roman’s grew wine 2000 years ago, when England had a warmer climate than today
Finally, in the Medieval Warm Period, the Vikings settled Greenland and for hundreds of years, grew barley there, something not possible today.
Archeologists found, some of this barley in Greenland was firmly establishing, and that it was grown there ~ 1000 years ago (Viking).
Figure 15 show recently excavated remnants of 1000 year old barley grain found in in Greenland in 2012. Certainly Greenland today is much too cold for cultivating barley.
Figure 15. Remnants 1000 year old of barley excavated in Greenland in 2012, planted at a time when Greenland was much warmer than today
In other words, there were much warmer periods than today, during the course of human civilization, and during these periods civilization flourished; the in-between cold periods were generally disastrous.
How can learned scientific societies neglect these well established facts?
6. Climate over a Geological Time Scale
Finally we take a very brief look at the geological history of temperature and CO2 on earth.
Again, graphs abound on the internet, and the further back one goes, the more speculative they become.
A typical example is the graph in Figure 16 (Davis).
There are other similar plots in a simple internet search.
Figure 16. The geological history of CO2 level and temperature proxy for the past 400 million years. CO2 levels
now are ~ 400ppm
Davis also showed a scatter plot of temperature versus atmospheric CO2 level reproduced as Figure 17.
Figure 17. Scatter plot of the correlation of CO2 level with temperature proxy from Davis. Clearly he finds that the temperature and CO2 level are basically uncorrelated. In fact using a least square plot, he find a slight
While one may think, the geological history has little to do with today, there is one way in which it might be relevant.
One of the main scare-mongering tactic the climate change believers use, with the added CO2, the polar caps in Greenland and Antarctica might melt, raising ocean levels by many meters.
However the Antarctica polar cap was formed ~ 40 million years ago (Antarctic).
Then the earth’s temperature was ~8 degrees higher and the CO2 was about double what is is today.
The Greenland ice caps were formed ~ 3 million years ago (Chavez),when the earth’s temperature was ~ a degree or two warmer than today and the CO2 level was ~ 500ppm.
This data does not prove that added CO2 will not melt the ice caps today, but it certainly does not enhance the case it they will.
7. What an Internet Search Says about Climate Change
An examination of geological fluid motion, or radiation transport, are not the only way to debunk the case that we are now at a time of extreme peril due to climate change.
Here is something any layman can do, anywhere, any time.
After, let’s say a strong tornado, a politician (Manheimer 2017), or a media figure (Manheimer 2019) says, these strong tornados are a certain indication of a quickly approaching catastrophe, due to climate change.
Simply do a Google or Bing search.
Almost invariably, it will show that the claim is wildly exaggerated.
For example, let’s take Dr. Mc Nutt’s assertion of a coming world food crisis.
Go to Google Images and type in ‘graph of world food production’ and out will pop many, many graphs, nearly all showing, in different ways, increasing food production.
An example is in Figure 18. It shows per capita food production, so to get the actual increase in food production, one would have to multiply by the increase in population.
Figure 18. Per capita food production in kcal/(per-capita per day) from 1961 to 2009
Notice that there is a steadily increasing production, with no sign of any ‘slowly escalating but long-enduring global threat to food supplies.’
This author’s experience is that virtually all of your searches will debunk the claims of imminent catastrophe.
As a final indication of the lack of confidence, the threat of a climate crisis is real, there was a large international meeting to discuss the climate dilemma in Scotland in November 2021.
World leaders, including President Biden and many European leaders attended.
However, the leaders of Brazil, Russia, China and Turkey voted with their feet, and did not attend.
The leader of India attended, but announced, India would not be reducing its CO2 emission until 2070, an absolutely meaningless commitment.
These are large, important, technically advanced countries, containing ~ 40% of the world’s population.
Actually, the western democracies are not all that different.
Typically, some bureaucrat orders, we have to stop or reduce the use of fossil fuel in this way and that.
Occasionally the new rule is put to a vote, and the new rule is almost always rejected by the voters.
As Yogi Berra put it “If people don’t want to come to the ballpark, you can’t stop ‘em”.
Unlike the claims of believers, there is nearly universal (i.e. 97%) agreement on the scientific basis for CO2 levels being a crucial dial which controls the earth’s temperature, this author finds that there is a vast literature, and vast amounts of data from extremely qualified scientists disputing this.
