Climate Change Science | Science Matters

Taking Stock: 5 Reasons to Resist the GreenMageddon, Part 3

This post is the third of five to alert readers to a compilation of the scientific case against the claims of IPCC supporters and anti-fossil fuel activists. David Stockman provides the evidence and the arguments against the IPCC policy framework in a series of five essays published at International Man under the title The GreenMageddon and What It Means for You. I will state the five themes he develops in his essays, along with some excerpts and images to illustrate the main points. Here is an overview followed by the third theme.

Overview

The geological and paleontological evidence overwhelmingly says that today’s average global temperature of about 15 degrees C and CO2 concentrations of 420 ppm are nothing to fret about. Even if they rise to about 17–18 degrees C and 500–600 ppm by the end of the century, it may well balance or improve the lot of mankind.

After all, bursts of civilization during the last 10,000 years uniformly occurred during the red portions of the graph below. The aforementioned river civilizations—the Minoan, the Greco-Roman era, the Medieval flowering, and the industrial and technological revolutions of the present era. At the same time, the several lapses into the dark ages happened when the climate turned colder (blue).

And that’s only logical. When it’s warmer and wetter, growing seasons are longer, and crop yields are better—regardless of the agricultural technology and practices of the moment. And it’s better for human and community health, too—most of the deadly plagues of history have occurred in colder climates, such as the Black Death of 1344–1350..

Yet, the Climate Crisis Narrative employs two deceptive devices which are contradicted by earth’s climate history:

a. Planetary temperatures have been far higher than today, both long ago (over 600 million years) and recently (last 10,000 years) with no doomsday loop occurring.

b.It is claimed global warming is a one-way street from rising GHGs, when in fact higher CO2 concentrations are a consequence and by-product, not a driver and cause, of the current naturally rising temperatures.

W. J. Davis (2017)

Again, the now “canceled” history of the planet knocks the CO2-driver proposition into a cocked hat. During the Cretaceous Period between 145 and 66 million years ago, a natural experiment provided complete absolution for the vilified CO2 molecule. During that period, global temperatures rose dramatically from 17 degrees C to 25 degrees C—a level far above anything today’s Climate Howlers have ever projected.

Alas, CO2 wasn’t the culprit. According to science, ambient CO2 concentrations actually tumbled during that 80-million-year expanse, dropping from 2,000 ppm to 900 ppm on the eve of the Extinction Event 66 million years ago.

3. Climatists weaponize natural events to gain social control for a global agenda. It’s About Power, Not Truth or Humanity.

You would think that this powerful countervailing fact would give the CO2 witch-hunters pause, but that would be to ignore what the whole climate change brouhaha is actually about. That is, it’s not about science, human health and well-being or the survival of planet Earth; it’s about politics and the ceaseless search of the political class and the apparatchiks and racketeers who inhabit the beltway for still another excuse to aggrandize state power.

Indeed, the climate change narrative is the kind of ritualized policy mantra that is concocted over and over again by the political class and the permanent nomenklatura of the modern state—professors, think-tankers, lobbyists, career apparatchiks, officialdom—in order to gather and exercise state power.

The Obvious Exploitation of Natural Events

Indeed, fabrication of false problems and threats that purportedly can only be solved by heavy-handed state intervention has become the modus operandi of a political class that has usurped near-complete control of modern democracy.

In doing so, however, the ruling elites have gotten so used to such unimpeded success that they have become sloppy, superficial, careless and dishonest. For instance, the minute we get a summer heatwave, these natural weather events are jammed into the global warming mantra with nary a second thought by the lip-syncing journalists of the MSM.

Heatwaves

Yet there is absolutely no scientific basis for all this tom-tom beating. In fact, NOAA publishes a heatwave index based on extended temperature spikes, which last more than 4 days and which would be expected to occur once every 10 years based on the historical data.

As is evident from the chart below, the only true heatwave spikes we have had in the last 125 years were during the dust bowl heat waves of the 1930s. The frequency of mini-heatwave spikes since 1960 is actually no greater than it was from 1895 to 1935.

Hurricanes

Likewise, all it takes is a good Cat 2 hurricane and they are off to the races, gumming loudly about AGW. Of course, this ignores entirely NOAA’s own data as summarized in what is known as the ACE (accumulated cyclone energy) index.

This index was first developed by renowned hurricane expert and Colorado State University professor William Gray. It uses a calculation of a tropical cyclone’s maximum sustained winds every six hours. The latter is then multiplied by itself to get the index value and accumulated for all storms for all regions to get an index value for the year as shown below for the past 170 years (the blue line is the seven-year rolling average).

That is to say, hundreds of billions of dollars of insurance coverage were then and still is being written with ACE as a crucial input. Yet, if you examine the 7-year rolling average (blue line) in the chart, it is evident that ACE was as high or higher in the 1950s and 1960s as it is today and that the same was true of the late 1930s and the 1880–1900 periods. [See also Bill Gray: H20 is Climate Control Knob, not CO2]

If global warming were generating more hurricanes as the MSM constantly maintains, the increase would be uniform across all of these subregions, but it’s clearly not. Since the year 2000, for example,

the Eastern Caribbean has had a modest increase in both tropical storms and higher-rated Cats relative to most of the past 170 years;
the Western Caribbean has not been unusual at all, and, in fact, has been well below the counts during the 1880–1920 period; and
the Bahamas/Turks & Caicos region, since 2000, has actually been well weaker than during 1930–1960 and 1880–1900

The actual truth of the matter is that Atlantic hurricane activity is generated by atmospheric and ocean temperature conditions in the eastern Atlantic and North Africa. Those forces, in turn, are heavily influenced by the presence of an El Niño or La Niña in the Pacific Ocean. El Niño events increase the wind shear over the Atlantic, producing a less-favorable environment for hurricane formation and decreasing tropical storm activity in the Atlantic basin. Conversely, La Niña causes an increase in hurricane activity due to a decrease in wind shear.

These Pacific Ocean events, of course, have never been correlated with the low level of natural global warming now underway.

The number and strength of Atlantic hurricanes may also undergo a 50- to 70-year cycle known as the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation. Again, these cycles are unrelated to global warming trends since 1850.

Wildfires

As it happens, the same story is true with respect to wildfires—the third category of natural disasters that the Climate Howlers have glommed onto. But in this case, it’s bad forestry management, not man-made global warming, which has turned much of California into a dry wood fuel dump.

But don’t take our word for it. This comes from the George Soros-funded Pro Publica, which is not exactly a right-wing tin foil hat outfit. It points out that environmentalists had shackled federal and state forest management agencies so much so that today’s tiny “controlled burns” are but an infinitesimal fraction of what Mother Nature herself accomplished before the helping hand of today’s purportedly enlightened political authorities arrived on the scene.

“Academics believe that between 4.4 million and 11.8 million acres burned each year in prehistoric California. Between 1982 and 1998, California’s agency land managers burned, on average, about 30,000 acres a year. Between 1999 and 2017, that number dropped to an annual 13,000 acres. The state passed a few new laws in 2018 designed to facilitate more intentional burning. But few are optimistic this, alone, will lead to significant change.

We live with a deathly backlog. In February 2020, Nature Sustainability published this terrifying conclusion: California would need to burn 20 million acres—an area about the size of Maine—to restabilize in terms of fire.”

Among other proofs that industrialization and fossil fuels aren’t the culprit is the fact that researchers had shown that when California was occupied by indigenous communities, wildfires would burn up some 4.5 million acres a year. That’s nearly six times the 2010–2019 period, when wildfires burned an average of just 775,000 acres annually in California.

Beyond the untoward clash of all of these natural forces of climate and ecology with misguided government forest and shrubland husbandry policies, there is actually an even more dispositive smoking gun, as it were.

To wit, the Climate Howlers have not yet embraced the apparent absurdity that the planet’s purportedly rising temperatures have targeted the Blue State of California for special punishment. Yet when we look at the year-to-date data for forest fires, we find that unlike California and Oregon, the US as a whole is now experiencing the weakest fire years since 2010.

You just can’t go from 2.7 million burned acres in 2010 to 7.2 million acres in 2012, then back to 2.7 million acres in 2014, then to 6.7 million acres in 2017, followed by just 3.7 million acres in 2020—and still argue along with the Climate Howlers that the planet is angry.

National fire data year to date:

On the contrary, the only real trend evident is that on a decadal basis during recent times, average forest fire acreage in California has been slowly rising, owing to the above-described dismal failure of government forest management policies. But even the mildly rising average fire acreage trend since 1950 is a rounding error compared to the annual averages from prehistoric times, which were nearly 6 times greater than during the most recent decade.

Nor is this lack of correlation with global warming just a California and US phenomenon. As shown in the chart below, the global extent of drought, measured by five levels of severity, with brown being the most extreme, has shown no worsening trend at all during the past 40 years.

Global Extent of Five Levels Of Drought, 1982–2012

Public Discourse Contaminated by Imaginary Climate Crisis Notion

This brings us to the gravamen of the case. To wit, there is no climate crisis whatsoever, but the AGW hoax has so thoroughly contaminated the mainstream narrative and the policy apparatus in Washington and capitals all around the world that contemporary society is fixing to commit economic hari-kari.

That’s because, contrary to the phony case that the rise of fossil fuel use after 1850 has caused the planetary climate system to become unglued, there has been a massive acceleration of global economic growth and human well-being. One essential element behind that salutary development has been the massive increase in the use of cheap fossil fuels to power economic life.

The chart below could not be more dispositive. During the pre-industrial era between 1500 and 1870, real global GDP crawled along at just 0.41% per annum. By contrast, during the past 150 years of the fossil fuel age, global GDP growth accelerated to 2.82% per annum–or nearly 7 times faster.

This higher growth, of course, in part resulted from a larger and far healthier global population made possible by rising living standards. Yet, it wasn’t human muscle alone that caused the GDP level to go parabolic, as per the chart below.

It was also due to the fantastic mobilization of intellectual capital and technology. One of the most important vectors of the latter was the ingenuity of the fossil fuel industry in unlocking the massive trove of stored work that Mother Nature extracted, condensed, and salted away from the incoming solar energy over the long warmer and wetter eons of the past 600 million years.

Yes, that dramatic rise in prosperity in generating fossil fuel consumption has given rise to a commensurate increase in CO2 emissions. But contrary to the Climate Change Narrative, CO2 is not a pollutant!

As we have seen, the correlated increase in CO2 concentrations—from about 290 ppm to 415 ppm since 1850—amounts to a rounding error in both the long-trend of history and in terms of atmospheric loadings from natural sources.

As to the former, concentrations of less than 500 ppm are only recent developments of the last ice age, while during prior geologic ages concentrations reached as high as 2400 ppm.

Likewise, the oceans contain an estimated 37,400 billion tons of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2,000-3,000 billion tons and the atmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2. The latter alone is more than 20X current fossil emissions (35 billion tons) shown below.

Of course, the opposite side of the equation is that oceans, land and atmosphere absorb CO2 continuously so the incremental loadings from human sources is very small. That also means that even a small shift in the balance between oceans and air would cause a much more severe rise/fall in CO2 concentrations than anything attributable to human activity.

But since the Climate Howlers falsely imply that the “pre-industrial” level of 290 parts per million was extant since, well, the Big Bang and that the modest rise since 1850 is a one-way ticket to boiling the planet alive, they obsess over the “sources versus sinks” balance in the carbon cycle for no valid reason whatsoever.

Previous Posts in Series: Part 1, Part 2

Taking Stock: 5 Reasons to Resist the GreenMageddon, part 2

Posted on 3 Hours Ago by Ron Clutz

This post is the second of five to alert readers to a compilation of the scientific case against the claims of IPCC supporters and anti-fossil fuel activists. David Stockman provides the evidence and the arguments against the IPCC policy framework in a series of five essays published at International Man under the title The GreenMageddon and What It Means for You. I will state the five themes he develops in his essays, along with some excerpts and images to illustrate the main points. Here is an overview followed by the second theme.

Overview

The assembled governments of the world meeting in Glasgow for COP26 are fixing to declare war on the backbone of modern economic life and the abundance and relief from human poverty and suffering with which it has gifted the world. We are referring, of course, to its agenda to essentially drive fossil fuels—which currently make up 80% of BTU consumption—from the global energy supply system over the next several decades.

