June 2021 Ocean Temps Stay Cool

The best context for understanding decadal temperature changes comes from the world’s sea surface temperatures (SST), for several reasons:

  • The ocean covers 71% of the globe and drives average temperatures;
  • SSTs have a constant water content, (unlike air temperatures), so give a better reading of heat content variations;
  • A major El Nino was the dominant climate feature in recent years.

HadSST is generally regarded as the best of the global SST data sets, and so the temperature story here comes from that source, the latest version being HadSST3.  More on what distinguishes HadSST3 from other SST products at the end.

The Current Context

The year end report below showed 2020 rapidly cooling in all regions.  The anomalies have continued to drop sharply well below the mean since 1995.  This Global Cooling was also evident in the UAH Land and Ocean air temperatures ( See March 2021 Ocean Chill Deepens) 

The chart below shows SST monthly anomalies as reported in HadSST3 starting in 2015 through June 2021. After three straight Spring 2020 months of cooling led by the tropics and SH, NH spiked in the summer, along with smaller bumps elsewhere.  Then temps everywhere dropped the last six months, hitting bottom in February 2021.  All regions were well below the Global Mean since 2015, matching the cold of 2018, and lower than January 2015. Now the spring is bringing more temperate waters and a return to the mean anomaly since 2015.  June Global SST anomaly cooled off back to April due to dropping temps in SH and the Tropics.  NH continued its summer rise, but only slightly and well below the last two Junes.

A global cooling pattern is seen clearly in the Tropics since its peak in 2016, joined by NH and SH cycling downward since 2016.  

Note that higher temps in 2015 and 2016 were first of all due to a sharp rise in Tropical SST, beginning in March 2015, peaking in January 2016, and steadily declining back below its beginning level. Secondly, the Northern Hemisphere added three bumps on the shoulders of Tropical warming, with peaks in August of each year.  A fourth NH bump was lower and peaked in September 2018.  As noted above, a fifth peak in August 2019 and a sixth August 2020 exceeded the four previous upward bumps in NH.

In 2019 all regions had been converging to reach nearly the same value in April.  Then  NH rose exceptionally by almost 0.5C over the four summer months, in August 2019 exceeding previous summer peaks in NH since 2015.  In the 4 succeeding months, that warm NH pulse reversed sharply. Then again NH temps warmed to a 2020 summer peak, matching 2019.  This has now been reversed with all regions pulling the Global anomaly downward sharply, tempered by warming in March to May, and now dropping below the global mean anomaly since 2015.

And as before, note that the global release of heat was not dramatic, due to the Southern Hemisphere offsetting the Northern one.  Note the May warming was strongest in the Tropics, though the anomaly is quite cool compared to 2016.

A longer view of SSTs

The graph below  is noisy, but the density is needed to see the seasonal patterns in the oceanic fluctuations.  Previous posts focused on the rise and fall of the last El Nino starting in 2015.  This post adds a longer view, encompassing the significant 1998 El Nino and since.  The color schemes are retained for Global, Tropics, NH and SH anomalies.  Despite the longer time frame, I have kept the monthly data (rather than yearly averages) because of interesting shifts between January and July.


Hadsst1995to 062021

1995 is a reasonable (ENSO neutral) starting point prior to the first El Nino.  The sharp Tropical rise peaking in 1998 is dominant in the record, starting Jan. ’97 to pull up SSTs uniformly before returning to the same level Jan. ’99.  For the next 2 years, the Tropics stayed down, and the world’s oceans held steady around 0.2C above 1961 to 1990 average.

Then comes a steady rise over two years to a lesser peak Jan. 2003, but again uniformly pulling all oceans up around 0.4C.  Something changes at this point, with more hemispheric divergence than before. Over the 4 years until Jan 2007, the Tropics go through ups and downs, NH a series of ups and SH mostly downs.  As a result the Global average fluctuates around that same 0.4C, which also turns out to be the average for the entire record since 1995.

2007 stands out with a sharp drop in temperatures so that Jan.08 matches the low in Jan. ’99, but starting from a lower high. The oceans all decline as well, until temps build peaking in 2010.

Now again a different pattern appears.  The Tropics cool sharply to Jan 11, then rise steadily for 4 years to Jan 15, at which point the most recent major El Nino takes off.  But this time in contrast to ’97-’99, the Northern Hemisphere produces peaks every summer pulling up the Global average.  In fact, these NH peaks appear every July starting in 2003, growing stronger to produce 3 massive highs in 2014, 15 and 16.  NH July 2017 was only slightly lower, and a fifth NH peak still lower in Sept. 2018.

The highest summer NH peaks came in 2019 and 2020, only this time the Tropics and SH are offsetting rather adding to the warming. (Note: these are high anomalies on top of the highest absolute temps in the NH.)  Since 2014 SH has played a moderating role, offsetting the NH warming pulses. After September 2020 temps dropped off down until February 2021, then all regions rose to bring the global anomaly above the mean since 1995, before backing down in June 2021.

What to make of all this? The patterns suggest that in addition to El Ninos in the Pacific driving the Tropic SSTs, something else is going on in the NH.  The obvious culprit is the North Atlantic, since I have seen this sort of pulsing before.  After reading some papers by David Dilley, I confirmed his observation of Atlantic pulses into the Arctic every 8 to 10 years.

But the peaks coming nearly every summer in HadSST require a different picture.  Let’s look at August, the hottest month in the North Atlantic from the Kaplan dataset.
AMO Aug and Dec 2021The AMO Index is from from Kaplan SST v2, the unaltered and not detrended dataset. By definition, the data are monthly average SSTs interpolated to a 5×5 grid over the North Atlantic basically 0 to 70N. The graph shows August warming began after 1992 up to 1998, with a series of matching years since, including 2020.  Because the N. Atlantic has partnered with the Pacific ENSO recently, let’s take a closer look at some AMO years in the last 2 decades.

AMO decade 062021
This graph shows monthly AMO temps for some important years. The Peak years were 1998, 2010 and 2016, with the latter emphasized as the most recent. The other years show lesser warming, with 2007 emphasized as the coolest in the last 20 years. Note the red 2018 line is at the bottom of all these tracks. The black line shows that 2020 began slightly warm, then set records for 3 months. then dropped below 2016 and 2017, peaked in August ending below 2016. Now in 2021, AMO is tracking the coldest years, warming slightly in May and June.


The oceans are driving the warming this century.  SSTs took a step up with the 1998 El Nino and have stayed there with help from the North Atlantic, and more recently the Pacific northern “Blob.”  The ocean surfaces are releasing a lot of energy, warming the air, but eventually will have a cooling effect.  The decline after 1937 was rapid by comparison, so one wonders: How long can the oceans keep this up? If the pattern of recent years continues, NH SST anomalies may rise slightly in coming months, but once again, ENSO which has weakened will probably determine the outcome.

Footnote: Why Rely on HadSST3

HadSST3 is distinguished from other SST products because HadCRU (Hadley Climatic Research Unit) does not engage in SST interpolation, i.e. infilling estimated anomalies into grid cells lacking sufficient sampling in a given month. From reading the documentation and from queries to Met Office, this is their procedure.

HadSST3 imports data from gridcells containing ocean, excluding land cells. From past records, they have calculated daily and monthly average readings for each grid cell for the period 1961 to 1990. Those temperatures form the baseline from which anomalies are calculated.

In a given month, each gridcell with sufficient sampling is averaged for the month and then the baseline value for that cell and that month is subtracted, resulting in the monthly anomaly for that cell. All cells with monthly anomalies are averaged to produce global, hemispheric and tropical anomalies for the month, based on the cells in those locations. For example, Tropics averages include ocean grid cells lying between latitudes 20N and 20S.

Gridcells lacking sufficient sampling that month are left out of the averaging, and the uncertainty from such missing data is estimated. IMO that is more reasonable than inventing data to infill. And it seems that the Global Drifter Array displayed in the top image is providing more uniform coverage of the oceans than in the past.


USS Pearl Harbor deploys Global Drifter Buoys in Pacific Ocean



Imperfect Climate Scientists


Tom Chivers writes with insight as Unherd’s science editor Can we trust the climate scientists?  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

The reaction to Steven Koonin’s book highlights just how toxic this debate has become

There’s a problem with writing about science — any science — which is that scientists are human like the rest of us. They are not perfect disembodied truth-seeking agents but ordinary, flawed humans navigating social, professional and economic incentive structures.

Most notably, scientists, like people, are social. If they exist in a social or professional circle that believes X, it is hard to say not-X; if they have professed to believe Y, they won’t want to look silly and admit not-Y. It might even be hard to get research funded or published if it isn’t in line with what the wider group believes.

All this makes it very hard, as an outsider, to assess some scientific claims. You can ask some expert, but they will be an expert within the social and professional milieu that you’re looking at, and who will likely share the crony beliefs of that social and professional milieu. All of which often makes it hard to disentangle why scientists do and say the things they do. Especially when it comes to scientific claims that are politically charged, claims on hot-button topics like race, sex, poverty — and of course climate.

I couldn’t help thinking about that as I was reading Steven Koonin’s new book, Unsettled. Koonin is (as it says, prominently, on the front of the book) the “former Undersecretary for Science, US Department of Energy, under the Obama administration”. The publishers are obviously very keen to stress the Obama link: “…under the Trump administration” might not have carried the same heft.

Koonin came to public attention a few years ago, after he wrote a controversial opinion piece for the Wall Street Journal headlined “Climate science is not settled”. It was a response to what he considered the widely held opinion among policymakers and the wider public that, in fact, climate science is settled. His particular concern was that we can’t yet accurately predict what the future climate shifts will be. The book itself is best thought of as the extended version of that op-ed, with added graphs.

Climate Science is not Settled:  We can break down his thesis into, roughly, three areas.

One, is that despite “the mainstream narrative among the media and policymakers”, it is hard to be sure that the climate has changed in meaningful ways due to human influence. In particular, floods, rainfall, droughts, storms, and record high temperatures have not become more common, and although the climate is unambiguously warming and sea levels have gone up, it’s hard to confidently separate human influence from natural variability.

Two, he says, climate models are highly uncertain and struggle to successfully predict the past, let alone the future, so we shouldn’t trust confident claims about the climate future. And if we do accept the IPCC’s predictions, they aren’t of imminent catastrophe. Instead, they point to slow change to which humanity can easily adapt, and, broadly speaking, to humanity continuing to prosper.