If in fact ‘the science is settled’, it seems to be much more settled in the fact that there is no particular correlation between CO2 level and the earth’s temperature.
This work was not supported by any organization, public or private.
Antarctic Ice Sheet. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_ice_sheet
BBVA foundation, tribute to Kerry Emanuel. Retrieved from https://www.frontiersofknowledgeawardsfbbva.es/noticias/the-bbva-fo...
Brown, A. G., Meadows, I., Turner, S. D., & Maitingly, D. J. (2001). Roman vineyards in Britain: stratigraphic and palynological data from Wollaston in the Nene Valley, England. Antiquity, 75(1), 745-57. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00089250
Buchholz, K. (2022). Statistica Climate Change. Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/chart/19418/divergence-of-ocean-temperatur...
Chavez, H. (n.d.). How and when did Greenland become covered with ice, Oceanwide expeditions. Retrieved from https://oceanwide-expeditions.com/blog/how-and-when-did-greenland-b...
Christy, J. (n.d.). Testimony before congress. Retrieved from https://docs.house.gov/meetings/SY/SY00/20160202/104399/HHRG-114-SY...
Climate change indicators: Arctic sea ice, EPA. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climatechange-indicators-arc...
CO2coalition.org. Full disclosure, this author is proud to be a member.
Davis, W. J. (2017). The Relationship between Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration and Global Temperature for the Last 425 Million Years. Climate, 5(4), 76. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli5040076
Easterbrook, J. (2016). Using Patterns of Recurring Climate Cycles to Predict Future Climate Changes, Evidence Based Climate Science (2nd ed., Chapter 21). Elsevier Inc. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-804588-
IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, Chapter 2. Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis – IPCC. Retrieved from https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/
Koonin, S. E. (2021). Unsettled, what climate science tells us, what it doesn’t, and why it matters. Ben Bella Books, Dallas.
Lamb, H. H. (1995). Climate history and the modern world (2nd ed.). Routledge Publishers, New York and London.
Lomborg, B. (2009). The Climate-Industrial Complex. Wall Street Journal.
Manheimer, W. (2017). Original sin, prophets, witches, communists, preschool sex abuse, and climate change. International Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 4(7), https://doi.org/10.21474/IJAR01/840
Manheimer, W. (2019). Climate change, on media perceptions and misperceptions, Forum of Physics and Society.
American Physical Societal essay journal. Retrieved from https://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/201910/climate-change.cfm
Manheimer, W. (2020). Some dilemmas of climate simulations watts up withthtat. Retrieved from https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/04/27/some-dilemmas-of-climate-sim...
Manheimer, W. (2022a). Civilization Needs Sustainable Energy – Fusion Breeding May Be Best. Journal of Sustainable Development, 15, 98.https://doi.org/10.5539/jsd.v15n2p98
Manheimer, W. (2022b). Fusion breeding and pure fusion development – perceptions and misperceptions. Fusion Science and Technology.
Mayer, J., Khairy, K., & Howard, J. (2010). Drawing an elephant with four complex parameters. Am. J. Phys., 78, 648.https://doi.org/10.1119/1.3254017
McNutt, Marcia Science Magazine, July 3, 2015, editorial.
McVetanovic. (2016). Climate Change- A Geological Perspective. Good earth energy blog. Retrieved from https://www.fortitudeenergyconsultants.rocks/climate-change-a-geolo... Moore, P. (2021). Fake invisible catastrophes and threats of doom. Ecoscience, Amazon.
Mulhern, O. (2020). A Graphical History of Atmospheric CO2 Levels Over Time. Retrieved from
NOAA Graph. Retrieved from https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/monthly-report/global/2...
Perry, L. (n.d.). Cold Climate Grapes, University of Vermont Extension Department of Plant and Soil Science.
Retrieved from www.lin">https://pss.uvm.edu/ppp/articles/grapes.html#:~:text=With%20potenti...,www.lin colnpeakvineyard.com
Predictions of climate change gloom and doom. Retrieved from https://www.ehso.com/climatechange-predictionsdoom-and-gloom.php
Shellenberger, M. (2020). Apocalypse never, why environmental alarmism hurts us all. Harper Collins.
Spencer, R. (2018). Graph of hurricanes striking the United States. Retrieved from https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/09/u-s-major-landfalling-hurrican...