All of this is being done in the name of preventing global temperatures from rising by 1.5 degrees Celsius above “pre-industrial” levels.

But when it comes to the crucial matter of exactly which pre-industrial baseline level, you can see the skunk sitting on the woodpile a mile away. That’s because, as we showed in Part 1, global temperatures have been higher than the present—often by upward of 10–15 degrees Celsius—for most of the past 600 million years!

2. During our Holocene epoch, for the past 11.6 thousand years, earth’s climate has changed often with multiple periods, both warmer and and cooler than the present. The modern warming period since 1850 was preceded by the Medieval, the Roman, and the Minoan warming periods–each was cooler than the previous, and all of them warmer than the present. The last 1.5C of warming has been a boon to human agriculture and civilization, and the next 1.5C is likely to also be beneficial.

Moreover, during the more recent era since the great extinction event 66 million years ago, the decline in temperatures has been almost continuous, touching lower than current levels only during the 100,000-year glaciation cycles of the last 2.6 million years of the Pleistocene ice ages. Not unsurprisingly, therefore, the Climate Howlers have chosen to ignore 599,830,000 of those years in favor of the last 170 years (since 1850) alone.

Still, the juxtaposition of the temperature record of the last 66 million years and the sawed-off charts of the climate alarmists tells you all you need to know: to wit, they have simply banished all the “inconvenient” science from the narrative.

Global Average Temperature Trend, 1850–2018 per the Global Warming Narrative

Needless to say, there is a reason why they start the graphs in 1850, and it is not just because it was the tail-end of the Little Ice Age (LIA), from which low point the temperature trend might well climb upwards for a time as climatic conditions normalized.

Actually, the intellectual deception is far more egregious. To wit, the Climate Howlers want you to believe the absolutely anti-scientific notion that the global climate was in general equipoise until the coal barons and the John D. Rockefeller’s of the mid-19th century set off a dangerous chain of climate dysfunction as they brought the stored solar energy embedded in coal and petroleum to the surface and released its combustion by-products–especially CO2—into the ambient air.

The Risible Myth Of Climate Equipoise

The global warming narrative is the most risible manifestation yet of this leap into self-righteous disregard for evidence, logic, and plausibility. For when you step back from the shrill, sanctimonious narrative that passes for the global warming catechism, the ridiculousness of its central claim that industrial society is destroying the climatic equipoise of the planet is self-evident.

For crying out loud, there has never been equipoise!

What there’s been is 4.5 billion years of wildly oscillating and often violent geologic evolution and climate disequilibrium owing to manifold natural causes, including:

plate tectonics that has sometimes violently impacted climate systems, especially the assembly and breakup of Pangaea between 335 million and 175 million years ago, and the continuous drift of the present-day continents thereafter;
asteroid bombardments;
the 100,000-year cycles of the Earth’s orbital eccentricity (it gets colder when it’s at maximum elongation);
the 41,000-year cycles of the Earth’s tilt on its axis, which oscillates between 22.1 and 24.5 degrees and thereby impacts the level of solar intake;
the wobble or precession of the earth’s rotation which impacts climate over the course of its 26,000 year cycles;
the recent 150,000 year glaciation and inter-glacial warming cycles;
the 1500 year sunspot cycles, where earth temperatures fall during solar minimums like the Maunder Minimum of 1645-1715 at the extreme of the LIA when sunspot activity virtually ceased.

The natural climate change now underway is, therefore, the product of powerful planetary forces that long predated the industrial age and which massively exceed the impact of industrial era emissions. As we indicated in Part 1, that the present conflation of these forces has resulted in a warming cycle is nothing new—warming has happened repeatedly even in modern times. Contrary to the false claims of the Climate Howlers,

Current mildly rising temperatures are in keeping with the historical truth that warmer is better for humanity and most other species, too.

Continued planetary equipoise requires no interventions whatsoever by the state to retard the use of prosperity-fostering fossil fuels or to subsidize and accelerate the adoption of high-cost renewable energy.

So the question recurs. What “pre-industrial” temperature baseline can be picked out of all these eras and all these climate change forces that would be anything but an arbitrary political, not science-based, choice?

After all, the science is agnostic. Mother Earth has weathered every kind of climate disequilibrium at both the colder and warmer ends of the spectrum and, crucially, experienced the eventual release of countervailing forces that took both temperature and CO2 levels back in the other direction.

We think the planet’s climatic resilience is especially evident in the fact that, after five major ice ages, warming forces returned with robust energy until they reversed again, thereby proving there is no doomsday loop that leads in linear fashion to inexorable catastrophe as is embedded in the climate models.

To enlarge, open image in new tab.

As we noted, during the Holocene Optimum, many of the Earth’s great ancient civilizations began and flourished because conditions were especially hospitable for agriculture and the generation of economic surpluses. The Nile River, for instance, had an estimated three times its present volume, indicating a much larger tropical region. In fact, 6,000 years ago, the Sahara was far more fertile than today and supported large herds of animals, as evidenced by the Tassili N’Ajjer frescoes of Algeria.

That is to say, warmer and wetter was far better for mankind than prior bouts of cold.

Indeed, prior to the post-1850 warming, there had been five distinct warming periods (red areas) since the last glaciers with temperatures above current levels. Never, of course, does this chart see the light of day in the mainstream climate change narrative.

Also, during this period, the Vikings established settlements in Iceland and Greenland. Long before the industrial era, Greenland was so warm, wet, and fertile that major colonization occurred after AD 980. At its peak, it included upward of 10,000 settlers, extensive farming, numerous Catholic churches, and a parliament that eventually voted for union with Norway.

Nor was the reversal from the hospitable climate of the Viking era settlements in Greenland merely a regional anomaly has some Climate Howlers have claimed. During the Medieval Warm period, great civilizations flourished in many other areas, which then became uninhabitable.

For instance, a great drought in the American southwest occurred between 1276 and 1299. Grand settlements like those in Chaco Canyon and Mesa Verde were abandoned. Tree-ring analysis has identified a period of no rain between 1276 and 1299 in these areas.

Needless to say, these extreme weather perturbations were not caused by industrial activity because there was none, and they occurred during a period when it was getting colder, not warmer!

From 1550 to AD 1850, global temperatures were at their coldest since the beginning of the Holocene 12,000 years ago. Hence the designation of this period as the Little Ice Age (LIA).

Self-evidently, when the LIA finally ended around 1850, global temperatures were at a modern nadir (no wonder the Climate Howlers start their charts in the middle of the 19th century).

Mann’s Attempt to Erase Pre-Industrial Warming

But the significance of this fact goes well beyond cropping the temperature charts at 1850. Actually, in order to erase the above-described oscillations of the modern climate, climate change advocates have actually gone so far as to literally attempt to airbrush them out of existence.

We are referring to what we call the climate “Piltdown Mann,” named for one Michael Mann, a newly minted Ph.D. (1998) who became the International Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) lead investigator and advocate for what famously became the “hockey stick” proof of global warming.

The latter, of course, was the blatant fraud embedded in the image that Al Gore made famous in his propagandistic movie “An Inconvenient Truth” in 2006. Suffice to say, the purpose of the hockey stick was to wipe out all the evidence summarized above.

That is, in lieu of the planet’s long-term and recent severe climate oscillations, the IPCC posited an entirely opposite thesis. Namely, for the pre-industrial millennium before 1900, global temperatures were nearly as flat as a board.

The only problem is that Mann’s graph was as phony as the Piltdown Man itself—the latter famously being confected in England in 1912 and conveniently “discovered” by an amateur anthropologist who claimed it was the missing link in human evolution. At length, it was shown that the fossil was a forgery; it consisted of a modern human cranium and an orangutan jaw with filed-down teeth.

In the case of the graph, Professor Mann and his accomplices at the IPCC doctored the evidence, used misleading data from southwestern US tree rings in lieu of abundant alternative data showing the contrary, and jiggered their computer models to generate pre-specified results.

That is, the models were produced by goal-seeking on the part of Mann and his associates to prove the man-made warming thesis. In essence, this was accomplished by simply pasting modern temperature records showing steady increases on top of a pre-industrial baseline that never happened.

The phony pre-industrial baseline is depicted by the yellow area in the graph for the period 1400–1900. The hockey stick-like eruption of the yellow space after 1900, of course, allegedly depicts the man-made temperature rise since the onset of the hydrocarbon age.

By contrast, the corrected version is in blue. In this version—which comports with the history of climate oscillations cited above—there is no hockey stick because the shaft never happened; it was invented by computer model manipulations, not extracted from the abundant scientific data on which the Mann study was allegedly based.

So the question is answered. The mid-19th century is exactly the wrong baseline from which to measure global temperature change during modern times.

The blue area of the chart, in fact, is the smoking gun that obliterates the whole predicate on which COP26 is being foisted upon the everyday people of the world.

Part 1 is here

Background: See Rise and Fall of the Modern Warming Spike

The first graph appeared in the IPCC 1990 First Assessment Report (FAR) credited to H.H.Lamb, first director of CRU-UEA. The second graph was featured in 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) the famous hockey stick credited to M. Mann.

Taking Stock: Five Reasons to Resist the GreenMageddon, Part 1

Posted on 23 Hours Ago by Ron Clutz

This post is the first of five to alert readers to a compilation of the scientific case against the claims of IPCC supporters and anti-fossil fuel activists. David Stockman provides the evidence and the arguments against the IPCC policy framework in a series of five essays published at International Man under the title The GreenMageddon and What It Means for You. I will state the five themes he develops in his essays, along with some excerpts and images to illustrate the main points. Here is an overview followed by the first theme.

Overview

With COP26 now underway, it’s not too soon to start clanging the alarm bells—not about climate catastrophe, of course, but about the stupidest act of the assembled nations since Versailles, when the vindictive WWI victors laid the groundwork for the catastrophes of depression, WWII, the Holocaust, Soviet tyranny, the Cold War and Washington’s destructive global hegemony, all of which followed hard upon the next.

Politicians and their allies in the mainstream media, think tanks, lobbies and Big Business (with its cowardly sleep-walking leaders) are fixing to do nothing less than destroy the prosperity of the world and send global life careening into a modern economic Dark Ages.

And worse still, it’s being done in the service of a bogus climate crisis narrative that is thoroughly anti-science and wholly inconsistent with the actual climate and CO2 history of the planet.

1. During the past 600 million years, the earth has rarely been as cool as at present, and almost never has it had as low CO2 concentrations as the 420 ppm level that today’s climate howlers decry.

In fact, according to the careful reconstructions of actual earth scientists who have studied ocean sediments, ice cores and the like, there have been only two periods encompassing about 75 million years (13% of that immensely long 600 million year stretch of time) where temperatures and CO2 concentrations were as low as it present. These were the Late Carboniferous/Early Permian time from 315 to 270 million years ago and the Quaternary Period, which hosted modern man 2.6 million years ago. You might say, therefore, that the possibility of a warmer, CO2-richer environment is a case of planetary “been there, done that”.

And it is most certainly not a reason to wantonly dismantle and destroy the intricate, low-cost energy system that is the root source of today’s unprecedented prosperity and human escape from poverty and want.

But that’s hardly the half of it. What actually lies smack in the center of our warmer past is a 220-million-year interval from 250 million years ago through the re-icing of Antarctica about 33 million years ago that was mainly ice-free.

As shown by the blue line in the chart below, during most of that period (highlighted in the brown panels), temperatures were up to 12C higher than at present, and Mother Earth paid no mind to the fact that she lacked polar ice caps or suitable habitats for yet un-evolved polar bears.

Global Temperature And Atmospheric CO2 Over Geologic Time

Moreover, the science behind this isn’t a matter of academic armchair speculation for the simple reason that it has been powerfully validated in the commercial marketplace. That is, trillions of dollars have been deployed in the last century in the search for hydrocarbons, based on immensely complicated petroleum engineering research, theory and geologic models. Oil drillers weren’t throwing darts at a wildcatter’s wall but were coincidentally proving these “facts” of climate history are correct, given that they led to the discovery and extraction of several trillions of BOEs (barrels of oil equivalent).

Consequently, it is solidly estimated by industry experts that today’s petroleum deposits were roughly formed as follows:

- About 70% during the Mesozoic age (brown panels, 252 to 66 million years ago) which was marked by a tropical climate, with large amounts of plankton in the oceans;
- 20% was formed in the dryer, colder Cenozoic age (last 65 million years);
- 10% were formed in the earlier warmer Paleozoic age (541 to 252 million years ago).

Indeed, at the end of the day, petroleum engineering is rooted in climate science because it was climate itself that produced those economically valuable deposits.

And a pretty awesome science it is. After all, billions of dollars have been pushed down the wellbores in up to two miles of ocean waters and 40,000 feet below the surface in what amounts to an amazingly calibrated and targeted search for oil-bearing needles in a geologic haystack.

Yet during the Cretaceous, CO2 levels actually went down while temperatures were rising sharply. That’s the very opposite of the Climate Alarmists’ core claim that it is rising CO2 concentrations which are currently forcing global temperatures higher.

Moreover, we are not talking about a marginal reduction in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. Levels actually dropped sharply from about 2,000 ppm to 900 ppm during that 80 million year stretch. This was all good for hydrocarbon formation and today’s endowment of nature’s stored work, but it was also something more.

To wit, it was yet another proof that planetary climate dynamics are far more complicated and ridden with crosscurrents than the simple-minded doom loops now being used to model future climate states from the current far lower temperature and CO2 levels.

W. J. Davis (2017)

It is surely one of the great ironies of our times that today’s fanatical crusades against fossil fuels are being carried out with not even a nod to the geologic history that contradicts the entire “warming” and CO2 concentration hysteria and made present energy consumption levels and efficiencies possible.

That is to say, the big, warm and wet one (the Mesozoic) got us here.

True global warming is not the current and future folly of mankind; it is the historical enabler of present-day economic blessings. Yet, here we are on the eve of COP26, manically focused on reducing emissions to the levels required to keep global temperatures from rising more than 1.5 degrees Celsius from preindustrial levels.

If your brain is not addled by the climate change narrative, the very term rings a resoundingly loud bell. That’s because there have been on the order of 20 distinct “ice ages” and interglacial warming periods during the Pleistocene, the latest of which ended about 18,000 years ago and from which we have been digging out ever since.

In contrast to today’s climate models, Mother Nature clearly did not go off the rails in some kind of linear doomsday loop of ever-increasing temperatures and without any hectoring from Greta, either. Actually, Greenland got all frozen up and thawed several more times thereafter.

Needless to say, the Holocene Optimum 8,000 years ago is not the “preindustrial” baseline from which the Climate Howlers are pointing their phony hockey sticks. In fact, other studies show that, even in the Arctic, it was no picnic time for the polar bears. Among 140 sites across the western Arctic, there is clear evidence for conditions that were warmer than now at 120 sites. At 16 sites for which quantitative estimates have been obtained, local temperatures were on average 1.6 °C higher during the optimum than they are today.

Say what? Isn’t that the same +1.6 degrees C above current levels that the COP26 folks are threatening to turn off the lights of prosperity to prevent?

In any event, what did happen was far more beneficent. To wit, the warmer and wetter Holocene Optimum and its aftermath gave rise to the great river civilizations 5,000 years ago, including the Yellow River in China, the Indus River in the Indian subcontinent, the Tigris-Euphrates and the Nile River civilizations among the most notable.

Stated differently, that +1.6 degrees C was reflective of the climate-based catalyzing forces that actually made today’s world possible. From the abundances of the river civilizations, there followed the long march of agriculture and the economic surpluses and abundance that enabled cities, literacy, trade and specialization, advancement of tools and technology and modern industry—the latter being the ultimate human escape from a life based on the back muscles of man and his domesticated animals alone.

As it happens, when one of the previous “preindustrial” warming eras (the Roman Warming) was coming to an end in the late 4th century AD, St. Jerome admonished the faithful “never look a gift horse in the mouth.”

Yet that’s exactly what the assembled nations will be doing at COP26.

Decoding the Flailing Climate Alarm Story

Posted on August 1 by Ron Clutz

There have been various reports, including some reposted here, about the Climate Crisis narrative losing its grip on the public and leaders. Signs the fad is waning include some advocates like Bill Gates recanting, ESG financiers like Larry Fink backtracking, falling media coverage and closure of some climate units, and the recent admission of implausible climate model scenarios.

Even so, there are still many in its thrall, and it’s important to understand how climate doomster culture took over and continues to demand attention and deference. Garry Rogers provides a brief and insightful analysis of how this happened, and why its influence is rightfully dwindling. His blog article is Why So Many People Fall For The Climate Crisis Narrative. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and some added images.

You’ve seen them. Earnest young activists shouting at clouds, gluing themselves to museum walls, and blocking traffic with coroplast signs warning that the world will end in twelve years unless we obey their vision of salvation—complete with windmills, solar panels, and vegan diets. They’re the same people Xing and Instagramming about carbon footprints from their iPhones made in Chinese factories run on sulphur and lignite coal-fired electricity.

It’s easy to dismiss them as naive or misguided, but the uncomfortable truth is this: many of these people are neither stupid nor insane. They are simply caught in a powerful psychological, cultural, and financial machine that has turned “climate change” into a form of religious belief—a doctrine too sacred to question and too profitable to abandon.

Let’s set something straight. I’m not a climate change denier. Climate change is real. The Earth’s climate has always changed. And it always will—human-contributed through emitted greenhouse gas or not.

But the apocalyptic narrative that dominates headlines, policy, and corporate strategy today isn’t just about facts. It’s about framing—about controlling how people think, feel, and act in relation to a deeply complex system they barely understand. And that makes the climate crisis one of the most successful psychological operations in modern history.

In this post, we’ll take a hard look at why so many people have bought in—blindly and without skepticism—to the idea that we’re on the brink of planetary collapse, and that the only solution is top-down control, mass compliance, and the destruction of energy systems that built the modern world.

Some of what I’m going to say may be uncomfortable to some, and I know some
will unsubscribe. But that doesn’t make it untrue, and this needs to be said.

The Climate Crisis as a Religion (aka The Church of Carbon)

First, let’s call it what it is. For a growing number of people—especially in the West (Europe particularly included)—the climate crisis has become a belief system. It functions just like a fundamentalist religion, complete with original sin (industrialization), prophets (Greta, Gore, Gates), sacred texts (IPCC reports), rituals (recycling, carbon offsets), heretics (climate skeptics), and a promised apocalypse for those who fail to convert.

It’s not about science anymore. It’s about meaning. People—especially young people raised in secular cultures—are starving for purpose. They want to feel morally righteous, socially important, and part of a grand, redemptive story. The climate narrative offers all of that in a tidy, emotionally satisfying package. It turns ordinary people into saviors. It makes them matter. You can’t underestimate how powerful that is.

Fear is the Fuel

The second driver is fear. For decades, we’ve been bombarded with doom-laden, global-warming headlines: ice caps melting, oceans rising, hurricanes and tornados worsening, apocalyptical flooding, forests burning, deserts parching… The messaging is relentless—and expertly crafted to trigger our limbic systems. When people are afraid, they don’t reason. They react.

This isn’t new. Back in the 1970s, experts warned of an imminent ice age. Then came acid rain. Then ozone depletion. Each time, the world was supposed to end unless we handed over more power to government, more money to NGOs, and more control to unelected technocrats.

It’s always the same pattern:

Declare a crisis.
Blame human behavior.
Offer a sweeping solution that just happens to consolidate control.

The only difference now is scale. The climate crisis is global,
not regional. And the proposed solutions are systemic, not marginal.

The Collapse of Critical Thinking

But fear alone doesn’t explain the blind belief. There’s another piece of the puzzle: the steady erosion of critical thinking. Schools no longer teach logic, debate, or how to evaluate competing hypotheses. Instead, they promote conformity, activism, and groupthink. You don’t learn how to think. You learn what to think.

By the time students hit university, the programming is complete. Professors reinforce the dogma. Campus culture punishes dissent. Climate change isn’t a topic for exploration—it’s a moral litmus test. Students who question it risk grades, reputation, or worse. Being cancelled.

So, they comply. They absorb. They repeat. And when they graduate into journalism, academia, NGOs, or politics, they carry that unexamined belief system with them—passing it on like gospel.

The Media Echo Chamber

The next layer is media. Legacy outlets like CNN, BBC, CBC, and the New York Times frame climate change in religious terms: “Climate emergency,” “existential threat,” “code red for humanity.” Any nuance is treated as heresy. Any questioning is framed as denialism.

Science itself has been rebranded. Instead of a method of inquiry, it’s now a set of conclusions—conveniently aligned with elite interests. The phrase “The science is settled” is a dead giveaway. No real scientist would ever say that.

Meanwhile, dissenting voices—many with serious credentials—are marginalized, shadowbanned, or censored outright. Their data doesn’t fit the narrative. Their views make people uncomfortable. So, they are erased.

And most people? They never notice.They assume if something was true, they’d hear about it. But when every channel is playing the same tune, they don’t realize they’re listening to a carefully curated soundtrack.

Social Conformity and Virtue Signaling

But here’s the deeper truth. Most people don’t believe the climate crisis because they’ve studied the data. They believe it because everyone else does. That’s the power of social conformity. Nobody wants to be the outlier—the one who raises their hand and asks the uncomfortable question. Especially in a culture obsessed with virtue. Believing in the climate crisis is a modern form of moral signaling. You drive a Tesla. You compost. You use a keep-cup. You care. You’re not like those backward Boomer-deniers who love oil and hate penguins.

You’re evolved
You’re ethical
You’re better

That’s what this has become—not a conversation about climate,
but a competition for social status.

And once belief becomes part of your identity, it becomes non-negotiable. Any challenge feels like a personal attack. Facts don’t matter. Feelings do.

Follow the Money

Now let’s talk about power.

The climate industry is worth trillions—yes, trillions of dollars. It’s the perfect grift: a never-ending crisis that justifies endless funding, regulation, and surveillance.

Governments rake in carbon taxes.
Universities secure research grants.
Corporations get ESG ratings and subsidies.
NGOs fundraise on fear.

It’s an entire ecosystem of incentives, none of which reward skepticism or moderation. And when that much money is on the table, the truth becomes secondary to the narrative.

Even energy companies play along. They don’t want to be regulated out of existence, so they slap green labels on their products and talk about “net zero” while quietly hedging their bets. It’s theater. Everyone’s pretending. But the costs are real.

China’s Role in the Global Equation

While the West ties itself in knots trying to decarbonize, one country is playing a different game entirely: China

Beijing talks green, but burns black. Coal remains its dominant energy source, powering steel, manufacturing, and military growth at a staggering scale. As of 2024, China alone consumes over half the world’s coal supply—and shows no sign of slowing down.

They’re not stupid. While we argue over wind farms and carbon credits,
they build aircraft carriers, drones, and power grids.
While we teach kids to fear climate collapse,
they teach theirs to master engineering and geopolitics.

They make the solar panels we install. They mine the rare earths we need. They profit from the very policies we impose on ourselves. And we call that progress.

Weaponized Guilt

So why don’t people wake up?

Because they’ve been trained to feel guilty. Every gas-guzzling SUV trip, every propane-grilled burger, every jet-fueled flight—is framed as a moral failing. You’re killing the planet. You’re harming future generations. You’re part of the problem. It’s exhausting, and it’s effective.

People internalize this guilt. They try to cleanse themselves through ritualistic consumption: reusable straws, oat milk, biodegradable trash bags, canvas totes at the farmer’s market. None of it makes an infatismal sub-fraction of a surface dent in global emissions—but it feels redemptive.

That’s the point. It’s not about fixing the planet. It’s about managing the soul.

The Useful Idiots

Now we come to the crux.

The term “useful idiot” originated in Soviet times. It referred to Western sympathizers who unknowingly supported the goals of a regime they didn’t understand. They weren’t evil—just naive, manipulated, and eager to be on the “right side of history.”

That’s where we are today. Millions of well-meaning people have been seduced by a narrative that exploits their fears, flatters their vanity, and blinds them to the larger game at play. They march, post, and protest—believing they’re saving the world, while unwittingly aiding those who want to dominate it.

They’re not villains. They’re pawns. And when you try to wake-the-wokes, they look at you like you’re the crazy one. Then they viscerally turn on you.

What’s At Stake

Here’s what’s really at stake. If we continue down this path, we don’t just risk economic collapse or energy poverty. We risk civilizational suicide. We are dismantling the very systems—energy, industry, sovereignty—that made the modern world possible.

And we’re doing it not for the planet, but for appearances.

Meanwhile, the nations that reject this ideology are gaining power, leverage, and independence. They’re not afraid to use fossil fuels while experimenting with futuristics. They’re not ashamed of their ambitions. And they’re not held hostage by narratives designed to make them feel guilty for existing.

They’re playing to win. We’re playing to look virtuous. That’s a losing hand.

So, what do we do?

First, stop apologizing. There is no shame in using energy. Civilization runs on it. Human flourishing depends on energy, regardless of how it’s generated. Without it, we return to darkness—literally and figuratively.

Second, think for yourself. Ask questions. Follow incentives. Trace the money.
Be skeptical of anything presented as a one-sided moral truth.

Third, reclaim courage. Don’t be afraid to speak the truth, even when it’s unpopular. Especially when it’s unpopular. History doesn’t remember those who went along to get along. It remembers those who stood up, pointed at the naked emperor, and said, “This is madness.”

And finally, understand this: We are not in a climate crisis. We are in a clarity crisis. Clarity—real, hard-won, human clarity—is the first step back to sanity.

The next time someone tells you the world is ending, ask who’s funding the message—and what they’re selling with it. Because if you look closely, you’ll find it’s not about saving the planet. It’s about controlling the people on the planet by getting them to fall for the climate crisis narrative.

Background Resources

Why Climate Alarm is Fading (Matt Ridley)

No, WSJ: 9 Reasons Why “Green Energy” Makes Even LESS Sense Today

Charles MacKay: “Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.”

2026 Update: Fossil Fuels ≠ Global Warming

Posted on July 2 by Ron Clutz

gas in hands

Previous posts addressed the claim that fossil fuels are driving global warming. This post updates that analysis with the latest (2025) numbers from Energy Institute and compares World Fossil Fuel Consumption (WFFC) with three estimates of Global Mean Temperature (GMT). More on both these variables below. Note: Previously these same statistics were hosted by BP.

WFFC

2025 statistics are now available from Energy Institute for international consumption of Energy sources. Statistical Review of World Energy.

The reporting categories are:
Oil
Natural Gas
Coal
Nuclear
Hydro
Renewables (other than hydro)

Note: Energy Institute began in 2023 to use Exajoules to replace MToe (Million Tonnes of oil equivalents.) It is logical to use an energy metric which is independent of the fuel source. OTOH renewable advocates have no doubt pressured EI to stop using oil as the baseline since their dream is a world without fossil fuel energy.

From BP conversion table 1 exajoule (EJ) = 1 quintillion joules (1 x 10^18). Oil products vary from 41.6 to 49.4 tonnes per gigajoule (10^9 joules). Comparing this annual report with previous years shows that global Primary Energy (PE) in MToe is roughly 24 times the same amount in Exajoules. The conversion factor at the macro level varies from year to year depending on the fuel mix. The graphs below use the new metric.

A new wrinkle in the EI 2026 report is a shift in terminology concerning supply and consumption. Previous reports headlined Primary Energy Consumption (PEC), but this year the top line is Total Energy Supply (TES). No doubt the change is to raise the profile of non-carbon energy (NCE). A comparison with previous years stats shows that consumption numbers for all years from 1965 to 2024 have been lowered in this report, a puzzling result likely due to methodology. And yet tables show that summing the consumption EJs of each of the six energy categories matches the TES, effectively the same result as Energy Consumption, albeit with lower numbers across the board. Apparently the motivation was to remove “Primary” to make room for Non Carbon Energy (NCE) sources like renewables that only input into Electricity, a Secondary energy form.

I found this diagram on the internet, but don’t have a link for it at EI itself. However, I can confirm it with statistics from the 2026 Data Report. Those provided the basis for the chart later on. Firstly, here is analysis from 2025 combining the first three, Oil, Gas, and Coal for total fossil fuel consumption world wide (WFFC). The chart below shows the patterns for WFFC compared to world consumption of Primary Energy from 1965 through 2024 from the EI 2025 report.

The graph shows that global Primary Energy (PE) consumption from all sources has grown continuously over nearly 6 decades. Since 1965 oil, gas and coal (FF, sometimes termed “Thermal”) averaged 88% of PE consumed, ranging from 93% in 1965 to 81% in 2024. Note that in 2020, PE dropped 21 EJ (4%) below 2019 consumption, then increased 31 EJ in 2021. WFFC for 2020 dropped 24 EJ (5%), then in 2021 gained back 26 EJ to slightly exceed 2019 WFFC consumption. For the 60 year period, all net changes were increases from previous years and were:

Oil	207%
Gas	555%
Coal	183%
WFFC	252%
PE	308%

And Now The Energy Institute 2026 Report

Note the orange TEC line is slightly below the green line in the 2025 report, and also that FF have a slightly larger % of TEC. The 600 EJ total matches the consumption sum of all energy categories. The green NCE line includes Nuclear, Hydro and Renewables. WFFC proportion of Total Energy Consumption ranged from 97% in 1965 to 86% in 2025, an average of 91% over those six decades. NCE proportion matches exactly the remainder of TEC after subtracting WFFC, from 2.6% to 13.8%. The Table below shows EJs and %s for 2024 and 2025

2024 EJ	2025 EJ	EJ Increases	Sources	2024 %s	2025 %s
592.18	600.31	8.14	Total
199.04	200.97	1.93	Oil	33.61%	33.48%
148.72	150.70	1.97	Gas	25.11%	25.10%
165.35	166.03	0.68	Coal	27.92%	27.66%
30.71	31.04	0.33	Nuclear	5.19%	5.17%
16.1	16.1	0.02	Hydro	2.72%	2.69%
32.24	35.45	3.20	Renewables	5.45%	5.90%
592.18	600.31	8.14	Sum of All	100.00%	100.00%

Renewables Breakdown

	Exajoules Consumed
	2024	2025
Solar	7.8	10.1
Wind	9.1	9.8
Bio and Other	15.4	15.6
Renewables	32.2	35.4

The data show that Wind and Solar energy is about half of the Renewables category, or about 3% of Total Energy Consumed, not much larger than previously.

Global Mean Temperatures.

Everyone acknowledges that GMT is a fiction since temperature is an intrinsic property of objects, and varies dramatically over time and over the surface of the earth. No place on earth determines “average” temperature for the globe. Yet for the purpose of detecting change in temperature, major climate data sets estimate GMT and report anomalies from it.

UAH record consists of satellite era global temperature estimates for the lower troposphere, a layer of air from 0 to 4km above the surface. HadSST estimates sea surface temperatures from oceans covering 71% of the planet. HadCRUT combines HadSST estimates with records from land stations whose elevations range up to 6km above sea level.

Both GISS LOTI (land and ocean) and HadCRUT4 (land and ocean) use 14.0 Celsius as the climate normal, so I will add that number back into the anomalies. This is done not claiming any validity other than to achieve a reasonable measure of magnitude regarding the observed fluctuations.[Note: HadCRUT4 was discontinued after 2021 in favor of HadCRUT5.]

No doubt global sea surface temperatures are typically higher than 14C, more like 17 or 18C, and of course warmer in the tropics and colder at higher latitudes. Likewise, the lapse rate in the atmosphere means that air temperatures both from satellites and elevated land stations will range colder than 14C. Still, that climate normal is a generally accepted indicator of GMT.

Correlations of GMT and WFFC

The next graph compares WFFC to GMT estimates over the decades from 1965 to 2024 from HadCRUT5, which includes HadSST4.

Since 1965 the increase in fossil fuel consumption is dramatic and monotonic, steadily increasing by 252% from 146 to 513 exajoules. Meanwhile the GMT record from Hadcrut shows multiple ups and downs with an accumulated rise of 1.4C over 60 years, 10% of the starting value.

The graph below compares WFFC to GMT estimates from UAH6, and HadSST4 for the satellite era from 1980 to 2024 a period of 45 years.

In the satellite era WFFC has increased at a compounded rate of 1.5% per year, for a total increase of 99% since 1980. At the same time, SST warming amounted to 0.8C, or 5.6% of the starting value. UAH warming was 1.1C, or 8% up from 1979. The temperature compounded rate of change is 0.1% per year for HadSST4, and 0.2% per year for UAH, an order of magnitude less than WFFC. Even more obvious is the 1998 El Nino peak and flat GMT until 2023-24.

Summary

The climate alarmist/activist claim is straight forward: Burning fossil fuels makes measured temperatures warmer. The Paris Accord further asserts that by reducing human use of fossil fuels, further warming can be prevented. Those claims do not bear up under scrutiny.

It is enough for simple minds to see that two time series are both rising and to think that one must be causing the other. But both scientific and legal methods assert causation only when the two variables are both strongly and consistently aligned. The above shows a weak and inconsistent linkage between WFFC and GMT.

Going further back in history shows even weaker correlation between fossil fuels consumption and global temperature estimates:

Figure 5.1. Comparative dynamics of the World Fuel Consumption (WFC) and Global Surface Air Temperature Anomaly (ΔT), 1861-2000. The thin dashed line represents annual ΔT, the bold line—its 13-year smoothing, and the line constructed from rectangles—WFC (in millions of tons of nominal fuel) (Klyashtorin and Lyubushin, 2003). Source: Frolov et al. 2009

In legal terms, as long as there is another equally or more likely explanation for the set of facts, the claimed causation is unproven. The more likely explanation is that global temperatures vary due to oceanic and solar cycles. The proof is clearly and thoroughly set forward in the post Quantifying Natural Climate Change.

Footnote: CO2 Concentrations Compared to WFFC

Contrary to claims that rising atmospheric CO2 consists of fossil fuel emissions, consider the Mauna Loa CO2 observations in recent years.

Despite the drop in 2020 WFFC, atmospheric CO2 continued to rise steadily, demonstrating that natural sources and sinks drive the amount of CO2 in the air.

02/2025 Update–Temperature Changes, CO2 Follows

El Ninos Signal Cooling Earth Climate

Posted on June 20 by Ron Clutz

Andy May provides data from instruments along with proxies showing that historically when Earth goes into a cooling period, the number of El Ninos increase, while declining during stable warm periods. The article at his blog is Do Los Niños cause climatic cooling?. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

We’ve seen a lot of news stories about an upcoming El Niño, that may turn into a so-called “super” El Niño over the next year. This will affect our weather for a year or two, but what is the climatic effect of this weather feature, if any? Here we examine the history of warm ENSO events.

Los Niños warm Earth’s atmosphere for a few years because they cause excess thermal energy (heat) to be expelled from the topical Pacific Ocean and the heat is then circulated around the planet via atmospheric circulation, especially in the Northern Hemisphere where most of us live. But this is warm weather, not climate. Climate is normally defined as the average weather over a period of more than 30 years. Over 30 years, Los Niños are a cooling event since nearly all the heat they transfer to the atmosphere is eventually radiated to space. Very little of the heat released from the oceans during an El Niño is returned to the oceans because downwelling infrared radiation from the atmosphere cannot penetrate the ocean surface (Wong & Minnett, 2018). Only solar radiation can penetrate to the deeper ocean and significantly warm it.

Irreversible processes in the atmosphere. Neglecting radiative processes (not shown here), the largest sources of irreversibility in the atmosphere are those associated with the hydrologic cycle: evaporation, the mixing of moist and dry air, and the melt–freeze cycle (60–80% collectively), and the fallout of precipitation (5–15%).

Many Los Niños are very powerful weather features and can be traced back in time with lake sediment proxies in Ecuador as has been done by Christopher Moy and colleagues at Syracuse University (Moy et al., 2002). Figure 1 shows Moy’s El Niño proxy record and Rosenthal’s Makassar Strait proxy temperature record since 0AD. Moy’s sediment record from the Laguna Pallcacocha drainage basin is well located to record warm El Niño events since these events cause anomalous sea surface temperatures off the coast of Ecuador which initiate strong and widespread convection in the area.

Figure 1. The Moy warm El Niño record in blue (left scale) and Rosenthal’s North Pacific temperature record in orange (right scale) overlain. Data sources: (Moy et al., 2002) & (Rosenthal et al., 2013).

The important point is that during the Medieval Warm Period Los Niños were rare and did not become common until the Little Ice Age began around 1200 AD and then declined as the Little Ice Age progressed and the world became colder. They have since become common again as the world has warmed, as shown in figure 2 which is a plot of the NOAA ERSST Niño 3.4 Index where Los Niños are positive and Las Niñas are negative values.

Figure 2. The NOAA ERSST v5 ENSO index from the end of the Little Ice Age (~1850) to the present. Data source: Climate Explorer. In this plot, an El Niño is positive (0.5 or greater) and a La Niña is negative (-0.5 or less).

Los Niños were extremely rare during the Holocene Climatic Optimum, only increasing in number as the Neoglacial began as shown in figure 3. The paucity of Los Niños during the Holocene Climatic Optimum is confirmed by numerous geological proxies from around the Pacific basin as discussed in Moy et al. (Moy et al., 2002).

Figure 3. The Vinther Greenland area temperature and Moy’s warm ENSO proxy (number of events each 100 years).

The paucity of Los Niños during the Holocene Climatic Optimum has been connected to Earth’s orbital cycles by Clement et al. (Clement et al., 2000). A discussion of the effects of orbital cycles on climate can be seen here. During the Holocene Climatic Optimum, Northern Hemisphere summer insolation was maximal. It appears that when this happens Los Niños are suppressed. Since the Neoglacial began, around 3800 BC, Northern Hemisphere summer insolation has declined significantly.

Figures 1 to 3 suggest that a warm stable climate is associated with very few Los Niños, but when Earth’s climate is beginning to cool, as at the beginning of the Neoglacial Period or the early cooling years of the Little Ice Age, there are more Los Niños. Los Niños were very common as we cooled into the depths of the Little Ice Age (~1750 or so) and then as we began to warm coming out of the deepest period of the Little Ice Age the number of Los Niños dropped off.

We are currently at the end of Modern Solar Maximum or
the Modern Warm Period, and we are seeing more Los Niños,
suggesting the world is beginning to cool.

Footnote: Atlantic Cold Blob Comes On the Scene

Ironically, as climatists proclaim warming from Pacific El Ninos confirms their CO2 hysteria, the actual climate signal points to a cold period, already manifesting in a large Atlantic cold blob.

CO2 Warming Rejected on Energetic and Geochemical Grounds (Segalstad)

Posted on May 21 by Ron Clutz

The_distribution_of_CO_between_atmospher Download

Tom Segalstad wrote this paper pointing out major holes in the CO2 Warming belief. You can scroll through the text in the embedded document above, or download the pdf by clicking on the Download button. Below is my excerpted synopsis with my bolds and added images.

1. Introduction

It has recently been created a belief among people that an apparent increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is caused by anthropogenic burning of fossil carbon in petroleum, coal, and natural gas. The extra atmospheric CO has been claimed to cause global climatic change with a significant atmospheric temperature rise, of 1.5 to 4.5°C in the next decennium (Houghton et al., 1990). This postulate is here discussed and rejected on energetic and geochemical grounds.

2. Heat energy and temperatures

Our relatively high global atmospheric temperature near the surface of the Earth, with an average of 14 to 15°C, is caused by heat-absorbing gases in the atmosphere, mainly H2O vapor. Without the Earth’s atmosphere the surface temperature would be approximately -18°C.

All human activities have been claimed to contribute about 1.3% of this (approx. 2 W/m2 ), while a hypothetic doubling of the atmospheric CO concentration would contribute about 2.6% (approx. 4 W/m2 ) to the present “Greenhouse Effect”. 150 years-long time series of temperature measurements are covering too short time spans to be useful for climate prediction, in order to be used as “evidence” for anthropogenic heating (or cooling). The global mean temperature has risen and fallen several times over the last 400 years, with no evidence of anthropogenic causes, although strong explosive volcanic eruptions have caused periodically colder climates.

It should also be noted that clouds can reflect up to approx. 50 W/m2 and can absorb up to approx. 30 W/m2 of the solar radiation, making the Earth’s average “Greenhouse Effect” vary naturally within approx. 96 and 176 W/m2 . Hence the anticipated anthropogenic atmospheric CO heat absorption is much smaller than the natural variation of the Earth’s “Greenhouse Effect”.

The oceans act as a huge heat energy buffer; the global climate is primarily governed by the enormous amount of heat stored in the oceans (total mass approx. 1.4 x 10^24 g), rather than the minute amount of heat withheld in the heat-absorbing part of the atmosphere (total mass approx. 1.4 x 10^18 g), a mass difference of one million times. Most of the atmospheric heat absorption occurs in water vapor (total mass approx. 1.3 x 10^19 g), which is equivalent to a uniform layer of only 2.5 cm of liquid water covering the globe, with a residence time of about 9 days.

The total internal energy of the whole ocean is more than 1.6 x 10^27 Joules, about 2000 times larger than the total internal energy 9.4 x 10^23 Joules of the whole atmosphere. Furthermore the cryosphere (ice sheets, sea ice, permafrost, and glaciers; total mass of the continental ice is approx. 3.3 x 10^22 g) plays a central role in the Earth’sclimate as an effective heat sink for the atmosphere and oceans. With a large latent heat of melting on the order of 9.3 x 10^24 Joules, that hypothetic energy is equivalent tocooling the entire oceans by about 2°C (5.8 x 10^24 J/°C). For comparison, the energy needed to warm the entire atmosphere by 1°C is only 5.1 x 10^21 Joules.

Hence it will be impossible to melt the Earth’s ice caps and thereby increase the sea level just by increasing the heat energy of the atmosphere through a few percent by added heat absorption of anthropogenic CO2 in the lower atmosphere.

3. CO2 measurements in atmosphere and ice cores

Houghton et al. (1990) claim in their section 1.2.5 three evidences that the contemporary atmospheric CO2 increase is anthropogenic: First, CO2 measurements from ice cores show a 21% rise from 280 to 353 ppmv (parts per million by volume) since pre-industrial times; second, the atmospheric CO2 increase closely parallels (sic!) the accumulated emission trends from fossil fuel combustion and from land use changes, although the annual increase has been smaller each year than the fossil CO2 input [some 50% deviation]; third, the isotopic trends of C13 and C14 agree qualitatively (sic!) with those expected due to the CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and the biosphere.

Figure 1. Concentration of CO2 in air bubbles from the pre-industrial ice from Siple, Antarctica (open squares), and in the 1958-1986 atmosphere at Mauna Loa, Hawaii (solid line): (A) original Siple data without assuming an 83 year younger age of air than the age of the enclosing ice, and (B) the same data after arbitrary “correction” of age of air (Neftel et al., 1985; Friedli et al., 1986; and IPCC 1990).

Jaworowski et al. (1992 a) have presented a number of criticisms regarding the
methodology of atmospheric CO2 measurements, including spectroscopic instrumental
peak overlap errors (from N2O, CH4 , and CFCs in the air). They also pointed out that the CO2 measurements at current CO2 observatories use a procedure involving a subjective editing (Keeling et al., 1976) of measured data, only representative of a few tenths of percent of the total data. There are also fundamental problems connected with the use of stable carbon isotopes ( C13/ C14) in tree rings for model calculations of earlier atmospheres’ CO2 concentration, a method which now seems to have been abandoned.. The third evidence, based on carbon isotopes, will be discussed below in Section 5.

4. Chemical laws for distribution of CO2 in nature

Statistically it has been found that the atmospheric CO2 concentration rises after temperature rises (Kuo et al., 1990), and it has been suggested that the reason is that cold water dissolves more CO2 (e.g. Segalstad, 1990). Hence, if the water temperature increases, the water cannot keep as much CO2 in solution, resulting in CO2 degassing from the water to the atmosphere. According to Takahashi (1961) heating of sea water by 1°C will increase the partial pressure of atmospheric CO by 12.5 ppmv during
upwelling of deep water. For example 12°C warming of the Benguela Current should increase the atmospheric CO2 concentration by 150 ppmv.

From a geochemical consideration of sedimentary rocks deposited throughout the Earth’s history, and the chemical composition of the ocean and atmosphere, Holland (1984) showed that degassing from the Earth’s interior has given us chloride in the ocean; and nitrogen, CO2 , and noble gases in the atmosphere. Mineral equilibria have established concentrations of major cations and H in the ocean, and the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, through different chemical buffer reactions. Biological
reactions have given us sulphate in the ocean and oxygen in the atmosphere.

Carbon dioxide is an equally important requisite for life on Earth as oxygen. Plants. need CO2 for their living (the photo synthesis), and humans and animals breath out CO2 from their respiration. In addition to this biogeochemical balance, there is also an important geochemical balance. CO2 in the atmosphere is in equilibrium with carbonic acid dissolved in the ocean, which in term is close to CaCO saturation and in equilibrium with carbonate shells of organisms and lime (calcium carbonate; limestone) in the ocean through the a series pf reactions.

If the temperature changes, the chemical equilibrium constant will change, and move the equilibrium to the left or right. The result is that the partial pressure of CO (g) will increase or decrease. The equilibrium will mainly be governed by Henry’s Law: the partial pressure of CO2 in the air will be proportional to the concentration of CO2 dissolved in water. The proportional constant is the Henry’s Law Constant, which is strongly temperature dependent, and lesser dependent on total pressure and salinity.

5. Carbon isotopes in atmospheric CO2

Houghton et al. (1990) assumed for the IPCC model 21% of our present-day atmospheric CO2 has been contributed from burning of fossil fuel. This has been made possible by CO2 having a “rough indication” (sic!) lifetime of 50 – 200 years. It is possible to test this assumption by inspecting the stable C13/ C12 isotope ratio (expressed as δ13Cpdb ) of atmospheric CO2 . It is important to note that this value is the net value of mixing all different CO2 components, and would show the results of all natural and non-natural (i.e. anthropogenic) processes involving CO2.

Segalstad (1992, 1993) has by isotope mass balance considerations calculated the atmospheric CO2 lifetime and the amount of fossil fuel CO2 in the atmosphere. The December 1988 atmospheric CO2 composition was computed for its 748 GT C total mass and δ13C = -7.807‰ for 3 components: (1) natural fraction remaining from the pre-industrial atmosphere; (2) cumulative fraction remaining from all annual fossil-fuel CO emissions (from production data); (3) carbon isotope mass-balanced natural fraction. The masses of the components were computed for different atmospheric lifetimes of CO2 .

Source: Skrable et al. (2022) Despite an estimated 205 ppm of FF CO2 emitted since 1750, only 46.84 ppm (23%) of FF CO2 remains, while the other 77% is distributed into natural sinks/sources. As of 2018 atmospheric CO2 was 405, of which 12% (47 ppm) originated from FF. And the other 88% (358 ppm) came from natural sources: 276 prior to 1750, and 82 ppm since. Natural CO2 sources/sinks continue to drive rising atmospheric CO2, presently at a rate of 2 to 1 over FF CO2. [My snyopsis: On CO2 Sources and Isotopes]

The calculations show how the IPCC’s (Houghton et al., 1990) atmospheric CO2 lifetime of 50-200 years only accounts for half the mass of atmospheric CO2 . However, the unique result fits an atmospheric CO2 lifetime of -5 (5.4) years, in agreement with numerous C14 studies compiled by Sundquist (1985) and chemical kinetics (Stumm & Morgan, 1970). The mass of all past fossil-fuel and biogenic emissions remaining in the current atmosphere was in December 1988 calculated to be -30 GT C or less, i.e. a maximum -4%, corresponding to an atmospheric CO concentration of -14 ppmv. This small amount of anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 probably contributes less than half a Watt/m2 of the 146 W/m “Greenhouse Effect” of a cloudless atmosphere, contributing to less than half a degree C of radiative heating of the lower atmosphere.

The isotopic mass balance calculations show that at least 96% of the current atmospheric CO2 is isotopically indistinguishable from non-fossil-fuel sources, i.e. natural marine and juvenile sources from the Earth’s interior. Hence, for the atmospheric CO2 budget, marine equilibration and degassing, and juvenile degassing from e.g. volcanic sources, must be much more important, and burning of fossil-fuel and biogenic materials much less important, than assumed by the authors of the IPCC model
(Houghton et al., 1990)

6. Conclusions

Water vapor is the most important “greenhouse gas”. Man’s contribution to atmospheric CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels is small, maximum 4% found by carbon isotope mass balance calculations. The “Greenhouse Effect” of this contribution is small and well within natural climatic variability. The amount of fossil fuel carbon is minute compared to the total amount of carbon in the atmosphere, hydrosphere, and lithosphere. The atmospheric CO2 lifetime is about 5 years. The ocean will be able toabsorb the larger part of the CO2 that Man can produce through burning of fossil fuels. The IPCC CO2 global warming model is not supported by the scientific data. Based on geochemical knowledge there should be no reason to fear a climatic catastrophe because of Man’s release of the life-governing CO2 gas.

The global climate is primarily governed by the enormous heat energy stored in the oceans and the latent heat of melting of the ice caps, not by the small amount of heat that can be absorbed inatmospheric CO2 ; hence legislation of “CO2 taxes” to be paid by the public cannot influence on the sea level and the global climate.

Real World Energy Flows Negate CO2 Hysteria

Posted on April 20 by Ron Clutz

Donald Rapp makes things clear and concise in his 2024 paper How Increased CO2 Warms the Earth-Two Contexts for the Greenhouse Gas Effect. Excerpts in italics with my bolds, exhibits and some added images.

Physicist Donald Rapp retired from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and has authored many books including Ice Ages and Interglacials: Measurements, Interpretation and Models; Assessing Climate Change: Temperatures, Solar Radiation and Heat Balance; and Use of Extraterrestrial Resources for Human Space Missions to Moon or Mars (Astronautical Engineering). Most recently he published Revisiting 2,000 Years of Climate Change (Bad Science and the “Hockey Stick”)

Abstract

The widespread explanations of the greenhouse effect taught to millions of schoolchildren are misleading. The objective of this work is to clarify how increasing CO2 produces warming in current times. It is found that there are two contexts for the greenhouse gas effect. In one context, the fundamental greenhouse gas effect, one imagines a dry Earth starting with no water or CO2 and adding water and CO2 . This leads to the familiar “thermal blanket” that strongly inhibits IR transmission from the Earth to the atmosphere. The Earth is much warmer with H2 O and CO2 . In the other context, the current greenhouse gas effect, CO2 is added to the current atmosphere. The thermal blanket on IR radiation hardly changes. But the surface loses energy primarily by evaporation and thermals. Increased CO2 in the upper atmosphere carries IR radiation to higher altitudes. The Earth radiates to space at higher altitudes where it is cooler, and the Earth is less able to shed energy. The Earth warms to restore the energy balance. The “thermal blanket” is mainly irrelevant to the current greenhouse gas effect. It is concluded that almost all discussions of the greenhouse effect are based on the fundamental greenhouse gas effect, which is a hypothetical construct, while the current greenhouse gas effect is what is happening now in the real world.

Adding CO2 does not add much to a “thermal blanket” but instead,
drives emission from the Earth to higher, cooler altitudes.

Background

Were it not for the Sun, the Earth would be a frozen hulk in space. The Sun sends a spectrum of irradiance to the Earth, the Earth warms, and the Earth radiates energy out to space. This process continues until the Earth warms enough to radiate about as much energy to space as it receives from the Sun, reaching an approximate steady state. If for some reason, the Earth is unable to radiate all the energy received from the Sun, the Earth will warm until it can radiate all the energy received. It is widely accepted that rising CO2 concentration reduces the ability of the Earth to radiate energy to space. In a dynamic situation where the CO2 concentration is continually increasing with time, the Earth will continuously warm as it tries to “catch up” to the effect of increasing CO2 and reestablish a steady state. It is a conundrum that while it is widely accepted that rising CO2 concentration produces global warming, the exact mechanism by which warming is induced in the current atmosphere by rising CO2 is not widely understood. The concept of a “thermal blanket” imposed by greenhouse gases to warm the Earth has merit in some contexts but is mainly irrelevant to the question of how adding CO2 to the current atmosphere produces warming.

Before attempting to deal with the question of how rising CO2 concentration affects the current Earth’s climate, it is appropriate to first discuss the Earth’s energy budget. The exact values for each energy flow are not important, but the relative values are important to show which processes dominate.

Finally, we provide an explanation of how adding CO2 to the current atmosphere produces global warming in the current atmosphere. The mechanism is not widely known and is likely to be surprising to some. Warming does not occur by increasing the thickness of the thermal blanket but instead occurs by raising the altitude at which the Earth radiates to space.

IR radiation

A fundamental law of physics states that all bodies emit a spectrum of radiant power proportional to the fourth power of their absolute temperature. A body at absolute temperature T (K) emits power per unit area: P = σ T 4 = 5.67 x 10 -8 T 4 (W/m 2 ) For example, a body at T = 280 K is said to emit 348 W/m 2 . However, this law of physics is academic and not directly applicable to real-world experience. In the real world, we never have a single isolated body emitting radiation, instead, we deal with pairs of bodies where the warmer one radiates a net flux to the cooler one. (If you stand next to a body at 280 K, you don’t feel an incoming heat flux of 348 W/m 2 ). For example, if there is one body at 280 K and a second body at 275 K, the warmer body will radiate through a vacuum to the cooler body at a net of 24 W/m 2 . That is a real-world parameter that can be measured. But the academic model involves calculating the emission of the warm body as 348 W/m 2 and the emission of the cooler body as 324 W/m 2 , and subtracting, the net transfer from the warm body to the cool body is 24 W/m 2 . But the calculated values are academic and cannot be measured in the real world with 348 W/m 2 in one direction and 324 W/m 2 in the opposite direction. Those values are only of academic use to infer the measurable net of about 24 W/m 2 . See the simple model in Figure 1 presented here for illustration.

Figure 1: Radiant heat transfer between warm and cool bodies

The two contexts of the greenhouse effect

We are all aware of the widely discussed greenhouse effect that warms the Earth as the concentration of greenhouse gases increases. But just how does it work? Here, we define two contexts for greenhouse gas effects:

1) The fundamental greenhouse gas effect can be described by a “gedanken experiment” in which one imagines a dry Earth starting with no water or CO 2 and begins adding water and CO 2 . The original atmosphere, lacking water and CO 2 , will transmit IR radiation completely. As a result, the Earth will be quite cool. As H 2 O and CO 2 are added to the atmosphere, the transmission of IR radiation from the Earth’s surface is increasingly inhibited, and the Earth warms. As the Earth warms, evaporation and thermals transmit more energy from the Earth to the atmosphere. By the time H 2 O and CO 2 levels reach current levels, the atmosphere is almost opaque to IR radiation, and a “thermal blanket” greatly reduces IR transmission from the Earth to the atmosphere. The Earth cools primarily by evaporation and thermals, and it is much warmer than if CO 2 and water were absent. The notion of a “thermal blanket” of IR absorbing gases warming the Earth has validity in this context starting with a transmitting atmosphere and adding greenhouse gases. However, once the thermal blanket is established with ~ 400 ppm CO 2 , adding more CO 2 has only a small effect on reducing IR radiation from the surface.

2) The current greenhouse gas effect deals with the question: How does the addition of CO 2 to the atmosphere affect the global average temperature in 2024 and beyond, with CO 2 around 400+ ppm? It was shown previously that starting with no water or CO 2 , adding H 2 O and CO 2 to the atmosphere generates a “thermal blanket” for radiation. But once that “thermal blanket” is well established and the lower atmosphere is very opaque to IR radiation, what is the effect of adding even more CO 2 ? Dufresne, et al. provide a detailed technical analysis to show how the current greenhouse effect works [7]. However, this reference is complex and written for expert specialists in IR transmission through the atmosphere. In the sections that follow, a simpler, qualitative interpretation will be presented.

Figure 3: Energy flows in the Earth’s system. (Based on LTWS references).

Energy budget of the earth

Energy transfer in the Earth system can take place by thermal transfers (“thermals”) where winds carry warm air up to colder regions, evaporation from the surface (removes heat), and condensation in the atmosphere (deposits heat) and radiation (further discussion follows).

After analyzing the data in the LTWS references (see Section 1.2), a rough estimate of key energy flows per unit time in the Earth system is given as follows. The exact numbers are not critical; only their relative values are important for this discussion.

These results can be visualized in Figure 3 which is based on the references LTWS. As shown in Figure 3, incoming solar irradiance (341 W/ m 2 ) is partly reflected by the lower atmosphere back out to space (79 W/m 2 ), partly reflected by the Earth’s surface back out to space (23 W/m 2 ), partly absorbed by the lower atmosphere (76 W/m 2 ), and finally about 163 W/m 2 is absorbed by the surface.

Radiation from the Earth’s surface to the lower atmosphere requires further discussion. The LTWS references show high up and down radiation flows. For example, Trenberth, et al. did not show radiation transfer between the Earth’s surface as a simple 25 W/m 2 net radiative transfer from the surface to the lower atmosphere. Instead, they showed 356 W/m 2 radiated upward from the surface and 333 W/m 2 of “back radiation” from the atmosphere to the surface [2]. The figure 356 W/m 2 radiated upward from the surface corresponds to the theoretical radiation from a blackbody at 281.5 K. The claimed downward figure is difficult to explain. But both of these figures are academic. What is happening is that the warm Earth is radiating upward through an optically thick gas of H 2 O and CO 2 absorbers, and the radiant transfer through that thick gas is estimated to be only a mere ~25 W/m 2 . This is the “thermal blanket” so often referred to in discussions of global warming. The thermal blanket is real. But the problem with so many discussions of the greenhouse effect is that there is a preoccupation with radiant energy transfer between the Earth and the atmosphere (which is “blanketed”) while neglecting the more important transfers of energy to the atmosphere by processes other than radiation.

Figure 4: Pressure, temperature, and relative humidity vs. altitude [8].

The terms “lower atmosphere” and “upper atmosphere” are defined next. Following Miscolczi, Figure 4 shows that the demarcation between upper and lower atmospheres occurs at an altitude of roughly 12 km above which H 2 O is frozen out and the temperature roughly stabilizes [8].

Energy transfer in the lower atmosphere takes place by conduction,
convection, and radiation. Energy transfer in the upper atmosphere
takes place primarily by radiation.

The greenhouse effect

The greenhouse effect can only be fully understood by comprehensive modeling of upward energy flows in the Earth system. Excellent studies by Dufresne, et al. and Pierrehumbert provide detailed physics [7,9]. Here, we interpret these results qualitatively.

Within the Earth system of land, ocean, atmosphere, and clouds, energy transfer is taking place continuously. There is a net energy flow upward toward higher altitudes. From the surface of the Earth, much of the upward flow of energy in the lower atmosphere is through evaporation and convection. The lower atmosphere is almost opaque to IR radiation due to water vapor and CO 2.

Figure 5: Qualitative sketch to show radiation is dominant at the highest altitude. By adding CO2 to the atmosphere, radiative energy transport is carried to a higher altitude where it is colder, reducing the radiant power emitted by the upper atmosphere.

Radiation energy transfer will persist out toward a high altitude until the CO 2 concentration diminishes. Each CO 2 molecule that absorbs an IR photon can reradiate in all directions, but in a thin atmosphere, some upward IR radiation will be lost, and on a net basis, this allows the Earth to radiate out to space. The presence of an IR transmitting/absorbing gas (CO 2 ) will allow energy transport to higher altitudes. The highest altitude where there is enough thin gas to maintain radiation is the region of the atmosphere that mainly radiates energy outward to space. This is illustrated on the left side of Figure 5. Figure 5 was created here to illustrate how the predominant energy transfer mechanisms gradually change to IR radiation at higher altitudes, and the presence of CO 2 carries the IR radiation to higher altitudes.

Conclusion

There are two different contexts for discussion of the effect of greenhouse gases on the Earth’s climate.

In one context, one can imagine an Earth with no water vapor or CO 2 in the atmosphere. This Earth can radiate effectively to space and is relatively cold. As water vapor and CO 2 are added to the atmosphere, the IR-opacity of the atmosphere increases and the Earth system warms. The greenhouse gases act as a “thermal blanket” to warm the Earth by impeding upward IR radiation. This is labeled the fundamental greenhouse gas effect. However, once the thermal blanket is established, adding more CO 2 has only a minimal effect on the thermal blanket, and reduced upward IR radiation from the surface does not produce significant warming. This is referred to by Dufresne, et al. [7] as the “saturation paradox”.

In the other context, we are concerned with the effect of adding more CO 2 to the current atmosphere where the CO 2 concentration is already 400+ ppm, and the thermal blanket is already in place, restricting upward IR-radiation. This is labeled the current greenhouse gas effect, and it is quite different from the fundamental greenhouse gas effect. In the current atmosphere, energy transfer from the Earth to the atmosphere is primarily by evaporation and thermals, and IR-radiant energy transfer is significantly impeded by an almost opaque lower atmosphere. The “thermal blanket” is in place, but it doesn’t change much as CO 2 is added to the atmosphere. Adding CO 2 to the current atmosphere slightly increases the opacity of the lower atmosphere but this is of little consequence.

In the upper atmosphere, CO 2 is the major means of energy transport by IR radiation. The greatest effect of adding CO 2 to the current atmosphere is to extend the upward range of IR-radiant transmission to higher altitudes. The main region where the Earth radiates to space is thereby extended to higher altitudes where it is colder, and the Earth cannot radiate as effectively as it could with less CO 2 in the atmosphere. The Earth warms until the region in the upper atmosphere where the Earth radiates to space is warm enough to balance incoming solar energy.

My Comment:

The explanation above is clear and understandable in qualititative terms. It does not reference empirical evidence regarding a GHG effect from a raised effective radiating level (ERL). Studies investigating this theory find that the effect is too small to appear in the data.

Refresher: GHG Theory and the Tests It Fails

Postscript on Raised Effective Radiating Level

The following diagram by Andy May shows the pattern of emissions by GHGs, mainly H2O and CO2.

Helpfully, it shows the altitudes where the emissions occur. As stated in the text above, the upper and lower tropopsphere shift occurs about 12km high, with variations lower at poles and higher in tropics. Note the large CO2 notch appears at 85km, which puts it into the thermosphere, where temperatures increase with altitude. Raising the ERL there means greater cooling, not less. The Ozone notch at 33km is in the stratosphere, where temperatures also rise with altitude. Otherwise almost all of the IR effect is from H2O.

Insider Exposes Corrupt Climatism (Anika Sweetland)

Posted on April 3 by Ron Clutz

At the World Prosperity Forum in Zurich—held alongside the World Economic Forum in Davos—climate scientist Anika Sweetland delivers a provocative and deeply personal address that challenges the foundations of modern climate orthodoxy.

Drawing on her own education and professional experience, Sweetland recounts how climate science training fostered fear, despair, and unquestioned consensus rather than open scientific inquiry. She argues that generations of students have been indoctrinated with alarmist narratives that distort climate history, suppress debate, and justify sweeping political and economic control.

In this speech, Sweetland examines:

♦ The psychological impact of climate alarmism on children and students
♦ Media-driven climate narratives and shifting doomsday predictions
♦ Historical climate cycles, ocean dynamics, and orbital forces
♦ The role of international institutions and the concentration of power
♦ Why carbon dioxide is portrayed as a villain—and why she disputes that claim
♦ How climate policy, finance, and governance have become tightly intertwined

Presented as a counterpoint to the centralized, collectivist worldview promoted at Davos, this talk embodies the mission of the World Prosperity Forum: to challenge prevailing narratives, defend sovereignty, and restore open debate on climate, energy, and economic policy. For those who prefer reading, below is a transcription with my bolds and added images.

My name is Annika Sweetland and I trained as a climate scientist and during my time in what was meant to be a world-class education, I learned the world was a fragile system on the brink of collapse and that we were practically doomed. What sets me apart from most climate scientists is this, I’ve realized I was indoctrinated. Going through my old lecture notes now, I see lie after lie after lie, painting a picture that does not and will not ever exist. I was that girl that ticked the box when booking a plane ticket to say yes, I’m willing to pay a higher price to make this an environmentally friendly transaction and offset my carbon emissions.

Airlines saving polar bears, sign me up. But of course the
consensus was always the same, there was nothing
I could really do to solve the climate crisis.

So let me take you through my journey from being a scientist in complete and utter despair to standing here before you today armed with the truth. Today I’m going to be telling you about the realities of climate education, so let’s start at the beginning of the climate merry-go-round, the indoctrination of school children. Do you realize the alleged consequences from climate change are actually similar to those of war? The child’s world is inherently unstable, after all due to extreme sea level rise and extreme weather events, their lives are at risk. But this is what we’re teaching our kids, that the world they live in is no longer a safe and stable environment, that ecosystems are collapsing and their world is on fire. This is an outrage, they promised this is the truth and if they question that narrative the school will write to their parents, no debate allowed. I have been told my whole life that there is impending doom in the form of climate change. It was in the news every day, my teachers schooled me on it, my friends were talking about it, there were even degrees in it.

I can be forgiven for believing it. Why wouldn’t you believe what your teachers are telling you? They’re the ultimate authority at a young age. But the most significant point is this, it is the effect it has on our children.

They are scaring our children with these ghastly stories, they are shaping them to feel powerless because they can’t do anything about it and they are moulding them to be disillusioned and angry because the so-called people in charge don’t appear to be doing anything about it either. This is how you get the Greta Thunbergs of the world, that girl honestly believes her world is burning. Imagine for a second what it truly feels like to believe that.

I was at school in 1999 and this new emergency of global warming made me feel anxious and at that time three percent of school-aged children were diagnosed with anxiety. By 2023 this had escalated to more than 20 percent of school-aged children being diagnosed with anxiety. This is not a coincidence, the psychological impact of this story is crippling children’s mental health and it is simply unacceptable.

It is wrong, it is socially irresponsible and the minute they try and peddle that story on my child, well let me just make this clear, hell will have no fury like a mother who knows the truth and who is also a climate expert. Hell will not have enough fury and this is why I’m angry because I’ve seen the system from within and what I found at university wasn’t a debate, it was a script. So when I call climate change a narrative, I’m not being edgy, I’m being precise.

If you want a quick test for whether something is solid science or nonsense, just look for consistency and this consistency is exactly what’s missing. Firstly, the story keeps on changing. If it were a real story I guess the general facts surrounding it would probably remain the same but in the 60s and 70s the majority of scientists were predicting global warming but if you looked in the newspaper you’d think we’re heading straight into an ice age.

In 1974, Radio Times ran the headline, the ice age cometh. American media followed suit. Every cold weather event was sold as proof that there was an ice age approaching. Sound familiar? It should. It’s how the media still works today. A flood, a heat wave, a storm, completely normal weather, splash it across the front page, call it unprecedented and blame climate change. Everyday weather is rebranded as existential crisis. My point is this, it was never scientists telling the world an ice age was coming, it was the media with their use of selected experts. But why? Let’s dig deeper.

Newsweek warned governments were unprepared for climate driven food shortages and that planners were ignoring climatic uncertainty and that delay would make the coming crisis impossible to manage. This wasn’t just weather reporting, it was a script to create panic about hunger, global instability, they pull the lever for sympathy, for suffering in poorer countries and even today we see images of flooded villages, failed crops, desperate families, all offered up as proof of climate catastrophe and as justification for sweeping political action, urgent action with no time to consider the consequences.

In 1988, there was a rebranding exercise. The New York Times headline read, global warming has begun, expert tells Senate. I read this article, the evidence rests on five months of slightly warm weather and in climate sciences, a trend takes 30 years to establish, not just a season and worse still was the baseline they chose, 1950 to 1980. This is the very cooling period they had just used to scream ice age.

This is a classic case of data manipulation, you take a cold reference point and everything after that is going to look unusually warm. This was never ever science, there was never ever a global warming trend, it was data manipulated to tell a story. The ice age never came, first wrong prediction, but the story of the ice age, that did its job.

The media succeeded in creating a generation of fearful believers. In a speech to the Royal Society in 1988, Margaret Thatcher talked about the fear that people were feeling, the fear that humans were creating a global heat trap that could lead to climatic instability. This fear was gaslit by an NGO, the National Academy of Sciences, who promised the warming would cause a sea level rise of several feet over the next century.

The following year, another NGO, the UN, went on the record and promised entire nations will be wiped off the face of the earth due to climate change induced sea level rise by 2020. Well, we’re still here aren’t we? Second false prediction, none of this sea level rise has eventuated and it’s exactly the same story they preach today. Extreme sea level rise and climate change refugees are nothing but a myth designed to scare people into whatever policy response is waiting in the wings.

This is the first reason that the man-made climate change story is nothing more than a doomsday tale that has been evolving for the last 60 years. Think about it. These were arguably two of the world’s most powerful organisations. They’d had access to satellite data for 25 years, the best scientists, the most comprehensive data analysis in the world, plus the mainstream media at their fingertips. Was it really a coincidence that their story never came true? We now know that they would have known via satellites that the sea level was always rising steadily at 1.2 inches per decade, just like it does today. Plus, this sea rise actually brings sediment with it and increases the land mass at the same time, therefore rendering it impossible for islands to sink due to sea level rise.

However, because it was never a real story, they were never interested in the real data. They could clearly see that there was no unusual sea level rise, but they intentionally chose to mislead the public and put their fraudulent plan into action. They advised the World Meteorological Organisation, another NGO, to create the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Now, here’s where it gets juicy. The IPCC is structurally identical to the single world government model I was presented with during my studies as a prescriptive solution to climate change. My professors in global governance assured me that a global problem requires a single world government to fix it, and I admit it. I believed them. I respected my professors. Most of them were published authors in respected journals, and I was promised a world-class education.

But the tragedy is this. They were never training scientists.
They were training socialists to enact their agenda.

And it’s been clear to me for a time now that there’s never been a problem with our climate system, just a smoke screen to establish power and create control. Welcome to the only crisis where their solution is always the same. More control, more taxes, and less debate.

Let me make it clear how the IPCC benefits from maintaining and creating generations of climate change believers. To start with, they sit at the very top of the climate change establishment, and when I say establishment, I simply mean a stable network of institutions that fund, credential, and publish the urgency of man-made global warming. Climate finance reached a record-breaking $1.9 trillion in 2023, and last year saw a record $2.2 trillion in clean energy investment.

That’s more than $4 trillion in a couple of years. Think about who are the main winners here. They’re the unelected officials that sit atop the IPCC hierarchy. These are the people selling, building, financing, and certifying the global transition to clean energy. They are making billions.

The financial victims, the United Kingdom is a victim.

Our economy is on the verge of recession after 30 years of big signatory to international climate agreements. What do we have to show for it? Not only are our energy bills the highest in the developed world, but the economy outside of London is closer to that of Bulgaria’s than Germany’s. Today, 18 to 30-year-olds are the first generation to earn less than their parents. We are getting poorer, both relatively and absolutely. My fellow countrymen are suffering, and this also makes me angry. Because of climate policy, because the IPCC says so, we’re not allowed to drill our own gas fields, which will make us completely reliant for others’ gas in the future.

We have the best quality gas in the world, and its exploration has just been made illegal. For existing projects, for every dollar made, the company is taxed upwards of 78 cents due to unnecessary climate taxation. Let’s take a really good look at just how much power the IPCC have created for themselves. They act as a global risk allocation engine. They determine which technologies reduce subsidies, which activities become legally constrained, which investments are encouraged or stranded.

In the UK, we only have four oil refineries left. These are the basic building blocks of the modern industrial economy, but any company that comes in will not make a profit because the taxes are too high. The IPCC is making us poorer, both as nations and as individuals. Recent blackouts across Europe are just a glimpse into the dystopian future which awaits us.

As long as they continue to make us believe that man-made climate change is going to end life as we know it, we will keep filtering trillions of dollars throughout their organisation without questioning a thing. So what can we do? Firstly, I believe that the average person is more than capable of seeing a situation for what it really is. So please, tune in carefully as I seek to disprove the myth of man-made climate change once and for all.

I’ve got you on tenderhooks now, that’s a good thing. You’re still with me. Let’s bust the first myth. More carbon dioxide causes a warmer planet. Here’s the truth. A recent study by arguably two of the world’s leading atmospheric scientists, both Professor Emeritus, one from MIT, one from Princeton, I mean, these guys are not messing around. They have shown that there is a limit to the amount of heat that is able to be trapped by carbon dioxide and they call this the saturation point. We are at 99% of the saturation point. Relatively speaking, no matter how much carbon dioxide we pump into the air, it will not increase our global temperature. It is but a fallacy. Joe Rogan recently had those authors on his podcast, Dr. Linzen and Dr. Happer. Joe Rogan also wants people to stop drinking the Kool-Aid.

Now let’s bust the second myth, that carbon dioxide is bad for the planet. Guess what? Carbon dioxide is actually good for the planet. That’s right, I said it, the truth. Satellite data shows that plant growth has increased significantly over the last 35 years due to increased carbon dioxide. NASA measured a 10% greening of the earth between 2000 and 2020 alone. Meanwhile, at university, I was taught that trees would starve due to climate change.

They intentionally used the word starve to elicit an emotional response. What actually happens is that when there’s more carbon dioxide available, not only do plants grow faster, but they use less water. We know this because commercial greenhouses pump carbon dioxide to 1400 parts per million because it grows the best plants. It’s called carbon dioxide enrichment. Come on. Carbon dioxide enriches the earth.

And the third myth, carbon dioxide has a direct relationship with temperature. Al Gore was the person responsible for demonizing carbon dioxide, and he said carbon dioxide is the highest it’s ever been. It’s just another lie. It’s actually the lowest it’s been in the last 320 million years. Not only that, but some of the highest levels of carbon dioxide occurred during an ice age 340 million years ago, which just proves that carbon dioxide and temperature have no direct link whatsoever.

Of course, in my training, carbon dioxide and its rise or fall could explain everything that happened in our climatic history through some sort of feedback loop or time lag mechanism. And this is the whole basis of their argument. That more carbon dioxide we put into the atmosphere, the more the temperature will increase. The most important takeaway from this today is that is a lie. The truth is, the earth is just getting greener, and we are simply uneducated as to why the climate actually changes. Indeed, all of us are completely brainwashed to never question it.

So why do the IPCC have a conflict of interest with the truth? Let’s understand exactly how much power this unelected, undemocratic, unaccountable, non-governmental organization are protecting with their lies. The IPCC produce assessments that 195 governments around the world use as an authoritative reference for climate policy. They use IPCC scenarios to set emissions targets, justify carbon budgets. If countries argue for compensation or climate aid, they cite IPCC risk assessments.

The IPCC projections define which regions are at risk and therefore where the money flows. And what they really don’t want you to know is that the most powerful leverage is in financial markets. IPCC scenarios are used in ESG scoring frameworks, climate stress testing for banks, insurance risk models, central bank climate risk assessments, and investment screening criteria. In practice, this means that a company’s ability to access capital increasingly depends on whether its business model is aligned with IPCC-derived pathways.

They have a monopoly not only on the success of entire countries but on individual business interests. In effect, their projections now sit upstream of policy, regulation, infrastructure, and economic structure. And this here, this is why they carry so much power. This isn’t just undemocratic, it’s anti-democratic. I never voted for them to make these decisions. These are people that cannot be held to account by the electorate and that is an unacceptable structure. It is a socialist, globalist agenda that has been carried out right beneath our noses. And it is the spitting image of the one world government framework that was prescribed in my training.

So, with the whole world relying on their projections, with trillions of dollars on the line, you would think that their utmost priority should be the accuracy of those projections. It’s why the believers say, look at the data, you can’t ignore the data. Well, spoiler alert, the data is doctored, just like it’s always been, just like my textbooks were, just like my lecture notes were, this whole thing is indoctrination.

And here is the proof. Hackers leaked emails from IPCC assessment report authors which exposed them freely discussing their efforts in deleting and manipulating the real data because it didn’t quite fit with their doomsday story.

And I quote, I’ll maybe cut the last few points of the filtered curve as that’s trending down. They needed it to be trending upward to fit with their past projections. Another email says, I’ve just completed Mike’s nature trick to hide the decline. These are real emails between the authors of the IPCC report. There are more than 2000 emails like this showing corrupt behavior and they are still the lead authors today. They are unelected, corrupt and have a conflict of interest with the truth. Trillions of dollars of spending rests on fabricated nonsense.

In the UK, if we don’t allocate our national budget to their satisfaction, we’re taken to court. Most recently, we were taken to the European Court of Human Rights because of failure to adequately prepare for extreme heat and flooding. And this, they say, violates fundamental human rights because we are not protecting people against man-made climate change. It is an outrage. So what can we do? It’s time to reclaim our sovereignty.

And we do this by formally leaving all agreements governed by the climate establishment, repeal the Climate Change Act, withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol, withdraw from the UNFCC, leave the Paris Agreement. America withdrew from all United Nations architecture this month. It’s time for the rest of the world to follow suit.

I can already hear the objections, but if we don’t act, aren’t we doomed? As a climate scientist, let me reassure you. The climate is meant to change and it’s meant to change drastically. It is just its natural state and this is very much like the earth. We are in a natural period of warming called the Holocene. We’re still coming out of the Little Ice Age, which was between 1400 and 1900. Our earth’s climate gets warmer and cooler in 1500 year cycles. There is also an ocean pattern called El Nino Southern Oscillation, (ENSO) which drives huge temperature changes. Most global warming is in fact driven by changes in the ocean currents. Other changes are driven by orbital forcings called milankovitch cycles. These cycles change the position of our planet relative to the sun and historically produce an ice age every 100,000 years. There’s nothing man-made about it. There is only natural climate change.

But training experts that the world will listen to and who will enact their agenda is a crucial part of the IPCC’s strategy to retain control. Well, I’m a climate scientist. I’m an expert. So, listen to me. All man-made climate education in schools has to stop. It is not science. It is consensus which is very different to objective scientific fact.

Teach them natural climate change. Teach them about milankovitch cycles, the El Nino. Do not teach them lies that I have just proven wrong. I don’t want my child to gain an ideology. I want him to gain an education. The next generation must be clever. And for this to happen, they need to be learning factual information.

For anyone out there that has ever felt guilty or afraid due to climate change, I want to reassure you, you are not the problem. We have been brainwashed every day by the media. We are being lied to every day. And if we question it, we’re told we’re crazy. We are told we’re in denial because the climate establishment is afraid.

They will tell you that I’m the extreme one because I don’t believe the world is on fire. They will do everything they can to make us fearful. The world as we know it is ending, burning, boiling, to maintain control, constrain us in regulatory burden, and have us accountable to their courts if we spend our taxpayers money the wrong way.

The climate establishment targeted intelligent people who genuinely loved the environment. They taught us the earth was dying and on the brink of collapse. And I believed it. That is not stupidity. That is programming. Because my university lecturers who I respected and the institution of the university itself assured me this was the latest cutting edge research.

I mean I’m thinking I want my money back at this point. They told you it’s settled. They told you it’s urgent. They told you to comply. Well, I’ve told you what they haven’t. The climate is meant to change. The man couldn’t affect the climate system even if he wanted to. Carbon dioxide is good for the planet and will not increase the temperature any. And both children and university students are being brainwashed to blindly perform and enact their agenda.

Well, I am no puppet. For me, once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. The choice of what to believe is now yours. But the establishment should be afraid because I am a climate scientist who knows the truth. Thank you. Thank you so much. I also just want to thank the Heartland Institute so much for having me speak at the inaugural World Prosperity Forum here in Zurich.

Six Impossible Climate Things to Believe

Posted on January 1 by Ron Clutz

Image created with ChatGPT.

Javier Vinós provides the list in his yearend Clintel post Six Impossible Things to Believe. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

Like Alice’s White Queen, European and Spanish authorities
want us to believe six impossible things about
climate change and the energy transition.

In Alice Through the Looking-Glass, a character by Lewis Carroll says, “One can’t believe impossible things,” to which the White Queen replies, “When I was your age, I sometimes believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”

Like Alice’s White Queen, European and Spanish authorities want us to believe six impossible things about climate change and the energy transition, before and after breakfast. These six impossible things to believe — and yet many people, like the White Queen, do believe them — are as follows:

The first is believing that humans have — or could have in the near future — some degree of control over the climate and the weather, and that through our actions we can reduce the frequency and intensity of hurricanes, floods, droughts, or sea-level rise. Anyone who believes this is capable of believing anything.

The second is believing that the climate, in its extraordinary complexity with hundreds — perhaps thousands — of variables, is controlled by just one: changes in the concentration of greenhouse gases. The theory and models that propose this are based on a good understanding of the properties of CO₂, but a poor understanding of the other climatic variables. And the fact that no solid evidence for this theory has emerged, despite decades of intensive searching, makes it very difficult to believe.

The third is believing that an energy transition is taking place or will take place. There are no examples of energy transitions. We use more biomass, coal, oil, natural gas, and uranium than at any other time in history, and we are simply adding the so-called renewable energies, which are installed, maintained, and replaced thanks to hydrocarbon fuels. Our energy use is growing faster than our capacity to install renewable energy. The transition is a myth, and anyone who claims to believe in it is either lying or poorly informed.

The fourth is believing that the use of hydrocarbon fuels is going to be .abandoned At the recent climate conference in Brazil, a group of countries, including Spain, pushed for the agreement to include a roadmap for abandoning those fuels. They were forced to back down, and hydrocarbon fuels are not even mentioned in the final agreement. Eighty-three governments supported that roadmap, but together they represent only 13.6% of the world’s population. The remaining 86.4% shows no intention of abandoning the source from which the human species obtains 85% of its external energy.

It is impossible to believe that such an abandonment will take place because, 33 years after the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and 10 years after the Paris Agreement, support among nations for abandoning hydrocarbon fuels has decreased rather than increased.

The fifth is believing that a reduction in global CO₂ emissions will occur. These emissions are linked to human development and population growth. Many regions of the planet remain underdeveloped, and the world’s population will continue to grow in the coming decades.

Since the first climate conference in Berlin in 1995, where strict emission-reduction commitments were adopted — but only for “developed” nations — global CO₂ emissions have increased by 70%. These 30 years should be enough to convince anyone that they are not going to stop rising.

The Fantasy

The sixth is believing that energy can be decarbonized. Only 23% of the EU’s final energy consumption is electricity, and only 70% of that electricity comes from carbon-free sources. One third of it comes from nuclear energy, which Spain rejects and which was installed in the last century. So far this century, the EU has managed to decarbonize less than 10% of the energy it uses. Most of the planet is not even trying.

These six things are impossible to believe, but if we refuse to believe even just one of them, the entire climate and energy strategy of the European Union and the Spanish government is revealed as a tragic farce. Based on these impossibilities, our national and European governments have committed themselves to a transition whose consequences we are already suffering:

♦ more expensive energy,
♦ declining industrial production and competitiveness,
♦ increased risk to the power grid,
♦ environmental policies with tragic consequences,
♦ greater indebtedness, and, ultimately,
♦ an accelerated decline of Europe relative to the rest of the world.

	Taking Stock: 5 Reas… on Rise and Fall of the Modern Wa…
	Taking Stock: 5 Reas… on Taking Stock: Five Reasons to…
	September 2026 Arcti… on Support MASIE Arctic Ice Datas…
	Ron Clutz on PM Carney: Stop Emoting and Ge…
	Thomas Sash on PM Carney: Stop Emoting and Ge…

3. Climatists weaponize natural events to gain social control for a global agenda. It’s About Power, Not Truth or Humanity.

The Obvious Exploitation of Natural Events

Heatwaves

Hurricanes

Wildfires

Public Discourse Contaminated by Imaginary Climate Crisis Notion

Overview

The Risible Myth Of Climate Equipoise

Current mildly rising temperatures are in keeping with the historical truth that warmer is better for humanity and most other species, too.

Mann’s Attempt to Erase Pre-Industrial Warming

Overview

1. During the past 600 million years, the earth has rarely been as cool as at present, and almost never has it had as low CO2 concentrations as the 420 ppm level that today’s climate howlers decry.

The Climate Crisis as a Religion (aka The Church of Carbon)

Fear is the Fuel

The Collapse of Critical Thinking

The Media Echo Chamber

Follow the Money

China’s Role in the Global Equation

Weaponized Guilt

The Useful Idiots

So, what do we do?

Background Resources

And Now The Energy Institute 2026 Report

Renewables Breakdown

Global Mean Temperatures.

Footnote: CO2 Concentrations Compared to WFFC

Footnote: Atlantic Cold Blob Comes On the Scene

1. Introduction

2. Heat energy and temperatures

3. CO2 measurements in atmosphere and ice cores

4. Chemical laws for distribution of CO2 in nature

5. Carbon isotopes in atmospheric CO2

6. Conclusions

See Also:

Abstract

IR radiation

The two contexts of the greenhouse effect

Energy budget of the earth

The greenhouse effect

Conclusion

My Comment:

Postscript on Raised Effective Radiating Level

The Fantasy