And three, he continues, there is basically nothing we can do about it anyway, partly because carbon dioxide hangs around in the atmosphere for so long, but mainly because the developing world is developing fast, and using ever more carbon to do so, and actually that’s a good thing.

These are — according to Koonin — all, by and large, only what the IPCC assessment reports and other major climate analyses say.

The public conversation, which he says is full of doom and apocalypse and unwarranted certainty, has become unconnected from the state of the actual science. And he blames scientists — and policymakers, the media and the public — for that disconnection.


So is he right? Certainly he has a case when it comes to Point One: I think he is correct that the media narrative about climate change is not especially well correlated with the IPCC’s own central assessments. For instance, I think it’s fair to say that the recent floods in London, China and Germany have been held up as examples of a changing climate. But the IPCC’s most recent assessment report, 2014’s AR5, found studies showing evidence for “upward, downward or no trend in the magnitude of floods” (see p214 of the AR5 Physical Science Basis document; be warned it’s a big PDF), and concluded that they were unable to be sure whether, globally, river floods had become more or less likely.

Similarly, I think there is a perception among many commentators and policymakers that storms, hurricanes, and droughts are all more common as a result of climate change, but the IPCC’s own report (see p.53 of AR5) has “low confidence” that those things are more common than they were 100 years ago. I know some scientists think the IPCC is overoptimistic, but it is the closest we have to consensus climate science.


That said, there is some fairness in accusing Koonin of cherrypicking. He spends a lot of time arguing about extreme daily temperatures, convincingly (to my mind) debunking a claim in the 2017 Climate Science Special Report (CSSR), the flagship US government climate science assessment, that US extreme daily temperature records have gone up. In fact, CSSR is comparing the ratio of extreme high temperatures to extreme low temperatures, and what in fact has happened is that extreme low temperatures have become less common. Which is interesting.

But the IPCC does think extreme daily temperatures have gone up globally (see p53 again). In his chapter on “Hyping the Heat”, Koonin doesn’t mention the IPCC, and the IPCC outranks the CSSR. His detective work is interesting, but he is fighting a henchman, not the end-of-level boss. Maybe the IPCC is wrong as well, but we don’t learn that here.

On Point Two, I don’t feel competent to assess the models; certainly it seems highly plausible to me that there are enormous uncertainties in predicting something as inherently chaotic as the climate, especially when to do so you first have to predict something as inherently chaotic as people. But my non-expert understanding is that broadly speaking the models have been getting it about right.

That said, I think he is right that, if you were to ask the average person in my social circle, you would hear that climate change will lead to catastrophe in the near future. And I think that is overstating what the IPCC reports actually say. For instance, it is true that the IPCC predicts more people will go hungry than otherwise would have: it says that almost 140 million children will be undernourished, in a world where climate change goes unmitigated, compared to 113 million in a world where there is no climate change (see p730 of this IPCC report). But that is still fewer than went hungry in 2000 – almost 150 million, out of a much smaller population. The IPCC predicts that a world with climate change will be worse than one without; but not so much worse that other things, such as economic growth and technological progress, won’t broadly keep the big things, like life expectancy and human health, improving. That does seem worth saying.

And Koonin’s Point Three is worth making too. If India were to increase its per capita emissions to those of Japan, “one of the lowest emitting of the developed countries”, he says, then that change alone would raise global emissions by 25%1. Realistically, we’re not going to be able to stop India — or China, or Brazil, or Mexico, or any of the other middle-income countries — from developing, and development at the moment means carbon.

More importantly: we don’t want them to stop developing. Richer countries have healthier, longer-lived citizens and are better able to cope with a changing climate. Even huge, swingeing cuts to Western emissions — politically unrealistic — would only go some way to offsetting the inevitable growth in the developing world. Those cuts may be worth doing, but there are limits to how much good they can do.

But even if Koonin is right about almost everything — if the best guess of the science is that we’re heading towards things merely getting better more slowly, rather than getting worse — then I think he’s missing a major point. That is, climate change models are uncertain. In fact Koonin claims they’re even more uncertain than we think. So they could easily be erring on the side of optimism.

And the one thing we should have learnt from the Covid pandemic is that it’s not enough to say “the most likely outcome is that it’ll be fine, so let’s act as if it’ll be fine.” The correct thing to say is “the most likely outcome is that it’ll be fine, but if there’s a 10% chance that it’ll be completely awful, then we need to prepare for that 10% chance.” Reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the developed world reduces the chance of some unforeseen but plausible disaster: as a happy bonus, it makes our cities more pleasant places in which to live. It will come at some cost, but hopefully not too high, because green technology is getting so cheap and effective these days.

Reviews by climate scientists have been unimpressed. “I would normally ignore a book by a non-climate scientist,” starts one review, which goes on to not ignore it. Another accuses him of cherry-picking his fights (not entirely unfairly, as I said). A third says the book is “distracting, irrelevant, misguided, misleading and unqualified”.

But none that I’ve read really addresses the nitty-gritty of his arguments — which is hard to do in a 900-word review, of course, but still. They usually pick some line out of the first chapter or two, disagree with it, and then say the whole book is therefore rubbish. But I wanted a bit more meat to the objections.

The third review, for instance, quotes Koonin as saying “The warmest temperatures in the US have not risen in the past fifty years,” and then asks “According to what measure?” Well, Koonin tells you the measure, at length: absolute record extreme daily temperatures. Maybe he’s wrong, but he does answer that in the book. (And your next sentence is “Highest annual global averages?” He’s talking about the US! You just quoted that bit!)

Similarly, it complains that Koonin says that the sea is only rising about a foot per century, saying “The trouble is that while seas have risen eight to nine inches since 1880, more than 30 percent of that increase has occurred during the last two decades.” But again: Koonin addresses this, for pretty much an entire chapter. His point is that most of the rest of the rise came during an (unexplained by climate models, according to him) period of rapid warming from 1910 to 1940, before human influence should have been relevant. That, he says, is good evidence that natural variation is driving the current acceleration. Is he right? I don’t know. But the reviewer is not attacking Koonin’s argument at its strongest point.

In fact, none of them seem to: they just want to dismiss the book. They attack Koonin’s credibility and credentials, his temperament. They say he was only hired by the Obama Energy Department because of his contrarian views; they call him a “climate denier”, which seems de trop since he accepts most of the central claims of the climate consensus. The response felt more like a circling of the wagons than a serious effort to counter a serious argument. After all, it is unpleasant to hear reasons why you might be wrong about something: cognitive dissonance is painful.

I started this book confident that climate change is a serious concern, and I finished it only slightly less confident; Koonin has not persuaded me. But I’m glad Unsettled, flawed though it is, has been written. As I said at the beginning, science in a politically charged environment is very hard to assess. Scientists are as prone to groupthink and motivated reasoning as anyone else, and I know very well that there are some who feel they need to keep heterodox views quiet. The reviews, which make so little effort to engage with the substance of the arguments, do not reassure me that climate science is a uniquely groupthink-free discipline.

One thing Koonin suggests is a so-called “Red Teaming” of climate scientists: getting scientists to act as adversarial critics of the existing consensus, a method used by superforecasters, among others, to improve their accuracy by actively hunting out flaws in their reasoning. Science can only progress if assumptions are tested. Red teams in climate institutions — any institutions — seem like a good idea, and I’d support them.

Whether it’s possible or not, of course, is tricky to say. The climate debate is so highly charged, so borderline toxic, that it might be difficult for any climate scientist to take on the red-team role without making their own life more difficult. According to Koonin, one senior climate scientist told him “I agree with pretty much everything you wrote, but I don’t dare say that in public.” The old “in my emails, everyone agrees with me” line is hardly a new one, but it wouldn’t surprise me if there’s a bit of truth in it.

But if the Catholic Church was able to stomach someone advocating for the Devil, then climate science should be able to stomach one doing it for the sceptics. And in the meantime, this book does an acceptable job.


Footnote:  I encourage you to read the comments at the Unherd website.  For example this from Norman Powers:

I feel that’s a bit unfair to Tom. Reading the arguments of people who disagree, thinking about them carefully and weighing up debate is a large part of critical thinking, and he does all those things in this article. Just because he hasn’t arrived at the same conclusions as you (yet?) doesn’t make it not critical thinking.

Moreover, the social factors that apply to scientists apply to journalists as well. Do you think it’s easy for Chivers to talk about climatology and criticize climatologists so directly? He basically says none of their reviews of the book even meet basic standards of coherence, let alone being convincing. There aren’t many media outlets that would pay for such journalism, regardless of the truth.

Beyond your criticism of the author I feel all your points are well made.

For me, what really shook my belief in climatology to the core was the discovery that the temperature record itself is the output of modelling. Yes, you read that right. Not merely predictions about the future or truly ancient temperatures come out of models. Temperatures recorded by thermometer, in Europe and the USA, in the past 100 years or even just the past decade, are also the output of models. Although the raw data is given as an input the models proceed to heavily modify it; the outputs are then presented as “the history of temperature” without making it obvious what’s happened.

One of the consequences of this is that temperature time series often have multiple “versions”, reflecting the fact that the model software evolves over time. These new versions invariably seem to create warming when the prior versions didn’t show it. This has been going on for decades. They have a variety of justifications, all of which sound plausible on first glance, some of which seem less plausible on deeper analysis.
But. At school I was taught in no uncertain terms that in science you are not allowed to edit your raw data. All the marks for science assignments were allocated to the methodological correctness, and if you did an experiment and the data didn’t line up with the theory but what you did followed the rules, you wouldn’t be marked down (of course, in practice, if you failed to replicate a simple and famous experiment you probably did make a mistake somewhere so the distinction rarely mattered).

This was their way of teaching us that the rules are there for a reason, and that scientists aren’t allowed to tamper with their data post-facto. That’s taboo. Except, not in climatology. The risks are obvious: climatologists only really have one theory, so data that shows temperatures not going up undermines the entire community. Once the Rubicon has been crossed and model outputs are being substituted for real data, it’s very easy for people to try lots of different ways to “fix” errors in the data and then select only the ones that line up with what everyone knows “should” be happening. Over time this process keeps repeating until the theories become unfalsifiable.


Beware Energy Balance Cartoons

Figure 1. The global annual mean energy budget of Earth’s climate system (Trenberth and Fasullo, 2012.)

Recently in a discussion thread a warming proponent suggested we read this paper for conclusive evidence. The greenhouse effect and carbon dioxide by Wenyi Zhong and Joanna D. Haigh (2013) Imperial College, London. Indeed as advertised the paper staunchly presents IPCC climate science. Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

IPCC Conception: Earth’s radiation budget and the Greenhouse Effect

The Earth is bathed in radiation from the Sun, which warms the planet and provides all the energy driving the climate system. Some of the solar (shortwave) radiation is reflected back to space by clouds and bright surfaces but much reaches the ground, which warms and emits heat radiation. This infrared (longwave) radiation, however, does not directly escape to space but is largely absorbed by gases and clouds in the atmosphere, which itself warms and emits heat radiation, both out to space and back to the surface. This enhances the solar warming of the Earth producing what has become known as the ‘greenhouse effect’. Global radiative equilibrium is established by the adjustment of atmospheric temperatures such that the flux of heat radiation leaving the planet equals the absorbed solar flux.

The schematic in Figure 1, which is based on available observational data, illustrates the magnitude of these radiation streams. At the Earth’s distance from the Sun the flux of radiant energy is about 1365Wm−2 which, averaged over the globe, amounts to 1365/4 = 341W for each square metre. Of this about 30% is reflected back to space (by bright surfaces such as ice, desert and cloud) leaving 0.7 × 341 = 239Wm−2 available to the climate system. The atmosphere is fairly transparent to short wavelength solar radiation and only 78Wm−2 is absorbed by it, leaving about 161Wm−2 being transmitted to, and absorbed by, the surface. Because of the greenhouse gases and clouds the surface is also warmed by 333Wm−2 of back radiation from the atmosphere. Thus the heat radiation emitted by the surface, about 396Wm−2, is 157Wm−2 greater than the 239Wm−2 leaving the top of the atmosphere (equal to the solar radiation absorbed) – this is a measure of ‘greenhouse trapping’.

Why This Line of Thinking is Wrong and Misleading
Principally, the Earth is not a disk illuminated 24/7 by 1/4 of solar radiant energy. 

That disk in the cartoon denies the physical reality of a rotating sphere, and completely distorts the energy dynamics.  Christos Vournas addresses this issue directly in deriving his planetary temperature equation that corresponds to NASA satellite measurements of planets and moons in our solar system.  Previous posts provide background for this one focusing on the radiant heating of the rotating water planet we call Earth (though Ocean would be more accurate).  See How to Calculate Planetary Temperatures and Earthshine and Moonshine: Big Difference.  


Φ – is the dimensionless Solar Irradiation accepting factor. It recognizes that a sphere’s surface absorbs the incident solar irradiation not as a disk of the same diameter, but accordingly to its spherical shape. For a smooth spherical surface Φ = 0,47

The classical blackbody surface properties

A blackbody planet surface is meant as a classical blackbody surface approaching.  Here are the blackbody’s properties:

1. Blackbody does not reflect the incident on its surface radiation. Blackbody absorbs the entire radiation incident on its surface.

2. Stefan-Boltzmann blackbody emission law is:   Je = σ*Τe⁴


Te is the blackbody’s temperature (surface) at every given moment. When the blackbody is not irradiated, the classical blackbody gradually cools down, gradually emitting away its accumulated energy.  The classical blackbody concept assumes blackbody’s surface being warmed by some other incoming irradiation source of energy – see the Sun’s paradigm.  Sun emits like a blackbody, but it emits its own inner energy source’s energy. Sun is not considered as an irradiation receiver. And sun has a continuous stable temperature.

Therefore we have here two different blackbody theory concepts.

a. The blackbody with the stable surface temperature due to its infinitive inner source (sun, stars).
b. The blackbody with no inner energy source.

This blackbody’s emission temperature relies on the incoming outer irradiation only.

Also in the classical blackbody definition it is said that the irradiation incident on the blackbody is totally absorbed, warms the blackbody and achieves an equilibrium emission temperature Te.  It is an assumption.

This assumption, therefore, led to the next assumption: the planet like a blackbody emitting behavior.  And, consequently, it resulted to the planet’s Te equation, in which it is assumed that planet’s surface is interacting with the incoming irradiation as being in a uniform equilibrium temperature.

Consequently it was assumed that planet’s surface had a constant equilibrium temperature (which was only the incident solar irradiation dependent value) and the only thing the planet’s surface did was to emit in infrared spectrum out to space the entire absorbed solar energy.

3. When irradiated, the blackbody’s surface has emission temperature according to the Stefan-Boltzmann Law:

Te = (Total incident W /Total area m² *σ)¹∕ ⁴ K

σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant.

Notice: This emission temperature is only the incoming irradiation energy depended value. Consequently when the incoming irradiation on the blackbody’s surface stops, at that very moment the blackbody’s emission temperature disappears.  It happens because no blackbody’s surface accumulates energy.

4. Blackbody interacts with the entire incident on the blackbody’s surface radiation.

5. Blackbody’s emission temperature depends only on the quantity of the incident radiative energy per unit area.

6. Blackbody is considered only as blackbody’s surface physical properties. Blackbody is only a surface without “body”.

7. Blackbody does not consist from any kind of a matter. Blackbody has not a mass. Thus blackbody has not a specific heat capacity.  Blackbody’s cp = 0.

8. Blackbody has surface dimensions. So blackbody has the radiated area and blackbody has the emitting area.

9. The entire blackbody’s surface area is the blackbody’s emitting area.

10. The blackbody’s surface has an infinitive conductivity.

11. All the incident on the blackbody’s surface radiative energy is instantly and evenly distributed upon the entire blackbody’s surface.

12. The radiative energy incident on the blackbody’s surface the same very instant the blackbody’s surface emits this energy away.

A Real Planet is Not a Blackbody

But what happens there on the rotating real planet’s surface?

The rotating real planet’s surface, when it turns to the sunlit side, is an already warm at some temperature, from the previous day, planet’s surface.

Thus, when assuming the planet’s surface behaving as a blackbody, we face the combination of two different initial blackbody surfaces.

a. The one with an inner energy source.


b. The one warmed by an outer irradiation.

The Real Planet’s Surface Properties:

1. The planet’s surface has not an infinitive conductivity. Actually the opposite takes place. The planet’s surface conductivity is very small, when compared with the solar irradiation intensity and the planet’s surface infrared emissivity intensity.

2. The planet’s surface has thermal behavior properties. The planet’s surface has a specific heat capacity, cp.

3. The incident on the planet solar irradiation is not being distributed instantly and evenly on the entire planet’s surface area.

4. Planet does not accept the entire solar irradiation incident in planet’s direction. Planet accepts only a small fraction of the incoming solar irradiation. This happens because of the planet’s albedo, and because of the planet’s smooth and spherical surface reflecting qualities, which we refer to as “the planet’s solar irradiation accepting factor Φ”.

Planet reflects the (1-Φ + Φ*a) portion of the incident on the planet’s surface solar irradiation.  And  Planet absorbs only the Φ(1 – a) portion of the incident on the planet’s surface solar irradiation.

Here “a” is the planet’s average albedo and “Φ” is the planet’s solar irradiation accepting factor.

For smooth planet without thick atmosphere, Earth included, Φ=0,47

5. Planet’s surface has not a constant intensity solar irradiation effect. Planet’s surface rotates under the solar flux. This phenomenon is decisive for the planet’s surface infrared emittance distribution.

The real planet’s surface infrared radiation emittance distribution intensity is a planet’s rotational speed dependent physical phenomenon.

Vournas fig1

Φ factor explanation

The Φ – solar irradiation accepting factor – how it “works”. It is not a planet specular reflection coefficient itself.

There is a need to focus on the Φ factor explanation. Φ factor emerges from the realization that a sphere reflects differently than a flat surface perpendicular to the Solar rays.

It is very important to understand what is really going on with planets’ solar irradiation reflection.

There is the specular reflection and there is the diffuse reflection.

The planet’s surface Albedo “a” accounts for the planet’s surface diffuse reflection. Albedo is defined as the ratio of the scattered SW to the incident SW radiation, and it is very much precisely measured (the planet Bond Albedo).

So till now we didn’t take in account the planet’s surface specular reflection. A smooth sphere, as some planets are, are invisible in space and have so far not been detected and the specular reflection not measured . The sphere’s specular reflection cannot be seen from the distance, but it can be seen by an observer situated on the sphere’s surface.


Thus, when we admire the late afternoon sunsets on the sea we are blinded from the brightness of the sea surface glare. It is the surface specular reflection that we see then.

Jsw.absorbed = Φ*(1-a) *Jsw.incoming

For a planet with albedo a = 0 (completely black surface planet) we would have

Jsw.reflected = [1 – Φ*(1-a)]*S *π r² =

Jsw.reflected = (1 – Φ) *S *π r²

For a planet which captures the entire incident solar flux (a planet without any outgoing specular reflection) we would have Φ = 1

Jsw.absorbed = Φ*(1-a) *Jsw.incoming

Jsw.reflected = a *Jsw.incoming


For a planet with Albedo a = 1 , a perfectly reflecting planet

Jsw.absorbed = 0 (no matter what is the value of Φ)

In general:  The fraction left for hemisphere to absorb is  Jabs = Φ (1 – a ) S π r²

We have Φ for different planets’ surfaces varying  0,47 ≤ Φ ≤ 1

And we have surface average Albedo “a” for different planets’ varying  0 ≤ a ≤ 1


Φ is never less than 0,47 for planets (spherical shape).

Also, the coefficient Φ is “bounded” in a product with (1 – a) term, forming the Φ(1 – a) product cooperating term. Thus Φ and Albedo are always bounded together.

The Φ(1 – a) term is a coupled physical term.

The Φ(1 – a) term “translates” the absorption of a disk into the absorption of a smooth hemisphere with the same radius.

When covering a disk with a hemisphere of the same radius the hemisphere’s surface area is 2π r². The incident Solar energy on the hemisphere’s area is the same as on the disk:  Jdirect = π r² S

But the absorbed Solar energy by the hemisphere’s area of 2π r² is:  Jabs = Φ*( 1 – a) π r² S

It happens because a smooth hemisphere of the same radius “r” absorbs only the Φ*(1 – a)S portion of the directly incident on the disk of the same radius Solar irradiation.

In spite of hemisphere having twice the area of the disk, it absorbs only the Φ*(1 – a)S portion of the directly incident on the disk Solar irradiation.

Gaseous Planets

Φ = 1 for gaseous planets, as Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Uranus, Venus, Titan.

Gaseous planets do not have a surface to reflect radiation. The solar irradiation is captured in the thousands of kilometers gaseous abyss. The gaseous planets have only the albedo “a”.

Heavy Cratered Planets

Φ = 1 for heavy cratered planets, as Calisto and Rhea ( not smooth surface planets, without atmosphere ).

The heavy cratered planets have the ability to capture the incoming light in their multiple craters and canyons. The heavy cratered planets have only the albedo “a”.

That is why the albedo “a” and the factor “Φ” we consider as different values. Both of them, the albedo “a” and the factor “Φ” cooperate in the

Energy in = Φ(1 – a) left side of the Planet Radiative Energy Budget.

Conclusively, the Φ -Factor is not the planet specular reflection portion itself.

The Φ -Factor is the Solar Irradiation Accepting Factor (in other words, Φ is the planet surface shape and roughness coefficient).

Bottom Line

What is going on here is that instead of Jabs.earth = 0,694* 1.361 π r² ( W ) we should consider Jabs.earth = 0,326* 1.361 π r² ( W ).

Averaged on the entire Earth’s surface we obtain:

Jsw.absorbed.average = [ 0,47*(1-a)*1.361 W/m² ] /4 =

= [ 0,47*0,694*1.361W/m² ] /4 = 444,26 W/m2 /4 = 111,07 W/m²

Jsw.absorbed.average = 111,07 W/m² or 111 W/m²

Example:  Comparing Earth and Europa

Earth / Europa satellite measured mean temperatures 288 K and 102 K comparison
All the data below are satellites measurements. All the data below are observations.

Planet Earth Europa
Tsatmean  288 K 102 K
R 1 AU 5.2044 AU
1/R² 1 0,0369
N 1 1/3.5512 rot/day
a 0.3 0.63
(1-a) 0.7 0.37
coeff 0.91469 0.3158

We could successfully compare Earth /Europa ( 288 K /102 K ) satellite measured mean temperatures because both Earth and Europa (moon of Jupiter) have two identical major features.

Φearth = 0,47 because Earth has a smooth surface and Φeuropa = 0,47 because Europa also has a smooth surface.

cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*°C, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earth’s surface is wet. We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.  Europa is an ice-crust planet without atmosphere, Europa’s surface consists of water ice crust, cp.europa = 1cal/gr*°C.

The table below shows how well the universal equation estimates temperatures of planets and moons measured by NASA.

Planet Φ Te.correct  [(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴]¹∕ ⁴ Tmean  Tsat
Mercury  0.47 364 0.8953 325.83 340
Earth  0.47 211 1.3680 287.74 288
Moon  0.47 224 0.9978 223.35 220
Mars  0.47 174 1.2270 213.11 210
Io  1 95.16 1.1690 111.55 110
Europa  0.47 78.83 1.2636 99.56 102
Ganymede 0.47 88.59 1.2090 107.14 110
Calisto  1 114.66 1.1471 131.52 134 ±11
Enceladus  1 55.97 1.3411 75.06 75
Tethys  1 66.55 1.3145 87.48 86 ± 1
Titan  1 84.52 1.1015 96.03 93.7
Pluto  1 37 1.1164 41.60 44
Charon  1 41.9 1.2181 51.04 53
My Comment:

This post explains why it is an error to treat Earth (or any planetary body) as a classic blackbody in either the absorption of incident energy or in the emission of radiation.  Thus the typical energy balance cartoons are not funny, they are false and misleading.  A further error arises in claiming that greenhouse gases like CO2 in the atmosphere cause surface warming by trapping Earth radiation and slowing the natural cooling.  This fallacy is addressed directly in a previous post Why CO2 Can’t Warm the Planet.

The table above and graph below show that Earth’s warming factor is correctly calculated despite ignoring any effect from its thin atmosphere.


Earthshine and Moonshine: Big Difference

earth moon highres

A previous post elaborated a rigorous equation from Christos Vournas for calculating surface temperatures of planets or moons, for comparison with NASA satellite measurements of such bodies in our solar system.  That post is How to Calculate Planetary Temperatures.

The image above presents the huge disparity in day and night temperatures between Earth and its Moon, and notes the role of ocean heat transport.  But as I have learned from Christos, there is much more to the story, and this post discusses these deeper implications.  He adds the rotational factor and its impact upon the radiation emitted by both bodies, ie. Earthshine and Moonshine (though obviously it is not simply visible light).  Excerpts from Vournas are in italics with my bolds.


Moon and Earth – so close to each other – and so much different…

Moon is in our immediate neighborhood

Moon rotates around its axis at a slow rate of 29.5 days.  The day on the Moon is 14.75 earth days long, and the night on the Moon is also 14.75 Earth days long. 

Moon is in our immediate neighborhood. So Moon is at the same distance from the sun, as Earth, R=1 AU (astronomical unit).  The year average solar irradiation intensity on the top of atmosphere for Moon and Earth is the same

So = 1361 W/m².

We say “on the top of the atmosphere”, it means the solar intensity which reaches a celestial body and then falls on it. For certain then, during these 14.75 earth days long lunar day the Moon’s surface gets warmed at much higher temperatures than the Earth.

There is the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon

I’ll try here in few simple sentences explain the very essence of how the planet rotational warming Phenomenon occurs.

Lets consider two identical planets F and S at the same distance from the sun.  Let’s assume the planet F spins on its axis Faster, and the planet S spins on its axis Slower.  Both planets F and S get the same intensity solar flux on their sunlit hemispheres. Consequently both planets receive the same exact amount of solar radiative energy.

The slower rotating planet’s S sunlit hemisphere surface gets warmed at higher temperatures than the faster rotating planet’s F sunlit hemisphere. The surfaces emit at σT⁴ intensity – it is the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law.

Thus the planet S emits more intensively from the sunlit side than the planet F.  There is more energy left for the planet F to accumulate then.  That is what makes the faster rotating planet F on the average a warmer planet.

That is how the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon occurs.

And it becomes very cold on the Moon at night

Moon gets baked hard during its 14,75 earth days long lunar day.  And Moon also emits hard from its very hot daytime surface.  What else can the very hot surface do but to emit hard, according to the Stefan-Boltzmann emission Law.  The very hot surface emits in fourth power of its very high absolute temperature.

Jemit ~ T⁴

A warm object in space loses heat via emission. The hotter is the object, the faster it loses heat.  So there is not much energy left to emit during the 14.75 earth days long lunar night.

The Table below shows the implications:

Planet Tsat mean Rotations Tmin Tmax
Mercury 340 K 1/176 100K 700K
Earth 288 K 1
Moon 220 Κ 1/29.5 100K 390K
Mars 210 K 0.9747 130K 308K
Comparing Mars and Mercury

The closest to the sun planet Mercury receives 15.47 times stronger solar irradiation intensity than the planet Mars does.  However on the Mercury’s dark side Tmin.mercury = 100 K, when on the Mars’ dark side Tmin.mars = 130 K.

These are observations, these are from satellites the planets’ temperatures measurements.  And they cannot be explained otherwise but by the planet Mars’ 171.5 times faster rotation than planet Mercury’s spin.

Earth-Moon temperatures comparison -why the differences

The faster (than Moon) Earth’s rotation smooths the average heat. The higher (than Moon) Earth’s surface specific heat capacity(oceanic waters vs dry regolith), also smooths the average heat. Consequently the daytime Earth’s surface temperature (compared to Moon) lessens, and the nighttime Earth’s surface temperature (compared to Moon) rises. Earth receives the same amount of solar heat (per unit area) from sun as Moon – for the same albedo. And Earth emits the same amount of solar heat, as the Moon does.

But something else very interesting happens.

It is the difference between Earth’s and Moon’s emitting temperatures. At the daytime Earth’s surface is warmed at a much lower temperatures and therefore at the daytime Earth’s surface emits IR radiation at a much lower intensities. So the intensity of Earth’s daytime IR radiation is much lower (than Moon’s).

As a result, there is a great amount of energy – compared to Moon – “saved” on Earth during the daytime emission..  This “saved” energy should be emitted by Earth’s surface during the nighttime then. At the night-time Earth’s surface is warmer than Moon’s and therefore Earth’s surface at night-time is at a higher temperatures.  So the intensity of Earth’s night-time IR radiation is higher.

There is always a balance.  The energy in = the energy out

But again something else very interesting happens.

In order to achieve that balance Earth’s night-time IR emitting intensity should be much higher than the night-time IR emitting intensity of the Moon.  Now we should take notice of the nonlinearity of the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law. Consequently the night-time temperatures on Earth rise higher (compared to Moon) than the daytime temperatures on Earth lessens.

So the average Earth’s surface temperature is warmer (compared to the Moon). Thus Earth’s Tmean.earth = 288 K and Moon’s Tmean.moon = 220 K

The faster rotation and the higher specific heat capacity does not make sun to put more energy in the Earth’s surface. What the faster rotation and the higher specific heat capacity do is to modify the way Earth’s surface emits, the same amount as Moon, of energy (per unit area).

Earth emits IR radiation at lower temperatures during the daytime and at higher temperatures at night-time. Because of the nonlinearity of this process according to the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law, Earth ends up to have on average warmer surface than Moon.

The night-time temperatures on Earth rise higher (compared to Moon) than the day-time temperatures on Earth lessens. Earth receives (for the same albedo and per unit area) the same amount of solar energy as the Moon . This energy is “welcomed” on each planet and processed in a unique way for each planet.

To illustrate the above conclusions I’ll try to demonstrate on the Earth-Moon temperatures comparison rough example:

Surface temperatures


Tmin↑↑→T↑mean ←T↓max

Moon…100 K…220 K …390 K

Δ………..+84 K +68 K….- 60 Κ

Earth…184K↑↑.288 K↑.330 K↓

So we shall have for the faster rotating Earth, compared to the Moon:

Tmin↑↑→ T↑mean ← T↓max

+84↑↑→ +68↑mean ← -60↓

The faster a planet rotates (n2>n1) the higher is the planet’s average (mean) temperature T↑mean.

Note:  To emphasize we should mention that Moon’s max and min temperatures are measured on Moon’s equator, and Earth’s max and min temperatures are not.  Earth’s max and min temperatures are measured on continents, and not on oceanic waters. Otherwise the Δmin would have been even bigger and the Δmax would have been much smaller.

This rough example nevertheless illustrates that for the faster rotating and covered with water (higher cp) Earth compared with Moon the average temperature should be higher.

The planet’s faster rotation and the planet’s higher specific heat capacity “cp” not only smooths, but also processes ( Δmin > Δmax ), the same incoming solar heat, but in a different emission pattern.

Earth is warmer because Earth rotates faster and because Earth’s surface is covered with water

We had to answer these two questions:

1. Why Earth’s atmosphere doesn’t affect the Global Warming?

It is proven now by the Planet’s Mean Surface Temperature Equation calculations. There aren’t any atmospheric factors in the Equation. Nevertheless the Equation produces very reasonable results:

Tmean.earth = 287,74 K,  calculated by the Equation, which is the same as the Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.

Tmean.moon = 223,35 K, calculated by the Equation, which is almost identical with the Tsat.mean.moon = 220 K, measured by satellites.

2. What causes the Global Warming then?

The Global Warming is happening due to the orbital forcing.

And… what keeps Earth warm at Tmean.earth = 288 K, when Moon is at Tmean.moon = 220 K? Why Moon is on average 68 oC colder? It is very cold at night there and it is very hot during the day…

Earth is warmer because Earth rotates faster and because Earth’s surface is covered with water.

Does the Earth’s atmosphere act as a blanket that warms Earth’s surface?

No, it does not.


They Worried Us Sick


John Tierney writes at City Journal The Panic Pandemic.  

The first part of the article is a refresher on how it happened that all those who talked reasonably in the face of the panic narrative, were silenced and banished from public discourse.  Included are many recognizable names:  John Ioannidis, Jay Bhattacharya, Thomas Benfield, Stefan Baral, Martin Kulldorff, Sunetra Gupta,  and the most reviled heretic, Scott Atlas.  The excerpts below in italics (with my bolds and images) express Tierney’s conclusions to take away from this sorry mess.

Fearmongering from journalists, scientists, and politicians did more harm than the virus.

The United States suffered through two lethal waves of contagion in the past year and a half. The first was a viral pandemic that killed about one in 500 Americans—typically, a person over 75 suffering from other serious conditions. The second, and far more catastrophic, was a moral panic that swept the nation’s guiding institutions.

Instead of keeping calm and carrying on, the American elite flouted the norms of governance, journalism, academic freedom—and, worst of all, science. They misled the public about the origins of the virus and the true risk that it posed. Ignoring their own carefully prepared plans for a pandemic, they claimed unprecedented powers to impose untested strategies, with terrible collateral damage. As evidence of their mistakes mounted, they stifled debate by vilifying dissenters, censoring criticism, and suppressing scientific research.


One in three people worldwide lost a job or a business during the lockdowns, and half saw their earnings drop, according to a Gallup poll. Children, never at risk from the virus, in many places essentially lost a year of school. The economic and health consequences were felt most acutely among the less affluent in America and in the rest of the world, where the World Bank estimates that more than 100 million have been pushed into extreme poverty.

The leaders responsible for these disasters continue to pretend that their policies worked and assume that they can keep fooling the public. They’ve promised to deploy these strategies again in the future, and they might even succeed in doing so—unless we begin to understand what went wrong.

But neither the plague nor Trump explains the panic. Yes, the virus was deadly, and Trump’s erratic pronouncements contributed to the confusion and partisanship, but the panic was due to two preexisting pathologies that afflicted other countries, too.

The first pathology is what I have called the Crisis Crisis, the incessant state of alarm fomented by journalists and politicians.

It’s a longstanding problem—humanity was supposedly doomed in the last century by the “population crisis” and the “energy crisis”—that has dramatically worsened with the cable and digital competition for ratings, clicks, and retweets. To keep audiences frightened around the clock, journalists seek out Cassandras with their own incentives for fearmongering: politicians, bureaucrats, activists, academics, and assorted experts who gain publicity, prestige, funding, and power during a crisis.


Unlike many proclaimed crises, an epidemic is a genuine threat, but the crisis industry can’t resist exaggerating the danger, and doomsaying is rarely penalized. Early in the 1980s AIDS epidemic, the New York Times reported the terrifying possibility that the virus could spread to children through “routine close contact”—quoting from a study by Anthony Fauci. Life magazine wildly exaggerated the number of infections in a cover story, headlined “Now No One Is Safe from AIDS.” It cited a study by Robert Redfield, the future leader of the CDC during the Covid pandemic, predicting that AIDS would soon spread as rapidly among heterosexuals as among homosexuals. Both scientists were absolutely wrong, of course, but the false alarms didn’t harm their careers or their credibility.

Journalists and politicians extend professional courtesy to fellow crisis-mongers by ignoring their mistakes, such as the previous predictions by Neil Ferguson. His team at Imperial College projected up to 65,000 deaths in the United Kingdom from swine flu and 200 million deaths worldwide from bird flu. The death toll each time was in the hundreds, but never mind: when Ferguson’s team projected millions of American deaths from Covid, that was considered reason enough to follow its recommendation for extended lockdowns. And when the modelers’ assumption about the fatality rate proved too high, that mistake was ignored, too.

More Covid Cases

Journalists kept highlighting the most alarming warnings, presented without context. They needed to keep their audience scared, and they succeeded. For Americans under 70, the probability of surviving a Covid infection was about 99.9 percent, but fear of the virus was higher among the young than among the elderly, and polls showed that people of all ages vastly overestimated the risk of being hospitalized or dying.

The second pathology underlying the elite’s Covid panic is the politicization of research—what I have termed the Left’s war on science, another long-standing problem that has gotten much worse.

Just as the progressives a century ago yearned for a nation directed by “expert social engineers”—scientific high priests unconstrained by voters and public opinion—today’s progressives want sweeping new powers for politicians and bureaucrats who “believe in science,” meaning that they use the Left’s version of science to justify their edicts. Now that so many elite institutions are political monocultures, progressives have more power than ever to enforce groupthink and suppress debate. Well before the pandemic, they had mastered the tactics for demonizing and silencing scientists whose findings challenged progressive orthodoxy on issues such as IQ, sex differences, race, family structure, transgenderism, and climate change.


And then along came Covid—“God’s gift to the Left,” in Jane Fonda’s words. Exaggerating the danger and deflecting blame from China to Trump offered not only short-term political benefits, damaging his reelection prospects, but also an extraordinary opportunity to empower social engineers in Washington and state capitals. Early in the pandemic, Fauci expressed doubt that it was politically possible to lock down American cities, but he underestimated the effectiveness of the crisis industry’s scaremongering. Americans were so frightened that they surrendered their freedoms to work, study, worship, dine, play, socialize, or even leave their homes. Progressives celebrated this “paradigm shift,” calling it a “blueprint” for dealing with climate change.

This experience should be a lesson in what not to do, and whom not to trust.

Do not assume that the media’s version of a crisis resembles reality. Do not count on mainstream journalists and their favorite doomsayers to put risks in perspective. Do not expect those who follow “the science” to know what they’re talking about. Science is a process of discovery and debate, not a faith to profess or a dogma to live by. It provides a description of the world, not a prescription for public policy, and specialists in one discipline do not have the knowledge or perspective to guide society. They’re biased by their own narrow focus and self-interest. Fauci and Deborah Birx, the physician who allied with him against Atlas on the White House task force, had to answer for the daily Covid death toll—that ever-present chyron at the bottom of the television screen—so they focused on one disease instead of the collateral damage of their panic-driven policies.


“The Fauci-Birx lockdowns were a sinful, unconscionable, heinous mistake, and they will never admit they were wrong,” Atlas says. Neither will the journalists and politicians who panicked along with them. They’re still portraying lockdowns as not just a success but also a precedent—proof that Americans can sacrifice for the common good when directed by wise scientists and benevolent autocrats. But the sacrifice did far more harm than good, and the burden was not shared equally. The brunt was borne by the most vulnerable in America and the poorest countries of the world. Students from disadvantaged families suffered the most from school closures, and children everywhere spent a year wearing masks solely to assuage the neurotic fears of adults. The less educated lost jobs so that professionals at minimal risk could feel safer as they kept working at home on their laptops. Silicon Valley (and its censors) prospered from lockdowns that bankrupted local businesses.


Luminaries united on Zoom and YouTube to assure the public that “we’re all in this together.” But we weren’t. When the panic infected the nation’s elite—the modern gentry who profess such concern for the downtrodden—it turned out that they weren’t so different from aristocrats of the past. They were in it for themselves.




Deception: Climate Financial Risk

Carney GQ

John H. Cochrane writes at Project Syndicate The Fallacy of Climate Financial Risk.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

The idea that climate change poses a threat to the financial system is absurd, not least because everyone already knows that global warming is happening and that fossil fuels are being phased out.
The new push for climate-related financial regulation is not really about risk; it is about a political agenda.

In the United States, the Federal Reserve, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Department of the Treasury are gearing up to incorporate climate policy into US financial regulation, following even more audacious steps in Europe. The justification is that “climate risk” poses a danger to the financial system. But that statement is absurd. Financial regulation is being used to smuggle in climate policies that otherwise would be rejected as unpopular or ineffective.

“Climate” means the probability distribution of the weather – the range of potential weather conditions and events, together with their associated probabilities. “Risk” means the unexpected, not changes that everyone knows are underway. And “systemic financial risk” means the possibility that the entire financial system will melt down, as nearly happened in 2008. It does not mean that someone somewhere might lose money because some asset price falls, though central bankers are swiftly enlarging their purview in that direction.

Bomb of money hundred dollar bills with a burning wick. Little time before the explosion. Concept of financial crisis

In plain language, then, a “climate risk to the financial system” means a sudden, unexpected, large, and widespread change in the probability distribution of the weather, sufficient to cause losses that blow through equity and long-term debt cushions, provoking a system-wide run on short-term debt. This means the five- or at most ten-year horizon over which regulators can begin to assess the risks on financial institutions’ balance sheets. Loans for 2100 have not been made yet.

Such an event lies outside any climate science. Hurricanes, heat waves, droughts, and fires have never come close to causing systemic financial crises, and there is no scientifically validated possibility that their frequency and severity will change so drastically to alter this fact in the next ten years. Our modern, diversified, industrialized, service-oriented economy is not that affected by weather – even by headline-making events. Businesses and people are still moving from the cold Rust Belt to hot and hurricane-prone Texas and Florida.


If regulators are worried even-handedly about out-of-the-box risks that endanger the financial system, the list should include wars, pandemics, cyberattacks, sovereign-debt crises, political meltdowns, and even asteroid strikes. All but the latter are more likely than climate risk. And if we are worried about flood and fire costs, perhaps we should stop subsidizing building and rebuilding in flood and fire-prone areas.

Climate regulatory risk is slightly more plausible. Environmental regulators could turn out to be so incompetent that they damage the economy to the point of creating a systemic run. But that scenario seems far-fetched even to me. Again though, if the question is regulatory risk, then even-handed regulators should demand a wider recognition of all political and regulatory risks. Between the Biden administration’s novel interpretations of antitrust law, the previous administration’s trade policies, and the pervasive political desire to “break up big tech,” there is no shortage of regulatory danger.

Climate Piggy Bank

To be sure, it is not impossible that some terrible climate-related event in the next ten years can provoke a systemic run, though nothing in current science or economics describes such an event. But if that is the fear, the only logical way to protect the financial system is by dramatically raising the amount of equity capital, which protects the financial system against any kind of risk.

Risk measurement and technocratic regulation of climate investments, by definition, cannot protect against unknown unknowns or un-modeled “tipping points.”

What about “transition risks” and “stranded assets?” Won’t oil and coal companies lose value in the shift to low-carbon energy? Indeed they will. But everyone already knows that. Oil and gas companies will lose more value only if the transition comes faster than expected. And legacy fossil-fuel assets are not funded by short-term debt, as mortgages were in 2008, so losses by their stockholders and bondholders do not imperil the financial system.

“Financial stability” does not mean that no investor ever loses money.

Moreover, fossil fuels have always been risky. Oil prices turned negative last year, with no broader financial consequences. Coal and its stockholders have already been hammered by climate regulation, with not a hint of financial crisis.

More broadly, in the history of technological transitions, financial problems have never come from declining industries. The stock-market crash of 2000 was not caused by losses in the typewriter, film, telegraph, and slide-rule industries. It was the slightly-ahead-of-their-time tech companies that went bust. Similarly, the stock-market crash of 1929 was not caused by plummeting demand for horse-drawn carriages. It was the new radio, movie, automobile, and electric appliance industries that collapsed.

If one is worried about the financial risks associated with the energy transition, new astronomically-valued darlings such as Tesla are the danger. The biggest financial danger is a green bubble, fueled as previous booms by government subsidies and central-bank encouragement. Today’s high-fliers are vulnerable to changing political whims and new and better technologies. If regulatory credits dry up or if hydrogen fuel cells displace batteries, Tesla is in trouble. Yet our regulators wish only to encourage investors to pile on.

Climate financial regulation is an answer in search of a question. The point is to impose a specific set of policies that cannot pass via regular democratic lawmaking or regular environmental rulemaking, which requires at least a pretense of cost-benefit analysis.

These policies include defunding fossil fuels before replacements are in place, and subsidizing battery-powered electric cars, trains, windmills, and photovoltaics – but not nuclear, carbon capture, hydrogen, natural gas, geoengineering, or other promising technologies. But, because financial regulators are not allowed to decide where investment should go and what should be starved of funds, “climate risk to the financial system” is dreamed up and repeated until people believe it, in order to shoehorn these climate policies into financial regulators’ limited legal mandates.

Climate change and financial stability are pressing problems. They require coherent, intelligent, scientifically valid policy responses, and promptly. But climate financial regulation will not help the climate, will further politicize central banks, and will destroy their precious independence, while forcing financial companies to devise absurdly fictitious climate-risk assessments will ruin financial regulation. The next crisis will come from some other source. And our climate-obsessed regulators will once again fail utterly to anticipate it – just as a decade’s worth of stress testers never considered the possibility of a pandemic.

John H. Cochrane is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.




How to Calculate Planetary Temperatures


In the second graph we have the Ratio of Planet Measured Temperature to the Corrected Blackbody Temperature (Tsat /Te.correct). Link [30] In this graph we use in (Tsat /Te.correct) the planet corrected blackbody temperatures – which are the planet effective temperatures Te.correct corrected by the use of the Φ -factor. The Φ = 0,47 for smooth surface planets and moons, and the Φ = 1 for the rough surface planets and moons. As we can see, in the second graph, the red dot planets and the green dot planets have stretched in a linear functional relation according to their Warming Factor = (β*N*cp)^1/16 values. The bigger is the planet’s or moon’s Warming Factor, the higher is the (Tsat /Te.correct) ratio. It is obviously a linearly related function.

On a recent comment thread at Climate Etc. Christos Vournas provided a link to his blog. After spending time reading his articles I made this post to introduce aspects of his studies and thinking that I find persuasive. His home page sets the theme The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon. Below are just a few excerpts from Vournas’ blog in italics with my bolds.


My name is Christos J. Vournas, M.Sc. mechanical engineer, living in Athens Greece. I launched this site to have an opportunity to publish my scientific discoveries on the Climate Change.  I have been studying the Planet Earth’s Climate Change since November 2015;

First I discovered the Reversed Milankovitch Cycle.

Then I found the faster a planet rotates (n2>n1) the higher is the planet’s average (mean) temperature T↑mean.

Φ – the next discovery – is the dimensionless Solar Irradiation accepting factor – very important

The further studies led me to discover the Rotating Planet Spherical Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law and the Planet’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation.

The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon

It is well known that when a planet rotates faster its daytime maximum temperature lessens and the night time minimum temperature rises.

But there is something else very interesting happens. When a planet rotates faster it is a warmer planet. (It happens because Tmin↑↑ grows higher than T↓max goes down)

The faster a planet rotates (n2>n1) the higher is the planet’s average (mean) temperature T↑mean:

Tmin↑↑→ T↑mean ← T↓max

The understanding of this phenomenon comes from a deeper knowledge of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. It happens so because when rotating faster a planet’s surface has a new radiative equilibrium temperatures to achieve.


A Planet Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation

A Planet Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation derives from the incomplete Te equation which is based on the radiative equilibrium and on the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

Using the new equation, the new estimate Tmean closely matches the estimate surface temperatures from satellite observations:

Planet Te.incomp Tmean Tsat.mean
Mercury 437,30K 323,11K 340K
Earth 255K 287,74K 288K
Moon 271K 221,74K 220K
Mars 209,91K 213,59K 210K

We have moved further from the incomplete effective temperature equation

Te = [ (1-a) S / 4 σ ]¹∕ ⁴

(which is in common use right now, but actually it is an incomplete planet Te equation and that is why it gives us very confusing results)

a – is the planet’s surface average albedo

S – is the solar flux, W/m²

σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant

We have discovered the Planet Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation

Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (1)

The Planet Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation is also based on the radiative equilibrium and on the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

The Equation is being completed by adding to the incomplete Te equation the new parameters Φ, N, cp and the constant β.

Φ – is the dimensionless Solar Irradiation accepting factor

Φ – is the dimensionless Solar Irradiation accepting factor.  It is a realizing that a sphere’s surface absorbs the incident solar irradiation not as a disk of the same diameter, but accordingly to its spherical shape.  For a smooth spherical surface Φ = 0,47


N – rotations /day, is the planet’s axial spin

cp – cal /gr*oC, is the planet’s surface specific heat capacity

β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – is the Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law constant.

The Planet Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation is also based on the radiative equilibrium and on the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

But the New Equation doesn’t consider planet behaving as a blackbody, and the New Equation doesn’t state planet having a uniform surface temperature.

Interesting, very interesting what we see here:

Planet Tsat mean Rotations Tmin Tmax
Mercury 340 K 1/176 100K 700K
Earth 288 K 1
Moon 220 Κ 1/29,5 100K 390K
Mars 210 K 0,9747 130K 308K

Earth and Moon are at the same distance from the Sun R = 1 AU.

Earth and Mars have almost the same axial spin N = 1rotation /day.

Moon and Mars have almost the same satellite measured average temperatures 220 K and 210 K.

Mercury and Moon have the same minimum temperature 100 K.

Mars’ minimum temperature is 130 K, which is much higher than for the closer to the Sun Mercury’s and Moon’s minimum temperature 100 K.

The planet’s effective temperature old Te = [ (1-a) S /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ incomplete equation gives very confusing results.

And the faster rotating Earth and Mars appear to be relatively warmer planets.

We ended up to the following remarkable results

To be honest with you, at the beginning, I was surprised myself with these results.

You see, I was searching for a mathematical approach…

We use more major parameters for the planet’s surface temperature equation.

Planet is a celestial body with more major features when calculating planet effective temperature to consider. The planet without-atmosphere effective temperature calculating formula has to include all the planet’s basic properties and all the characteristic parameters.

3. The planet’s axial spin N rotations/day.

4. The thermal property of the surface (the specific heat capacity cp).

5. The planet’s surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φ ( the spherical surface’s primer solar irradiation absorbing property ).

Altogether these parameters are combined in the Planet’s Without-Atmosphere Surface Mean Temperature Equation:

Tmean.planet = [ Φ (1-a) So (1/R²) (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (1)

Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation

So = 1.361 W/m² (So is the Solar constant)

Earth’s albedo: aearth = 0,306

Earth is a rocky planet, Earth’s surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47 (Accepted by a Smooth Hemisphere with radius r sunlight is S*Φ*π*r²(1-a), where Φ = 0,47)

β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – is a Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law constant

N = 1 rotation /per day, is Earth’s sidereal rotation spin

cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean.

Generally speaking almost the whole Earth’s surface is wet. We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.

σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant

Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.earth is:

Tmean.earth = [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴

Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m²(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =

Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m²(150*1*1)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =

Τmean.earth = ( 6.854.897.370,96 )¹∕ ⁴ = 287,74 K

Tmean.earth = 287,74 Κ

And we compare it with the

Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.

These two temperatures, the calculated one, and the measured by satellites are almost identical.


The equation produces remarkable results.

A Planet Without-Atmosphere Surface Mean Temperature Equation gives us a planet surface mean temperature values very close to the satellite measured planet mean temperatures.

It is a Stefan-Boltzmann Law Triumph! And it is a Milankovitch Cycle coming back! And as for NASA, all these new discoveries were possible only due to NASA satellites planet temperatures precise measurements!

The calculated planets’ temperatures are almost identical with the measured by satellites.

The 288 K – 255 K = 33 oC difference does not exist in the real world.

The air density is some 1,23 kg/m³, and it is a very thin atmosphere of 1 bar at sea level.… In Earth’s very thin atmosphere  there are on average 1% H₂O and 0,04% CO₂.  Those two are trace gases in Earth’s very thin atmosphere. H₂O and CO₂ very tiny contents in earth’s atmosphere are not capable to absorb the alleged huge “absorbed by atmosphere 70%-85% outgoing IR radiation” portion.

The Earth’s atmosphere is very thin. There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earth’s surface.

Postscript:  Reversed Milankovitch Cycle



Of course climate changes.  And of course the planet’s rotational spin is almost constant.  Also Earth has a very thin atmosphere; Earth has a very small greenhouse phenomenon in its atmosphere and it doesn’t warm the planet.

The cause of climate change is not the Earth’s atmosphere. The cause of climate change is orbital.  Milutin Milankovitch has explained everything 100 years ago.

The ( Ṃ ↓ ) represents the Original Milankovitch Cycle grapheme.  And the ( Ẇ ↑ ) represents the Reversed Milankovitch Cycle grapheme.

( Ṃ ↓ ) – supposedly this is the Original Milankovitch Cycle. Please take notice of the dot under ( Ṃ ↓ ).  The dot’s position represents the present time, when Planet Earth is in Original Milankovitch Cycle Minima:  The Original Milankovitch Cycle shows a cooling trend.

( Ẇ ↑ ) The Reversed Milankovitch Cycle shows a warming trend.

Milankovitch had to reverse his cycle to match the instrumental data. But he didn’t have time.  It was a critical mistake in Milankovitch’s assumptions.  Now it is time for us to make the necessary correction. 100 years have passed, Milankovitch agrees, if it is necessary, for us to make a correction.

When comparing with the Perihelion point, which is at January 2, the solar irradiance Earth receives now is 7% less. As a result we have at the North Hemisphere much cooler summers and much warmer winters.  In 10.000 (ten thousand) years from now, Earth’s axis will be pointing at star Vega, instead of Polaris at which it points now. So in 10.000 years the Winter Solstice will occur when Earth is in Aphelion (it happens now with Earth in Perihelion).

As a result in 10.000 years we would have at the North Hemisphere much warmer summers and much cooler winters. A shift of 7% in the Hemispheres’ insolation intensity will happen.  Instead of the Southern Hemisphere (as it happens now) with its vast oceans accumulative capacity… there would be a +7% stronger insolation on the North Hemisphere’s plethora of continental areas.

We know continents do not accumulate heat so much effectively as oceans do, thus Earth will gradually cool down, until a New Ice Age commences!

As for the current warming phase – we still receive the +7% solar energy onto Southern Hemisphere’s oceans… and oceans willingly accumulate the excess solar energy…It happens so during the current Winter Solstices, when Earth is still tilted towards sun with its Southern Hemisphere’s vast oceanic waters.

The warming trend we observe now started some 6.500 years ago. It is a very slow process. The MWP ( the Medieval Warm Period ) is a confirmation of the existence of a long warming trend.  The LIA ( the Little Ice Age ) was observed as a colder atmosphere and more snowy winters. Also the glaciers were increasing.

On the other hand oceans continued accumulating heat.  It is a very long cycle. We are observing the Reversed Milankovitch Cycle culmination period. It will last about a millennia and a half and then there will be a cooling trend.

Right now Planet Earth is in an orbital forced warming trend. And these are culmination times.  The very slow warming trend will continue for about a 1,5 millennia on. Then slowly and gradually the Global Temperatures will become cooler.

Four Blunders in EU Climate Plan


Pieter Cleppe writes at Real Clear Energy Four Flaws With the EU’s New Climate Plans Excerpts in italics wtih my bolds and images.

Last week, the European Commission presented its so-called Fit for 55 proposals, a raft of legislative initiatives intended to adapt EU law to the 2030 target of reducing CO2 emissions by 55 percent from 1990 levels. The idea is to adapt legislation originally intended to achieve a 40% reduction.

This undertaking, however, is marked by serious shortcomings. Herewith, I summarize what’s wrong with it, listing four main flaws.

  1.  The European Commission is employing a top-down approach, riddled with taxes and spending

The European Commission seems to take former U.S. president Ronald Reagan’s characterization of “government’s view of the economy” as a manual, rather than as a warning. As Reagan summarized government’s approach: “If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”


Most remarkable here is the Commission’s intention to impose a de facto ban on gasoline and diesel cars by 2035, even if France seems keen to extend this until 2040. When even France is less restrictive, you’re not in a good place. Feeling the need to resort to outright prohibition, the Commission is clearly not putting great trust in innovation to come up with economically efficient, CO2-neutral cars.

A notable change is the expansion of the EU’s cap and trade scheme, which puts a price on emitting CO2 but allows companies to buy and sell their right to do so. The Commission wants to expand this so-called Emissions Trading System (ETS) – set up 16 years ago and covering power plants, intra-EU aviation, and energy-intensive industries – to include buildings, road transport, and shipping. The expansion would start gradually in 2023 and be phased in over three years, as the emission-rights regime for aviation is being tightened up and sectors not covered by ETS are made subject to emission-reduction targets, with binding targets per member state. EU minimum excise-duty rates on various energy sources, like motor or heating fuel, would also need to be increased, and a jet-fuel tax would need to be introduced on intra-EU flights, on top of a tax on maritime fuel.


Opponents of the proposals, which still need to be approved by both EU member states and the European Parliament, include the shipping industry, which hasn’t exactly welcomed its inclusion into the ETS system. The International Chamber of Shipping described the proposal as “an ideological revenue raising exercise, which will greatly upset the EU’s trading partners,” as it would involve “non-EU shipping companies to be forced to pay billions of euros to support EU economic recovery plans.”

This doesn’t even account for another part of Fit for 55, whereby the Commission intends to create the world’s first carbon border tariff, to be levied on imports of goods including steel, cement, and aluminum, to be phased in from 2026. This step is deemed necessary because two-thirds of CO₂-emissions are likely to continue, only now outside of the EU, causing “carbon leakage” – a phenomenon notably hard to estimate, although we know that China has long outpaced the U.S. and the EU in terms of carbon emission.


In response, Belgian employer federation VBO-FEB issued a warning about this “carbon border adjustment mechanism,” stating that “policy makers must be careful that (…) this will not cause other countries to impose countermeasures or cause supply chain distortions, leading us to import more finished products than raw resources.” The question remains as to whether this is not a protectionist measure in violation of the WTO agreement – especially when certain European producers would be exempt. In any case, it will unleash lots of extra bureaucracy, especially for small companies.

Also in line with Reagan’s description of government thinking is the European Commission’s plan to spend billions of euros to compensate for the damage done by its own measures – such as its proposal for a new “social climate fund” “to prevent fuel poverty,” using one-fifth of ETS revenue, on top of another fund, the €100 billion Just Transition Mechanism to help coal-dependent countries like Poland make the transition away from coal. Combined with the Commission’s demand to get at least 50% of the income derived from the new ETS transport and buildings revenue, this would mean that the ETS system would morph into an outright EU tax – a dream eurocrats have been pursuing for years.

2.  The proposed measures disproportionately hurt the poor

The European Commission itself has admitted that measures like putting a carbon price on heating fuels “will not affect households equally, but would likely have a regressive impact on disposable income, as low-income households tend to spend a greater proportion of their income on heating.” It is testimony to how divided opinion is even within the Commission, where many are questioning the rather extreme approach of EU Climate Commissioner Frans Timmermans.


The predicted hardship for the poor then serves as yet another excuse to spend money – now to alleviate the damage done by the measures. The Commission is seemingly unaware that to finance spending, taxes are needed, and even corporate taxes are ultimately disproportionately borne by low-skilled workers. There is no free lunch, even when paying tribute to the Climate Gods.

Over the last few years, as exemptions for the CO2 emission-trading system have been reduced, this scheme has put upward pressure on energy prices, so it can be feared that this will cause more damage to the economy, particularly hurting the poor. The Commission thinks that CO2 prices in Europe will increase by 50 percent by 2030 if its plans are implemented – but some hedge funds already project an increase of almost 100% by the end of this year, with the more modest current arrangement in place.


Pascal Canfin, chair of the European parliament’s environment committee, who started his career with the greens but is now a key ally of French president Emmanuel Macron, has called the plan to create an emissions trading system (ETS) for transport and buildings “politically suicidal” and “a huge political mistake.” He stated: “It’s a very bad idea,” adding that the Commission was “going to trap” lower middle-class families, noting that those hit the hardest would be people in regions with poor public transport and residents who could not pay for energy-efficiency upgrades to their homes. This follows the French government’s experience with the “gilets jaunes” (yellow vest) protesters, who managed to get Macron to abandon a fuel-tax hike in 2018.

France will take over the EU’s rotating presidency in 2022; let’s see how much then remains of the European Commission’s grand plans.


Germany’s automobile industry has also warned that the proposed measures may have a “substantial” impact on jobs at auto suppliers – so even if the greens form part of the new German government, this may not all sail through so smoothly.

3.  The European Commission is not respecting the idea of “tech neutrality”

It’s one thing to impose a target to reduce CO2 emissions. It is quite another to try to micromanage how this can be achieved. Nevertheless, that is what the European Commission is doing with its so-called “EU taxonomy for sustainable activities,” a classification system meant to clarify which investments are environmentally sustainable, in the context of the “European Green Deal,” of which Fit for 55 forms a part.


Several MEPs (mainly Greens) hold up anti-nuclear posters at the debate.

Despite all the evidence that nuclear power is CO2 neutral, the Commission refuses to acknowledge this reality. This denialism is the result of pressure by Germany, which decided to shut down all its nuclear plants, a policy that has driven energy prices in that country to record levels while also supporting the coal-energy sector. Germany thereby goes against the in-house scientific body of the European Commission, the Joint Research Centre, which declared earlier this year that nuclear power is a safe and climate-friendly energy source and should be considered as “green” under the EU’s classification system.

To add insult to injury, the Commission considers biomass a renewable energy – despite the fact that burning wood for energy, which is what biomass is ultimately all about, typically emits 1.5 times more CO2 than coal and three times more than natural gas. The EU is the world’s largest net importer of wood pellets; the main net exporters are the United States, Canada, and Russia.

MoS2 Template Master

Green campaigners have been complaining about EU member states like Estonia that allow intensive clear-cutting of trees in forests protected under EU Natura 2000 rules. One NGO, the Estonian Fund for Nature, has also pointed out there is a direct connection between the subsidized growth in the biomass industry and EU renewable-energy policies.

More than 500 scientists have urged the EU to stop treating biomass as carbon-neutral. Even if one disagrees, and believes that biomass can be sustainable and renewable, it still doesn’t make sense to privilege biomass over nuclear power.

Biomass represents almost 60% of renewable-energy consumption in the EU, so the implications of no longer considering it as renewable energy would be grave: wind and solar power contribute only marginally to the EU’s energy provision, irrespective of their environmental downsides. Changing biomass’s renewable status would make it almost unavoidable to recognize nuclear power, which would be embarrassing for the likes of German chancellor Angela Merkel, who has been putting so much political capital into defending Germany’s nuclear exit.

4.  The EU’s grand plans may not do that much for climate change

At the end of the day, the goal of all this is to counter CO2 emissions in a bid to halt climate change.

Here, an interesting contrarian view comes from Danish economist Bjørn Lomborg, author of the bestseller “The Skeptical Environmentalist.”

Lomborg has highlighted UN Climate Panel estimates that the negative impact of climate change in the 2070s would be equivalent to reducing the average income between 0.2% and 2% – meaning that global incomes would increase only by 356% by then, and not by 362%. He then contrasts this with the enormous cost of EU climate policies, which would “quadruple electricity wholesale prices in just a decade,” and he cites academic studies showing the real costs of EU climate policies to be four times higher than optimistic EU estimates, ultimately amounting to a whopping €4 trillion to €5 trillion.

Lomborg estimates that the new EU target of 55% carbon-emission reduction will reduce the global temperature by the end of the century by an immeasurable 0.004°C – “equivalent to postponing global warming by six weeks in 2100.”

Surely we can agree that it is hard for both proponents and skeptics of expensive climate policies to provide hard proof that they are right in their arguments. But these estimates should make even the most committed EU Commission climate fanatic pause for reflection.



Global warming is in our mental models.

Covid Masks Make CO2 Toxic


It turns out CO2 is not a climate threat, but masking up for COVID makes it dangerous.  At the Federalist Maggie Hroncich explains in an article AMA Journal: Masks Are Bad For Your Kids. Quit Forcing Them To Wear Them  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

A new report published by an American Medical Association journal revealed forcing children to wear face masks leads to adverse health effects. JAMA Pediatrics, a top-rated monthly journal published by the AMA, found wearing face masks increases the amount of carbon dioxide in inhaled air to unhealthy levels.

The study measured carbon dioxide levels in 45 children ages 6-17 while wearing masks. The normal content of carbon dioxide in the air is 400 parts per million (ppm), with anything above 2000 ppm considered unacceptable by the German Federal Environmental Office.

The JAMA report measured averages of 13,120 to 13,910 ppm of carbon dioxide in the inhaled air of children wearing masks, which is over six times higher than the unsafe threshold. The study further pointed out this measurement was after only three minutes of wearing a mask. Children forced to wear masks at school find themselves wearing masks for hours, five days a week.

The JAMA report follows a larger German survey of over 25,000 children, which found 68 percent of them reportedly had problems while wearing facial coverings.

“Most of the complaints reported by children can be understood as consequences of elevated carbon dioxide levels in inhaled air,” the JAMA study concluded. “This is because of the dead-space volume of the masks, which collects exhaled carbon dioxide quickly after a short time.”

“This carbon dioxide mixes with fresh air and elevates the carbon dioxide content of inhaled air under the mask, and this was more pronounced in this study for younger children.” The authors of the study urged those who are forcing children to wear masks to consider the scientific evidence when making that decision.

“Many governments have made nose and mouth covering or face masks compulsory for schoolchildren. The evidence base for this is weak,” the study found. “We suggest that decision-makers weigh the hard evidence produced by these experimental measurements accordingly, which suggest that children should not be forced to wear face masks.”

Meanwhile Fauci Gets It Wrong Again

OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 7:00 PM PT – Monday, July 19, 2021
Dr. Anthony Fauci has pushed for young children to wear face masks as school look to reopen nationwide. Earlier on Monday, the nation’s chief medical advisor stood beside the American Academy of Pediatrics who recommended schools could require young children as young as three-years-old to mask up indoors, regardless of their vaccination states.




Gruesome Climate Crisis Talk at Davos

the-great-reset-by-the-world-economic-forum-prism-ua-world-economic-forum-great-resetMichelle Stirling explains what is terribly wrong about their train of thinking in the video below.  For those who prefer reading a transcript, I have provided one below, in italics with my bolds along with some images.

Davos climate crisis talk is disturbing and inaccurate

Hi, I’m Michelle Stirling for Friends of Science Society. I love life, I enjoy this beautiful world and I think being alive is a wonderful gift. That’s why it’s so disturbing to read some of the comments from the recent World Economic Forum in Davos. The conference concluded leaving some commentators concerned about depopulation talk from high profile individuals like Jane Goodall and misinterpreted IPCC SR 1.5 findings by Greta Thunberg, and talk of doomsday battles by Al Gore.


Goodell’s statement shocked many people when she said all these environmental things we talk about wouldn’t be a problem if there was the size of population that there was 500 years ago. The world’s population is estimated to have been about 500 million people then, or 6.7 billion less than today. Depopulation notions stem from apocalyptic climate visions but Roger Pielke jr. explains in a January 2nd, 2020, article in forbes that climate science has been corrupted by the influential risky business report of 2014. This report was funded by green billionaires and proliferated into the media and scientific domains by powerful environmental groups. Pielke jr. says the report misattributes the proposed pathways, focusing on the most extreme scenario called the representative concentrated Pathway 8.5, something that is far from a business-as-usual case relevant to the Davos set of bankers and billionaires.


Mark Carney’s infamous speech to Lloyd’s of London of 2015 breaking the tragedy of the horizon that Also invoked the risky business report that Pielke jr. says has corrupted climate Science. RCP 8.5 is used in an influential graph on page 105 in the IPCC SR 1.5 report that Greta Thunberg refers to in her speeches at Davos. Greta referred to a table on page 108 of theIPCC SR 1.5 report for her crisis comments, but most of the scientific papers referred to in that table were published in or before 2013. And in 2013 the IPCC AR 5 report in box 9.2 chapter 9 stated there had been a hiatus in warming since before Kyoto. That’s like 15 years despite a dramatic rise in carbon dioxide concentration from human industry and activity.


Dr Judith Curry testified to the US Senate on January 16, 2014, that based on that IPCC AR-5 evidence, carbon dioxide is not the control knob that can fine-tune climate. Curry noted that the science of climate change is not settled and evidence reported by the IPCC AR-5 weakens the case for human factors dominating climate change.

Nevertheless well-known climate scientists like professor Katherine Hayhoe continue to present proposed mitigation pathways as she did at the University of Calgary wherein she stated that she considered China to be a leader in climate mitigation.


We are just starting now to curve off the higher scenario if you notice here we’re almost here we’re just starting to curve off the higher scenario. When I say we I actually mean it’s mostly, get this, it’s mostly good in China. China has more wind and solar energy than any other country in the world. And you know I’m not a hundred percent confident in their emission estimates, so keep this with a bit of a grain of salt. But at least what we’re working with in the global level suggests that we’re starting to peel off the higher scenario, but not fast enough to get down to a lower scenario or meet the pair of targets. That’s absurd: a month of China’s emissions equal a whole year of emissions by Canada.


World Primary Energy consumed in 2020 was 567 Exajoules (BP Statistics)

Hayhoe advocated for rapid decarbonization referring to the RCP 8.5 versus a lower RCP. But a chart from the original report from Van Viren et al shows that no RCP scenario is fossil fuel free, debunking the notion that net zero 2050 should even be part of public policy or that rapid decarbonization is necessary. Roger Pielke jr. says these RCP models cannot be compared to each other, and even the RCP authors state they’re not meant to be used in this way. For instance all the RCP pathways other than 8.5 represent a world with billions fewer people.


Another highlight at Davos was Al Gore’s fear-infested closing as noted by Hans Rosling and family in their book Factfulness. In 2009 Rosling met Al Gore who told him then we have to create fear, an approach that that medical doctor and international public health policy expert Rosling rejected. Rosling wrote that fear plus urgency makes for stupid drastic decisions with unpredictable side effects. And contrary to the doom and gloom of Davos, Factfulness shows how the world is improving for all people despite certain inequities, contrary to the doom and gloom of Davos. A decade later Al Gore continues with his apocalyptic approach, and at Davos he claimed the climate crisis was equivalent to historic wars even invoking 9 /11 again.


As Roger Pielke jr. notes in an earlier Forbes article, this is nothing but climate porn and is not supported by the scientific evidence in IPCC reports But fortunately there is a global pushback on this damaging depopulation and doom and gloom fear-mongering. CLINTEL, the climate intelligence organization based in the Netherlands, representing more than 800 global scientists, sent a letter to the World Economic Forum stating there’s no climate emergency and insisting that we do have time.


And pointing out the uncertainties of climate models that Greta and Al Gore use for their apocalyptic statements. A commentary has been posted on CFACT that summarizes the CLINTEL manifesto and Friends of Science Society. We’ve published the CLINTEL document and videos on our blog.

It is deeply disturbing that depopulation talk has become part of mainstream climate policy discussions with even a Quebec politician suggesting that medically assisted suicide could be available to those who want to die to save the planet. We were given this gift of life in a beautiful world, one that has problems, but I believe we are up to the challenge. There’s no climate emergency so let us live with hope and joy.

For Friends of Science Society, I’m Michelle Stirling


My Summary

Clearly, the 1% are fearful of losing their planetary playground because the other 99% of us consume too much.  So they want there to be fewer of us and to constrain our personal mobility and choices.  Not so long ago, Romanians has strict quotas for their daily calorie intake.  Several countries plan to scrap gasoline autos and affordable air travel. This is the driving force behind the Great Reset.  Who knows how this mindset translates into actions on the ground?

jimbob 15M people

See also Resist the Great Reset