Spencer, R. (2022). Space based measurements of lower atmosphere temperature. Retrieved from https://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
Viking Barley in Greenland, Ancient Foods, February 17, 2012. Retrieved from https://ancientfoods.wordpress.com/2012/02/17/viking-barley-in-gree...
Vossen, P. (2016). Climate scientists open their black boxes to scrutiny. Science, 354(6311), 401. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.354.6311.401
Watts, A. (2012). James Hansen's climate forecast of 1988: a whopping 150% wrong. Retrieved from https://wattsupwiththat.com
Wijngaarden, W. A., & Happer, W. (2020). Dependence of Earth’s Thermal Radiation on Five Most Abundant Greenhouse Gases. Retrieved from https:arXiv.org/pdf/2006.030098.pdf
Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the journal.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
By the way, all of this, including rolling blackouts at ZUB-ZERO temperatures, and a lack of gas and oil for space heating, applies to New England, if:
1) New York State keeps obstructing new gas pipelines from Pennsylvania to New England; THIS SHOULD BE LEGALLY FORBIDDEN AS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL INTERFERENCE OF INTER-STATE COMMERCE, and
2) The New England oil, gas and coal storage capacities near power plants are not increased by at least 100% to ensure RELIABLE ELECTRICAL SERVICE IN WINTER, WHICH WOULD BE ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT, IF UNCERTAIN, MOTHER-NATURE, WEATHER-DEPENDENT WIND AND SOLAR WERE FURTHER EXPANDED, AS THE US AIMS TO BLINDLY COPY THAT DISASTROUS EUROPEAN SCENARIO
These articles and image are provided for reference.
ISO-NE REPORT OF 2021 ECONOMIC STUDY: FUTURE GRID RELIABILITY STUDY PHASE 1
DEEP DIVE SUMMARY OF THE ISO-NE REPORT
LIFE WITHOUT OIL
Life without oil means many products that are made with oil, such as the hundreds listed below, would need to be provided by wind and solar and hydro.
Folks, including Biden's attendants, wanting to get rid of fossil fuels, such as crude oil, better start doing some rethinking.
The above also applies to natural gas, which is much preferred by many industries
If you do not have abundant low-cost energy, you cannot have modern industrial economies.
These articles contain significant information regarding wind, solar and grid-scale battery systems
GRID-SCALE BATTERY SYSTEMS IN NEW ENGLAND TO COUNTERACT SHORTFALL OF ONE-DAY WIND/SOLAR LULL
COLD WEATHER OPERATION IN NEW ENGLAND DECEMBER 24, 2017 TO JANUARY 8, 2018
ANALYSIS OF WIND AND SOLAR ENERGY LULLS AND ENERGY STORAGE IN GERMANY
IRELAND FUEL AND CO2 REDUCTIONS DUE TO WIND ENERGY LESS THAN CLAIMED
BATTERY SYSTEM CAPITAL COSTS, OPERATING COSTS, ENERGY LOSSES, AND AGING
HIGH COSTS OF WIND, SOLAR, AND BATTERY SYSTEMS IN US NORTHEAST
CO2 is a Life Gas; No CO2 = No Life
These articles explain a lot about the world-wide “Climate Crisis” scam, based on highly compromised surface station measurements, which typically read HIGH.
Climate scientists SUBJECTIVELY adjust the readings for use in their SUBJECTIVE computerized-temperature-calculation programs, which are used in the reports of IPCC, etc., for scare-mongering purposes.
New Surface Stations Report Released – It’s ‘worse than we thought’
Weather- Just how does it happen?
A summary of the results of three “Physics of the Earth’s Atmosphere” papers, which were submitted for peer review at the Open Peer Review Journal.
Satellites and balloons measure temperatures of the Troposphere, which starts at ground level, and has an average height of 59,000 ft at the tropics, 56,000 ft at the middle latitudes, and 20,000 ft at the poles. Above those levels starts the Stratosphere.
Balloons directly measure temperatures. Satellites measure radiation, from which temperatures are calculated.
Both consistently measure much lower temperatures than the average of 102 computer-generated graphs.
See Appendix 2 and 3
The data in the below images is for a 43-y period.
There is global warming, but it is not anywhere near as much as scare-mongers are claiming.
1) Objective satellite and balloon temperatures increased from 0.00 to 0.5 C, or, or 0.116 C/decade
2) Subjective computer-generated temperatures increased from 0.00 to 1.20 C; or 0.28 C/decade, about 2.7 TIMES AS FAST
The temperature data by satellites and balloons are more accurate than land-based measurements.
See Appendix 2 and URL
Satellite measurements are made many times during every day and systematically cover almost the entire world; +/- 85-degree latitude.
The satellite data is vastly more complete, and accurate than would be gathered by ground stations. (See Appendix 2)
Balloon measurements, made on a sampling basis, are vastly less complete than satellite measurements, but they serve as a useful crosscheck on the satellite measurements.
NOTE: Behind the 102 computer graphs are hundreds of organizations that likely receive a significant part of their revenues from governments and subsidy-receiving wind, solar, battery, etc., businesses.
The livelihood and career prospects of the people creating these graphs is more secure, if they aim high, rather than low.
NOTE: The bottom dotted, squiggly graph is the Russian Model (IMM-C-M4), which is close to the balloon and satellite data.
A more detailed view of satellite temperatures.
Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) and also a member of the CO2 Coalition. Sheahen and the Coalition are collaborating on a brief.
SEPP’s October 8 newsletter contains a summary of a major 2021 paper by Happer and co-author William van Wijngaarden that completely undermines the fake “science” the IPCC and EPA used to support the case of climate alarm.
Sheahen specifically discusses the efforts of Professors William van Wijngaarden and William Happer in their pioneering work in calculating the real-world Global Warming Potentials (GWPs) of the five most common Green-House Gases (GHGs).
Sheahan explains why the approach used by IPCC is faulty, but nonetheless used by its followers, such as the US National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and the EPA.
These faulty methods lead to great exaggeration of the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide, methane, and other minor greenhouse gases. . . .
Sheahan shows the stunning agreement between the calculations of van Wijngaarden and Happer (W & H) with satellite measurements (and balloon measurements) of outgoing infrared radiation emitted by the earth to space . . .
Sheahan claims, because of the exceptionally good agreement between observational data and the calculations of W & H, we can conclude the W&H model has been validated.
The W&H model embodies the scientific method.
In that case, it is reasonable to use it to study other hypothetical cases.
It is not possible to do so with IPCC models, which have never achieved agreement with observations. . .
See Appendix 3
The gist of the H&W work is the greenhouse effect of CO2 in the atmosphere is almost entirely saturated, such that any additional CO2 can have almost no additional warming effect.
Here is a chart prepared by Sheahan to illustrate the H&W results.
As atmospheric CO2 increases, say from 380 to 420 ppm, it has less warming effect.
The most warming effect occurs at very low levels of CO2, say 20 to 60 ppm.
A timely and important new paper has just been uploaded to the CO2 Coalition website on nitrogen.
The first half of the paper on the greenhouse warming effect of N2O is quite technical
It is summarized in the first link.
Link to the full paper is at the bottom. Please distribute widely.
Authors: Will Happer, C. A. de Lange, William Wijngaarden and J.D. Ferguson
Nitrous Oxide and Climate – Why restricting N2O emissions is unnece...
Nitrous oxide (N20) has now joined carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) in the pantheon of “human-generated demon” gases.
GW scare-mongers view increasing concentrations of these molecules are leading to unusual and unprecedented GW, which will lead to catastrophic consequences for both our ecosystems and humanity.
Countries around the world are in the process of greatly reducing, or eliminating, the use of nitrogen fertilizers, based on heretofore poorly understood properties of nitrous oxide.
Reductions of N2O emissions of 40 to 45 percent are being proposed in Canada , and by up to 50 percent in the Netherlands .
Sri Lanka’s complete ban on fertilizer in 2021 led to the total collapse of their primarily agricultural economy.
The CO2 Coalition has published this paper, which evaluates the GW effect of the N20 and its role in the nitrogen cycle.
Policymakers can now proceed to make informed decisions about the costs and benefits of mandated N20 reductions of this beneficial molecule.
This new paper joins previous CO2 Coalition reports on other greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide and methane.
Key takeaways from the paper:
- At current rates, a doubling of N2O would occur in more than 400 years.
- Atmospheric warming by N2O is estimated to be 0.064 C per century.
- Increasing crop production requires continued application of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer to feed a growing population.
Download the entire PDF Nitrous Oxide
It is dangerous to be correct in matters, where established men are wrong, by Voltaire
You need to be a member of Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine to add comments!
Join Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine