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 tocause 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 equilibriumwith 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.
I received today an email from Dr. Bernd Fleischmann acknowledging my effort to present an english version of his recent presentation. In order to have a more accurate and complete communication he sent me the set of english slides in a pdf embedded below. Along with several additional exhibits, this makes a much more powerful and accessible statement of his points regarding the notion of a Climate Crisis. You can either scroll through the exhibits embedded on this page, or download the pdf file by hitting the download button at the bottom.
I thank Dr. Fleischmann for his research and organized critique of this issue and for speaking truth to the powers that be, many of whom are still entranced by a false narrative.
In the above presentation, Dr. Bernd Fleischmann cuts to the quick on the Issue: Is Climate hysteria scientifically refuted? In this provocative lecture, the speaker addresses current climate and environmental issues in the context of global warming and the political agenda. He criticizes the German Federal Constitutional Court’s climate rulingand questions the compatibility of fundamental rights with CO2 reduction measures. Furthermore, he refutes the tipping point theory and many climate models as unreliable, emphasizing the marginal influence of CO₂ on temperature in favor of natural factors.
He also addresses the unintended consequences of wind power and warns against a political agendathat allegedly seeks greater control over the population. The speaker appeals to the audience to critically consider the information disseminated. H/T NoTricksZone
I received today an email from Dr. Bernd Fleischmann acknowledging my effort to present an english version of his recent presentation. In order to have a more accurate and complete communication he sent me the set of english slides in a pdf embedded below. Along with several additional exhibits, this makes a much more powerful and accessible statement of his points regarding the notion of a Climate Crisis. You can either scroll through the exhibits embedded on this page, or download the pdf file by hitting the download button at the bottom. Link in red goes to post with english slikes.
The original language is german, but video settings allow for choice of language, both audio and closed captions. For those who prefer to read I provide below a lightly edited transcript with my bolds and added images consisting of the following themes:
Introduction to the Climate Issue
Ignorance as the Basis of Climate Policy
The Media and Their Responsibility
Propaganda in Climate Research
The Reality of the ‘Climate Crisis’
The Influence of CO2 on Plants
Wind Turbines and Their Unexpected Consequences
Redistribution Through Climate Policy
Conclusions and Personal Remarks
Introduction to the Climate Issue
The question is, of course, a rhetorical question, as you can imagine. But the topic is interesting and still very important. And you can see that, for example, in the climate decision of the Federal Constitutional Court. Most of you probably don’t remember it being published a few years ago. But the fewest know that we will be affected by it for the next few years. Because it was decided that for Germany a carbon dioxide budget of 6.7 gigatons is still available, so that we can save the global climate.
And we have already used half of that. And we will have used the remaining half in the next five years or so. And what comes next? The Constitutional Court already has a solution for this. It wrote at the time that behaviors that are directly or indirectly associated with CO2 emissions can only be allowed if the basic rights can be implemented in accordance with climate protection. But the relative weight of freedom of movement, i.e. not free time, but freedom of movement, i.e. eating a sausage, driving a car, these are freedom of movement, because all of this is harmful to carbon dioxide. They are then restricted.
And we have to be aware of that. In the decision that took place without oral negotiations and without listening to reasonable people, but only relied on the results of the IPCC and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Research, only these, I would say, alarmist models were laid down. And now we have to ask ourselves, can you trust them? Can you trust the Potsdam Institute for Climate Research? It is the most influential climate institute in the world with almost 500 employees, which we all here finance, as far as we pay taxes.
And they, for example, they brought up the legend of the tipping points. There was a publication in 2008. And this is a picture from this publication without the arrows. I added the arrows. I may have to explain it briefly. Tipping points are elements of the Earth’s climate system. These are these colorful surfaces here that will tip when it gets a few degrees warmer. That’s the assumption. And they defined around a dozen of these tipping points at the time.
And eleven years later, in 2019, the five elements on which the arrows indicate, I added these arrows because they no longer appeared in the update in 2019. For example, the greening of the Sahara was a positive tipping point. The theory is, and it’s actually true so far, when it gets warmer, more water evaporates from the oceans. There are then clouds and then it rains more. And then the Sahara turns green. And as a tipping point, it was also defined that way because it stays green.
But because this is not alarmistic enough, this tipping point was thrown out. And the other tipping points don’t appear in the update either. This is a graphic from the update in 2019. Other tipping points are defined there. But they have long been contradicted by statistics and climate history. So the greening of the Sahara was no longer an issue.
And measurements contradict almost all these tipping points. And as alarmists, they pay for themselves. So you can’t trust the Potsdam Institute for Climate Follow-up Research.
At least, you can trust the World Climate Council. They wrote something right 13 years ago. Namely, if the CO2 content in the atmosphere doubles, i.e. 100% more, then the temperature rises by any value between 1 and 6 degrees. That was pretty honest. Especially because they also added with 10% more probability, with 5% less probability.
Ignorance as the Basis of Climate Policy
But ultimately, this tension between 1 and 6 degrees means that they don’t know. This is a sign of ignorance. And everything that is told to us, it is based on a mean value that they have taken, but which cannot be justified by the models. It is arbitrary.
If you look at CO2 alone, then it becomes warmer by a maximum of 1 degree, rather less. And everything that is added, it comes through feedback. And these positive feedbacks, these reinforcing feedbacks. A feedback, a positive one is, for example, if I hold the microphone towards the speaker, then it whistles. This is a reinforcing feedback.
And every reinforcing feedback in a loss-free system leads to instability. And the climate would then be unstable if these models were correct. But the climate has been stable for the last 10,000 years, as we all know. The climate system is stable, the feedbacks are not reinforcing. And the measurements also confirm these reinforcing feedbacks.
Richard Lindzen is one of the advisors of Donald Trump. And he is an emerited professor. Almost everyone who dares to tell the truth is emerited these days, because they are no longer dependent on financial support. And he said, all models do not agree with the observations. So the positive feedback in the models is wrong. In the last IPCC report of 2021, this span was slightly reduced from 1 to 6 degrees.
But at the same time he wrote, our new models scatter more than the old ones. That is, it is actually a larger span that these models produce, which has nothing to do with reality. And from the new IPCC report is this graph.
I have to explain this now. This graph represents the reflected solar radiation. What comes down from the sun is reflected. From clouds, from everything that is on the earth’s surface, from ice and snow, of course, but also from plants, etc. And this graph, the black one, is supposed to be the measurement. And the colorful ones are models. And this graph shows that the reflection is increasing. So more is scattered back. And if more solar radiation is scattered back, it gets colder.
Figure 8. Comparison between observed global temperature anomalies and CERES-reported changes in the Earth’s absorbed solar flux. The two data series representing 13-month running means are highly correlated with the absorbed SW flux explaining 78% of the temperature variation (R2 = 0.78). The global temperature lags the absorbed solar radiation between 0 and 9 months, which indicates that climate change in the 21st Century was driven by solar forcing.
So this graph indicates that this cannot be a reason for the warming that we have found. And this is the original graph, the lower graph. From the CERES program, that is a satellite measurement program, you can call it. And the two graphs are exactly mirrored. So in fact, the reflected solar radiation, which is reflected by the sun, has become less over the last few years. And significantly less. And that explains the warming. That is, because the IPCC has shown the opposite, they have mirrored it. This cannot have been a coincidence.
Figure 10. This graph is the cloud fraction and is set forth on the left vertical axis. The temperature is on the right vertical axis and the horizontal axis represents the observation year. The information was extrapolated from figures prepared by Hans-Rolf Dubal and Fritz Vahrenholt [37]. Source: Nelson & Nelson (2024;)
The report has 3,000 pages, just the one from the Working Group 1, which deals with physics. And around this graph, there is about a third page, which deals with it and does not really thematize it. So, the increase in the absorbed solar radiation, it is less reflected, it is absorbed more, that explains the warming. And I calculated that, how the temperature development is. And I have taken this increase of the absorbed solar radiation into account.
The exhibit shows since 1947 GMT warmed by 0.8 C, from 13.9 to 14.7, as estimated by Hadcrut4. This resulted from three natural warming events involving ocean cycles. The most recent rise 2013-16 lifted temperatures by 0.2C. Previously the 1997-98 El Nino produced a plateau increase of 0.4C. Before that, a rise from 1977-81 added 0.2C to start the warming since 1947.
And El Niño in the Pacific and the Niño phenomena in the Atlantic. These are ocean cycles, which are irregular, but occur again and again. They then cause, for example, for this warming 2010, 2016, 2024. So it has to do with the ocean cycles. And the linear trend since 2000 to 2025, it comes from the increase of the absorbed solar radiation. The blue curve is the temperature curve measured by satellites. And the orange curve, I hope this is also orange here, the orange curve is the temperature curve that I calculated.
Without greenhouse gases, only the effects, increase of the absorbed solar radiation and the ocean cycles in the Pacific and in the Atlantic. That’s it. That’s it to calculate how the temperature develops. The difference between the two curves is in the middle 0.05 degrees. And you will not finda climate researcher who, with the greenhouse theory, with CO2 and something else, comes to similarly good agreement. I have, as I said, completely ignored the greenhouse gases and come to a very good agreement.
CO2 plays a small role, in my opinion, but it is so small that it has been declining more or less in the rush for at least the last 25 years. So what the IPCC said in 2013, 1 to 6 degrees temperature range, this ignorance, that was the basis for the Paris climate agreement, for the EU Green Deal, for the Climate Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court and, as a result, for the destruction of industry in Germany, for the poverty of the population. You probably already feel it in your wallet. And for future freedom restrictions. All this is based on ignorance.
The Media and Their Responsibility
And the Germans are of course not the only ones who are on this wrong path. The UNO propagates it quite strongly. This figure here, this knight of the sad figure, this is Antonio Guterres, the UN General Secretary, and he spoke of the sinking planet. He is very good with his formulations. The sinking planet, it supposedly stands in the water in front of Tuvalu. This is an island group in the Pacific. Coral islands.
And the article in Time magazine is from 2019. A year earlier there was a publication that dealt with how the surface of Tuvalu develops. And they found that Tuvalu is growing. Coral islands adapt to the sea level. The corals form a rock. This is then partially ground up in the surf and lifted up to the island with the next storm. That is why they have not sunk in the last thousand years and will not do so when the sea level rises, which it does, but also much slower than many claim. It grows at almost all measuring stations only with 1-2 mm per year. So that was a lie that the planet is sinking.
Nonsense anyway. He then increased it with the statement that the era of global warming is over. We are now in the era of global cooking. I think that from 10 km above sea level the water boils at 40 ° C or so. But what he says is complete nonsense. I ask myself, how did this socialist become UN Secretary General? Who is pulling the strings? And the most important question that interests me the most is, what does this guy smoke? Time magazine definitely spreads lies.
When I read this headline it took me about 5 seconds to find out in Google what is really going on with Tuvalu. And they have to do that too. It is their duty as journalists to report truthfully.
Well, the Time magazine is not so great now, but we still have the Upper Bavarian Volkszeitung. Climate emergency, United Nations set alarm. This, of course, also comes from Guterres. And it says in the article I called it on April 20th. The article is from March 24th. And it says the past year was the second or third warmest since measured.
The second or third warmest, okay. But we know exactly that it was 1.43 degrees warmer than 150 years ago. So they know that by a hundredth of a degree. But not whether it was the second or third warmest. Questionable. Well, the reference period is 1850 to 1900. Guterres added other nonsense, load limits, etc. Of course I looked at it. I thought, okay, very interesting.
What measuring stations were there in 1850? I looked up at NASA. The Goddard Institute for Space Studies has several thousand measuring stations that are, I’m not allowed to say, manipulated, that design it creatively. But of course they didn’t do that for the time from 1850, because these are all measuring stations from the time until 1879.
They don’t need new glasses. There are none. This is a graph directly from the website of NASA GIS. And you can enter which period. I entered from 1879. So all stations that have been running continuously since 1879. And that’s exactly zero. Exactly zero. And then I looked at what it looks like on the other side of the globe. So it’s Pacific, Australia, Antarctica. And the period from 1880. There were the first measuring stations. And that’s a handful. A handful for half the globe. At that time there was not a single measuring station in Africa.
Not a single one. And in many other countries of the world there was not a single measuring station. And on 95% of the earth’s surface there were no measuring stations at all. There are still no measuring stations today that provide really meaningful values in most of Africa on an area of 20 million square kilometers. That’s twice as much as the area of Europe. There are no measuring stations.
And then they produce a temperature for the globe with an accuracy of one hundredth of a degree for a period when there were practically no measuring stations. That’s nonsense. Yes, down here in Argentina there is a measuring station. I looked at it. It shows a cooling down for the last 150 years. So how much warmer has it actually become? Certainly not 1.43 degrees since the end of the Little Ice Age.
Yes, the end of the 19th century. Yes, this reference period 1850 to 1900. That was the coldest phase of the Holocene of the last 10,000 years. The glaciers have advanced as far as never in the last 10,000 years. They have threatened villages in Switzerland. You can read that. It was the coldest phase.
And a warmer phase was, for example, the High Middle Ages about 1,000 years ago. And you know that it was about as warm as it is today. Otherwise, the Vikings would not have made their way to Greenland. Well, Greenland was not entirely green. It is not entirely covered by ice today. But Iceland was ice-free a few thousand years ago.
And my estimate for the temperature development in the last 1,000 years is 0 plus or minus 1 degree. So I don’t know it exactly. I don’t know if anyone knows it better. But this 0 plus or minus 1 degree is, let’s say, an engineer-like statement with an uncertainty.
Propaganda in Climate Research
1.43 degrees without uncertainty is propaganda. And propaganda is what the media can do best. Some of you may remember this hysteria from three years ago. Po river and Lake Garda are drying up. The editorial network Deutschland is one of almost 500 media where the SPD has the say. 500. I think they have a share in more media than not. But they were not the only ones.
Po river and Lake Garda are drying up. Lake Garda is only filled to 38%. The average depth of Lake Garda is 133 meters. Absolutely ridiculous. But news agencies like Reuters and EPA have spread the nonsense. The Süddeutsche Zeitung, Die Zeit and of course ARD and ZDF. And the fact is, the level was only 0.5 meters lower than usual at this time of year. A few months later it was higher than usual in the summer.
Yes, this is just normal variation. Therefore, my recommendation to the media and if a media representative is here, please turn on your brain before you spread nonsense.
The Reality of the ‘Climate Crisis’
So, there would be a climate crisis if it got colder. Yes, the little ice age, that was the phase of starvation, poverty, but also flooding. The largest part of the flood was 200 years ago in the little ice age, 1804. Not the one 5 years ago, in 1804 it was worse. And what you see here, this is the vegetation in North Africa. Once to the peak of the Holocene, that is, the current warm season, about 6000 years ago.
And there you see three little white spots up here. I don’t know if you can see them on the screen. Yes, you can still see them. These three little white spots, that was the desert 6000 years ago. Today it is almost the entire desert of North Africa because it has become colder. It was warmer back then and there were no glaciers on Iceland because it was warmer.
So there were not glaciers, but birch forests. And the lower graphic is for the last interglacial warm period 130,000 years ago. It was even warmer there. It was about 8 degrees warmer than today. And what happened? The Sahara was even greener. And all climate researchers know that it was warmer and greener back then.
That’s why you hear a lot, we had the hottest month, the hottest year since 125,000 years ago. Because 125,000 years ago the interglacial period came to an end and the ice age began. And the EME warm period was so warm without the four private jets of Bill Gates. He has four, two Bombardier, two Gulfstream and without our beautiful SUV.
The Influence of CO2 on Plants
Back to the topic of the climate crisis. More CO2 is of course also good. The plants need CO2 to grow. Everyone knows that. And the more CO2 is in the air, the better they grow. That’s why CO2 dioxide is often added. And this graph is from the Australian Environment Agency. This graph shows the growth of leaf coverings in the last 40 years. And green and blue areas show an increase in leaves and only the red areas show a decrease.
So where there is a fire, there is less fire. But especially in the semi-dry areas in the Sahel, that is the area south of the Sahara, from the Atlantic to the Indian ocean, it has become much greener. In India it has become much greener.
In Australia and other areas it has become much greener. That is why they do not belong to war zones. The population of the Sahel has tripled to quadrupled in all countries in the last 40 years. Because it has become greener, they were able to do that. The deserts are getting smaller. And the Sahel has benefited more than almost any other region in the world.
The Süddeutsche Zeitung has written the opposite. Where is the Sahel zone, whose inhabitants suffer the most from climate change? I think Dr. Weiss, the director of the Wissensredaktion, knows it better. I had a communication with the Süddeutsche three years ago. I showed them with scientific publications ten mistakes on their website . Within a few days I got an answer. They did not try to contradict me. They told me five other things, which were also wrong. These mistakes are still on the website. And I have a presentation on my website, in which the mistakes are shown and why they are mistakes. And because I drew the attention of the Süddeutsche Zeitung to the mistakes, it is no longer an accident or out of ignorance. They deliberately lie.
Is it better to be warm? Someone has to tell this to Karl Lauterbach, who annoys us with his heat protection killers. This is from a publication in Lancet. This is one of the most famous medical science journals. Unfortunately, the graphic is as it is. You can’t see what it says. This is an overview of all European countries, from southern Europe to northern Europe.
The blue bars are deaths from severe cold. The red bars are deaths from severe heat. It looks similar in size. It looks like this for you, because you can’t see the scale below. The ones in the front can see it. The scale is about 5 different.
And if you compare it with the same scale, it looks like the chart on the right. There are 5 to 10 times more deaths from cold than from heat Even in southern Europe, there are more deaths from cold than from heat. Even in the countries of Africa and Oceania, this was found in another publication.
Heat is not the problem. In Singapore, the average temperature is 17 degrees higher than in Germany. And people live 5 years longer. It even says on Wikipedia, there are different times, life expectancy, temperature. Of course, this is even on Wikipedia on different pages, life expectancy, temperature, but it is a fact. So five to ten times more deaths from cold than from heat.
Wind Turbines and Their Unexpected Consequences
So why are we doing all this with the wind turbines? Can we trust the wind turbine lobby? Of course, this is also a rhetorical question, the solution is coming.
This is unfortunately a complicated graphic, but it can be explained relatively well. Because it doesn’t cool down so well, more water evaporates from the ground. The soils dry out more with wind turbines. And if you plaster the whole world with wind turbines, if you switch the entire energy supply to wind and sun, then there is a Temperature increase that people have calculated. And the red curve down here, this is the temperature curve for the case that 40% of the total energy is generated by wind turbines, 4 seconds. 40% worldwide increases the temperature, I think you can see, by 1 to 3°, so more than carbon dioxide. Its a Chinese publication and Germany would then be a single windpark with hundreds of thousands of wind turbines.
Firstly, we don’t want to see that and, secondly,
we don’t want it for our soils and for the quality of life.
But not only the Chinese have found out, but there is a marine research center, the Helmholz-Zentrum Hereon. They have investigated this for wind turbines in the sea and they have found that these wind farms are changing the North Sea. They even change the ocean currents, they change the mixing on the surface and the reduction of the wind behind the wind farms. This can be measured up to 70 km behind the wind farm.
And then they wrote, so not me, but Helmholz-Zentrum Hereon, who live on taxpayers’ money, they were honest, they wrote that the changes show similar orders of magnitude as the suspected ones changes due to climate change. So, we want to prevent climate change and prevent a suspected and definitely create climate change with the wind turbines. So it really doesn’t get any dumber than that.
And we don’t just change the climate with wind turbines,
some people get sick with the infrasound of the wind turbines.
Not everyone may be so sensitive, but these infracircuits are the pulsed pressure changes that result from such a propeller blade passing the mast. This creates a pressure that spreads. You can’t hear it, but you can feel it. These are enormously high switching pressures and just like they are in the Discoen bass, you can feel it when you’re around. And sensitive people can still do that in 5 km distance, via petzo channels in our cells.
There are publications for this discovery, the Pzukanal even won the Nobel Prize in 2021. So that’s science, that’s not whirlwind. And the organ that suffers the worst from these pressure fluctuations is our brain. And maybe they want to make us stupid on purpose so that we continue to vote for the old parties. I don’t know. So, here are a few sources. There is much more. You can’t find the information on my website yet. I have them relatively new.
Redistribution Through Climate Policy
Okay, they trust Harald Lesch from his statements. He once said that there were temperature increases of more than 10° within a few decades. That’s right. That happened in the Ice Age. Today the argument says:
“Climate change is man-made, leads to catastrophic storms and thermal power plants increase the temperature through their waste heat.”
This is all wrong with the idea of the climate case He has a climate kit for the Ludwig Maximilian University which was distributed to all kinds of schools. When presenting this case, he made 30 false statements in one hour, which I was able to prove to him. 30, so one every 2 minutes. I won’t go into detail about it now, you can find a PDF on my website. If you see, hit me around the ears. Good.
So, who ultimately benefits? Ottmar Edenhofer said that 16 years ago, he is Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Research and he said that we are redistributing money and de facto destroying the world’s wealth. He did not say to whom it would be redistributed. However, he has admittedly, it has nothing to do with environmental policy. In any case, it doesn’t reach the poorest. And who benefits?
Yes, who has benefited from the Covid vaccination? Vaccination in quotation marks, of course. Some of you will probably think of this name here. Bill Gates has sent a letter to all participants of the last climate conference in Brazil and said that there are more important things than a certain temperature that we must not exceed. Feeding the world is more important and he did not say the medical care provided by the pharmaceutical companies he leads. I took a closer look at his letter.
He makes statements in various areas where we have to achieve net zero. He stands by his statement, we need net zero as soon as possible. and he named 36 companies in this letter. And I took a look at what kind of companies they are. They are all from Breakthrough Energy’s portfolio. This is an investment vehicle that he founded, in which Jeff Bezos of Amazon, Bloomberg Media’s Michael Bloomberg, George Soros, Mark Zuckerberg and other billionaires are involved.
Why did he write this letter? Because the USA has withdrawn from the Paris Climate Agreement and all these companies are not viable, without subsidies and without regulations that applied in the USA and no longer apply. That was a battle letter to the other states. Make the motto: “Help me, otherwise I’ll get in trouble from my fellow billionaires.” And this energy transition in quotation marks with almost everything we do is a redistribution from poor to rich and super-rich and he actually admitted it himself.
Conclusions and Personal Remarks
So, I’m slowly coming to the end. I spoke a little slower so that I could be understood well. I hope this worked.
The question is, of course, why are other climate scientists not being heard? And there’s this email that was laid out as part of ClimateGate a few years ago, very revealing. The most influential climate scientist to the most influential climate scientist in the United States, saying we will publish and keep out of the IPCC report publications that do not correspond to their opinion. And if necessary, we will redefine what peer review, is. So they deliberately make propaganda.
Conclusion: There is no threat of a climate crisis.The greenhouse effect caused by carbon dioxide is marginal. Carbon dioxide is the gas of life. More carbon dioxide makes the world greener. The influence of the sun from clouds and ocean cycles determines the temperature.
Wind turbines raise the temperature. And they dry out the soils. To do this, they poison the environment with the glass fibers that are knocked out. They kill insects 5000 tons per year. It was once calculated in Germany. They kill feather mice and birds of prey.
Infrasound makes you sick and reduces plant growth. This is because plants also have these petzo channels in their cells and grow less well. Science agrees, it is a lie. I am the living example that it is a lie. And the energy transition is a redistribution of normal earners.
Never trust AD, ZDF, Süddeutsche Zeitung etc. So many of them have not known me to this day. I am not a well-known expert, because you only become a well-known expert if you support government policy, and I don’t do that. Thank you very much.
The IPCC has published a new generation of climate scenarios – and buried in the fine print is a remarkable concession: the extreme warming pathways that dominated climate research, policy, and media coverage for decades were never actually plausible. It took a while to notice because almost no one in mainstream media bothered to report it. Science policy analyst Roger Pielke Jr. wrote,
“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has just published the next generation of climate scenarios,” calling it “big news” that “eliminated the most extreme scenarios that have dominated climate research over much of the past several decades.”
The conclusion was unambiguous. “The IPCC and broader research community has now admitted that the scenarios that have dominated climate research, assessment and policy during the past two cycles of the IPCC assessment process are implausible. They describe impossible futures.”
Those “impossible futures” formed the backbone of a decade-plus of apocalyptic climate messaging – melting ice caps, submerged coastlines, mass extinctions, widespread crop failures, and global hunger, always around the corner, always demanding immediate, economy-reshaping action to avert a catastrophe that, it now turns out, the underlying science community had assigned to a category closer to science fiction than projection.
The new IPCC framework formally demotes its remaining “HIGH scenario” from expected outcome to “exploratory – a thought experiment, not a projection.” [SSP5-85]
That’s a significant institutional retreat.
Pielke noted that the previous framework lacked “any systematic effort to evaluate plausibility of scenarios,” meaning the scariest pathways were able to dominate the policy debate for years without anyone in the room applying a basic reality check.
What matters today is that the group with official responsibility for developing climate scenarios for the IPCC and broader research community has now admitted that the scenarios that have dominated climate research, assessment and policy during the past two cycles of the IPCC assessment process are implausible. They describe impossible futures.
Curiously, the revised framework was technically adopted back in 2021, but has only now filtered into public view as related technical and institutional changes caught up. And it’s fair to ask why. The policy consequences of those “impossible futures” were very real.
It cannot be over-emphasised how important this finding of implausibility is. It means that almost every fearmongering mainstream media climate headline and story that has been written over the last 15 years is junk. Of course it also explains why a growing band of sceptical commentators have refused to accept the political concept of ‘settled’ science and have engaged in widespread debunking. Shooting fish in a barrel is one way of describing this work. At times, with just a modicum of investigative scepticism, the stories can be seen as little more than an insult to average human intelligence.
When the RCP8.5 assumptions are loaded into computer models, they run politically-convenient red hot suggestions that the temperature in 2100 will rise by about 4°C from a 1850-1900 baseline – in other words, a rise of nearly 3°C in the next 80 years. Only the most deranged eco loons will claim such large short-term rises out loud, so the activist scientists quietly loaded garbage assumptions into their computers to arrive at their garbage-out Armageddon scares. The writing was on the wall for RCP8.5 last year when President Trump’s executive order titled ‘Restoring Gold Standard Science’ effectively banned the use of RCP8.5 for scientists on the United States federal payroll. It also noted one of the unrealistic RCP8.5 assumptions driving deliberate climate psychosis to be that end-of-century coal use will exceed estimates of recoverable reserves.
At the time, the climate researcher Zeke Hausfather dismissed the Trump Administration’s claims about RCP8.5 by stating that the research community had moved on. But Pielke has taken issue with this ‘nothing to see here’ claim. He states that from 2018 to 2021, Google Scholar reported 17,000 articles published using RCP8.5 compared with 16,900 in the next three year period. “Some shift,” he observed.
Again, those using less charitable words might note that the ultimate climate crackpipe has proved difficult to put down. A long and painful process of rehabilitation now seems likely.
Milloy reads AI bias/climate riot act to IBM management at annual shareholder meeting. Here is the media release and audio presentation for the IBM shareholder proposal of the Free Enterprise Project of the National Center for Public Policy Research. The annual shareholder meeting is April 28, 2026. Text of press release below with my bolds and added images.
Press Release: IBM’s AI Model: Garbage In, Garbage Out
Washington, D.C. – At next week’s IBM annual meeting, shareholders will vote on a proposal from the National Center for Public Policy Research’s Free Enterprise Project (FEP) tackling potential bias within the company’s artificial intelligence models.
Proposal 7 (“AI Bias Audit”) requests “a report, within the next year, on the methods used to eliminate bias from the Company’s artificial intelligence (AI) models.”
At the April 28 meeting, FEP Executive Director Steve Milloy will cite climate alarmism as an example of where AI too often gets it wrong:
I am an AI user and it can be a great tool. But AI is subject to what 1950s IBM programmer George Fuechsel called “GIGO” – garbage in, garbage out. The Internet is full of amazing information. It is also full of amazing garbage. AI models often cannot distinguish between the two.
An example of garbage-in, garbage-out AI occurs in the controversial area of global warming and climate change. Here are three hardcore facts about climate:
♦ It cannot be scientifically demonstrated that greenhouse gas emissions have had
any effect on global climate.
♦ Emissions-driven climate models do not work.
♦ No emissions-based apocalyptic climate prediction has ever come true.
Despite these realities, if you query IBM AI on climate, you will get back gloom-and-doom climate hoax dogma. This happens because the Internet has been loaded for decades with bogus climate hoax claims and assumptions that are erroneous garbage.
Milloy believes IBM’s own website is partly to blame for this misinformation:
On IBM’s website, IBM’s chief sustainability officer says, for example, that:
Global warming is “leading to increased flooding, causing heat stroke and destroying farms and livelihoods. Insurance is becoming unaffordable.”
None of that is true. But it is what IBM AI is programmed with. Even IBM staff has been polluted with the climate. It is precisely the sort of garbage that George Fueschsel warned about.
The mindless parroting of climate hoax garbage to governments, businesses and the public has had devastating economic and societal impacts around the world – from wars to inflation to deadly energy failures to energy rationing to crop failures to deindustrialization to lost jobs to wasted taxpayer money to traumatized school children and beyond.
It has been estimated that world has wasted $10 trillion chasing the climate hoax narrative since 2015 alone. The list of harms from the climate hoax is endless. Yet IBM AI has learned the hoax and spreads the climate garbage on to users. Milloy will say:
“While IBM may be great at the computing part of AI, the world actually functions on realities that are often lost in the Internet dumpster,” “Management needs to be much more humble about all this. It needs to take the bias problem seriously. Touchy-feely videos on the IBM website just don’t cut it.”
IBM shareholders can support Proposal 7 by voting their proxies before Tuesday’s meeting.
In the above brief interview Nobel Laureate John Clauser explains simply and clearly why CO2 climate hysteria is bogus. For those preferring to read, below is a transcript in italics with my bolds and added images.
Nobel Laureate John Clauser: Climate Models Miss Key Variable
I think one of the more important things that’s happened recently is a gentleman, Steve Koonin, who was Barack Obama’s science advisor, recently published a very important seminal book called Unsettled, What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters. It’s a very important book, and his basic message is that the IPCC has 40 different computer models, all of which are making predictions, and all of which are being quoted by the press as predicting a climate crisis apocalypse. The problem is they all are in total disagreement, violent disagreement with each other in their predictions, and not one of them is capable of predicting retroactively, of explaining the history of the Earth’s climate for the last hundred years.
He finds this very distressing, and he then correspondingly says or believes that there is an important piece of physics that is missing in virtually all of these computer models. So what I’m adding to the mix here is I believe I have the missing piece of the puzzle, if you will, that has been left out in virtually all of these computer programs, and that is the effect of clouds. The 2003 National Academy report totally admitted that they didn’t understand it, and they made a whole series of mistaken statements regarding the effects of clouds.
If you look at Al Gore’s movie, he insists on talking about a cloud-free Earth, and the only way he can do this, he generates one from the mosaic of photos. Each one taken on a cloudless day for covering the whole Earth. That’s a totally artificial Earth, and is a totally artificial case for using a model, and this is pretty much what the IPCC and others use is a cloud-free Earth.
If you look at pictures of the Earth in visible light, i.e. real sunlight, which is sunlight is the stuff that heats the Earth. The infrared re-radiation is the stuff that that cools the Earth, and it’s the balance between these two that controls the Earth’s temperature, and the important piece of the puzzle that has been left out is trying to do this all with a cloud-free Earth, when the real Earth is shrouded in clouds. I have some pictures, I don’t know if you can show them, of satellite pictures of the Earth.
These are all freely available on NASA’s website, and they show cloud cover variations anywhere from 5 to 95 percent. Typically, the Earth is shrouded in clouds at least between a third of its area to two-thirds of its area, and it fluctuates, the cloud cover fraction fluctuates quite dramatically on daily, weekly time scales. We call this weather.
You can’t have weather without having clouds, and it is this fluctuation in cloud cover of the Earth that causes what I would refer to as sunlight reflectivity thermostat that controls the climate, controls the temperature of the Earth, and stabilizes it very powerfully and very dramatically. This mechanism, totally heretofore unnoticed, and I call it kind of an elephant in the room, hiding in plain sight that nobody seems to have noticed. I can’t imagine why not, but there were similar elephants in the room in quantum mechanics that I discovered.
So the variation in the cloud cover, the importance in the actual power balance is 200 times more powerful than the effect, the small effect by comparison of CO2. And I might add also of methane. Methane and CO2 are comparable in the total heat loss.
So let me give you an example of how this mechanism works. Okay, first off, you have to notice that the Earth is two-thirds ocean, and that’s where most of the importance of the clouds comes in. Sunlight is the heating mechanism.
Clouds appear bright white. Ground, oceans, etc. are very dark and reflect very little light. But clouds reflect 90% of the sunlight that hits them, gets reflected back out into space, where it no longer comes to the Earth, no longer heats the Earth. Say you only got a third of a cloud cover. So you now have lots and lots of sunlight.
Sunlight impinging on the ocean evaporates seawater. Seawater forms water vapor. The water vapor floats up into the sky and forms clouds. It forms lots and lots of clouds because the cloud creation rate is very high. But we started out with too low set of clouds, and now we have an increasing number. So now we end up with very high cloud coverage.
Okay, so now say it’s two-thirds. Well, let me give you an example. If you want to try to read a book on an overcast day indoors without turning the lights on, it’s just too dark. You can’t do it without turning the lights off. The question is, where did all that sunlight go? It’s coming in scattered light coming in through the window, but boy, it’s a lot darker now. So where did it go? There’s only one place.
It got scattered back out into space where it’s no longer hitting the Earth. So, okay, so we now have the total power input coming to the Earth is now much, much smaller. Okay, well, this is happening on the oceans too. If you have large cloud cover, you have a lot of shadows. Clouds create shadows. You can see this by standing and watching clouds pass over. Well, the oceans are now shadowed. The shadows don’t have enough energy to evaporate anywhere near as much water. So we have too much cloud cover.
Then we reduce the evaporation rate of water, and so that then reduces the production of cloud. So we now have these two competing clouds. Okay, so the power loss is like 104 watts per square meterwhen we only have a third cloud cover, and 208 watts per square meter of surface area of the Earth when we have a very low cloud cover.
Figure 10. This graph is the cloud fraction and is set forth on the left vertical axis. The temperature is on the right vertical axis and the horizontal axis represents the observation year. The information was extrapolated from figures prepared by Hans-Rolf Dubal and Fritz Vahrenholt [37]. Source: Nelson & Nelson (2024;)
So the difference between those is the order of 104 watts per square meter of surface area. That needs to be compared with this minuscule half a watt per square meter of surface area that CO2 contributes. So the power in this thermostat, in terms of what they refer to as radiative forcing, these are the how many watts per square meter of surface area are involved, is 200 times more powerful than the effect of CO2 and also methane, by the way.
So I then assert that this is so powerful. I mean, it’s like your house has a huge furnace with a very accurate thermostat controlling its temperature, and somebody leaves a minor, a small bathroom window, and there’s a small heat leak. Would the rest of the house notice a change in temperature? None if your thermostat is working very well.
This is clearly the most important, the controlling mechanism for the Earth’s temperature and climate, and it dwarfs the effect of CO2 and methane. All the government programs that are designed to limit CO2 and methane should be immediately dropped. We’re spending trillions of dollars on this, and it’s sort of like Everett Dirksen’s famous line, you know, a trillion here, a trillion there, and pretty soon you’re talking real money.
The expected blowback from invested climatists is underway, as reported by legacy media whose bias is with the alarmists. Examples:
EPA faces lawsuit over scrapping the ‘endangerment finding,’ a pillar of climate regulation, Scientific American
E.P.A. Faces First Lawsuit Over Its Killing of Major Climate Rule, NY Times
Lawsuit: EPA revoking greenhouse gas finding risks “thousands of avoidable deaths”, arstechnica
Public health and green groups sue EPA over repeal of rule supporting climate protections, AP News
The legal battle over EPA finding is underway, Axios
U.S. environment agency sued over scrapping scientific rule behind climate protections, CBC
Etc., Etc.
Outlook for the legal proceedings is provided by David Wojick in his CFACT article EPA’s elegant arguments for endangerment repeal. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images. H/T Climate- Science.press
EPA’s arguments for repealing the Obama endangerment finding are simple, clear, and strong. So, they have a likely chance of winning in the Supreme Court (SCOTUS), which is where the final decision will be made.
The primary argument is legal and aimed directly at SCOTUS. The release even cites several relevant prior decisions. The gist of these decisions is that agencies cannot find new meaning in old statutes that suddenly gives them enormous new regulatory powers. Such recklessness is called regulatory overreach.
EPA’s argument is that massive overreach is precisely what the endangerment finding did, and it sure looks that way. It was not mission creep, more like mission explosion.
Gas stoves only the thin edge of the wedge.
The statute in question is Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act which lets
EPA regulate harmful tailpipe emissions from motor vehicles.
The Obama endangerment finding is entirely based on this narrow rule.
Here is how EPA puts it:
“The agency concludes that Section 202(a) of the CAA does not provide statutory authority for EPA to prescribe motor vehicle and engine emission standards in the manner previously utilized, including for the purpose of addressing global climate change, and therefore has no legal basis for the Endangerment Finding and resulting regulations. EPA firmly believes the 2009 Endangerment Finding made by the Obama Administration exceeded the agency’s authority to combat “air pollution” that harms public health and welfare, and that a policy decision of this magnitude, which carries sweeping economic and policy consequences, lies solely with Congress. Unlike our predecessors, the Trump EPA is committed to following the law exactly as it is written and as Congress intended—not as others might wish it to be.”
This is just the sort of statutory issue the Supreme Court usually deals with.
There is an element of the endangerment finding that is so blatantly wrong that it is hilarious. I would start with it because it certainly makes EPA’s case for repeal, at least in part. EPA mentions it in passing saying this:
“In an unprecedented move, the Obama EPA found that carbon dioxide emissions emitted from automobiles– in combination with five other gases, some of which vehicles don’t even emit – contribute an unknown amount to greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere….”
So they used the tailpipe statute to assess (and then regulate)
gases that tailpipes do not emit. There is clearly no
statutory basis for these endangerment findings.
These are not scientific issues, and SCOTUS does not normally adjudicate science. There are, however, one and a half scientific arguments in case the science comes up. That is, one argument is fully stated in the release while the other is merely alluded to.
Here is the fully stated argument:
“Using the same types of models utilized by the previous administrations and climate change zealots, EPA now finds that even if the U.S. were to eliminate all GHG emissionsfrom all vehicles, there would be no material impact on global climate indicators through 2100.”
This is actually an endangerment finding, namely that there is none.
Here is the alluded to argument:
“….the Obama EPA found that carbon dioxide emissions emitted from automobiles– in combination with five other gases, some of which vehicles don’t even emit – contribute an unknown amount to greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere that, in turn, play a role through varied causal chains that may endanger human health and welfare.”
Lancet: A 2015 study by 22 scientists from around the world found that cold kills over 17 times more people than heat.
The several scientific issues here are the reality of the “varied causal chains” claimed in the Obama endangerment finding. These causal issues include a great deal of alarmism.
As science, the endangerment finding is a complex attribution claim, and these are highly speculative and contentious. These causal chain issues may be elaborated in the technical support documents for the repeal. But if they are at least mentioned, as in the release, it creates a placeholderfor them, in case they come up during the SCOTUS arguments.
Since 1920, deaths each year from natural disasters have decreased by over 90 percent, not only as the planet has warmed, but as world population has quadrupled.
EPA has mounted some elegant arguments for repeal of the endangerment finding. Stay tuned to CFACT as this drama unfolds.
Governments have publicly outlined their post-2020 climate commitments in the build-up to the December’s meeting. These promises are known as “Intended Nationally Determined Contributions” (INDCs).
♦ The climate impact of all Paris INDC promises is minuscule: if we measure the impact of every nation fulfilling every promise by 2030, the total temperature reduction will be 0.048°C (0.086°F) by 2100.
♦ Even if we assume that these promises would be extended for another 70 years, there is still little impact: if every nation fulfills every promise by 2030, and continues to fulfill these promises faithfully until the end of the century, and there is no ‘CO₂ leakage’ to non-committed nations, the entirety of the Paris promises will reduce temperature rises by just 0.17°C (0.306°F) by 2100.
♦ US climate policies, in the most optimistic circumstances, fully achieved and adhered to throughout the century, will reduce global temperatures by 0.031°C (0.057°F) by 2100.
♦ EU climate policies, in the most optimistic circumstances, fully achieved and adhered to throughout the century, will reduce global temperatures by 0.053°C (0.096°F) by 2100.
♦ China climate policies, in the most optimistic circumstances, fully achieved and adhered to throughout the century, will reduce global temperatures by 0.048°C (0.086°F) by 2100.
♦ The rest of the world’s climate policies, in the most optimistic circumstances, fully achieved and adhered to throughout the century, will reduce global temperatures by 0.036°C (0.064°F) by 2100.
Overview in Celsius and Fahrenheit by the year 2100
[Top] Comparison of the harmonic empirical global climate model under the SSP2-4.5 scenario with the HadCRUT4.6 record (1850–2021) alongside the burning ember diagrams representing the five primary global Reasons for Concern (RFCs) under low-to-no adaptation scenarios, as reported by the IPCC (2023) AR6. [Bottom] Summary and analysis of the projected impacts and risks of global warming for the 2080–2100 period compared to the climate “thermometer” projections from Climate Action Tracker (2024). Credit: Gondwana Research (2026). DOI: 10.1016/j.gr.2025.05.001
Current global climate models (GCMs) support with high confidence the view that rising greenhouse gases and other anthropogenic forcings account for nearly all observed global surface warming—slightly above 1 °C—since the pre-industrial period (1850–1900). This is the conclusion presented in the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) published in 2021.
Figure 3: CMIP6 GCM ensemble mean simulations spanning from 1850 to 2100, employing historical effective radiative forcing functions from 1850 to 2014 (see Figure 1C) and the forcing functions based on the SSP scenarios 1-2.6, 2-4.5, 3-7.0, and 5-8.5. Curve colors are scaled according to the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) of the models. The right panels depict the risks and impacts of climate change in relation to various global Reasons for Concern (RFCs) (IPCC, 2023). (Adapted from Scafetta, 2024).
Moreover, the GCM projections for the 21st century, produced under different socioeconomic pathways (SSPs), underpin estimates of future climate impacts and guide net-zero mitigation strategies worldwide.
The prevailing interpretation is that only net-zero climate policies can keep future climate change-related damages within acceptable limits. Yet such policies carry extremely high economic and societal costs, making it essential to assess whether these certain and immediate costs are fully justified by the current state of climate science.
On the other hand, a closer examination of observational datasets, paleoclimate evidence, and model performance reveals a more intricate picture—one that merits open discussion among students, researchers, and anyone interested in how climate science is evolving.
My study “Detection, attribution, and modeling of climate change: Key open issues,” published in Gondwana Research, examines several unresolved questions in climate detection, attribution, and modeling. These issues concern the foundations of how past climate changes are interpreted and how future ones are projected, and they matter because climate projections influence decisions that will shape economies and societies for decades. [My synopsis: Scafetta: Climate Models Have Issues. ]
A central theme is natural climate variability. Across the Holocene—the last 11,700 years—the climate system exhibited a Climate Optimum(6,000–8,000 years ago) and repeated oscillations: multidecadal cycles, centennial fluctuations, and millennial-scale reorganizations.
Some longer cycles are well known, such as the quasi-millennial Eddy cycle, associated with the Medieval and Roman warm periods, and the 2,000–2,500-year Hallstatt–Bray cycle. These patterns appear in ice cores, marine sediments, tree rings, historical documents, and in both climate and solar proxy records.
Current GCMs, however, struggle to reproduce the Holocene Optimum and these rhythms. They generate internal variability, but not with the correct timing, amplitude, or persistence. When a model cannot capture the natural “heartbeat” of the climate system, distinguishing human-driven warming from background variability becomes challenging. This is particularly relevant for interpreting the warming observed since 1850–1900, because both the Eddy and Hallstatt–Bray cycles have been in rising phases since roughly the 1600s.
Figure 1. Anthropgenic and natural contributions. (a) Locked scaling factors, weak Pre Industrial Climate Anomalies (PCA). (b) Free scaling, strong PCA Source: Larminat, P. de (2023)
A portion of the post-industrial warming could therefore stem from these long natural oscillations, which are expected to peak in the 21st century and in the second half of the third millennium, respectively.
Another key issue concerns the global surface temperature datasets that serve as the backbone of global warming assessment. These datasets are essential but not perfect.
Urbanization, land-use changes, station relocations, and instrumentation shifts can introduce non-climatic biases. Many corrections exist, yet uncertainties persist. Even small unresolved biases can influence long-term trends.
The study highlights well-known discrepancies: satellite-based estimates of lower-troposphere temperatures since 1980 show about 20–30% less warming than surface-based records, particularly over Northern Hemisphere land areas.
Recent reconstructions based on confirmed rural stations also show significantly weaker secular warming. These differences underscore the need for continued scrutiny of observational records.
Solar and astronomical influences represent another area where science is still evolving. The sun varies in ways not fully captured by the simplified irradiance reconstructions used in many models. Multiple lines of evidence indicate that the climate system responds not only to total solar irradiance but also to spectral variations, magnetic modulation, and indirect effects on atmospheric circulation.
These mechanisms are still under investigation, and their representation in models remains incomplete, even though empirical evidence suggests that they may play a dominant role—potentially more influential than the simple total-solar-irradiance forcing currently implemented.
Moreover, despite ongoing controversy surrounding long-term solar variability, current GCMs are typically forced with solar reconstructions that exhibit extremely low secular variability. This helps explain why these models attribute nearly 0 °C of the observed post 1850–1900 warming to solar changes and simultaneously fail to reproduce the millennial-scale oscillations evident in paleoclimate records.
Direct comparisons between GCM global surface temperature simulations and observations also show that the models do not reproduce the quasi-60-year climatic oscillation associated with the 1940s warming period, and they tend to overestimate the warming observed since 1980. This “hot model” problem has been documented in several studies and appears to affect a substantial fraction of current GCMs.
All of this connects to a key parameter in climate science: equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS). The canonical estimate—around 3 °C for a doubling of CO₂, with a likely range of 2.5–4.0 °C according to the IPCC—derives largely from model-based assessments.
Empirical studies, including those that account more explicitly for natural variability, often suggest lower values, sometimes around 2.2 ± 0.5 °C, or even as low as 1.1 ± 0.4 °C if long-term solar luminosity varies significantly and if additional solar-related mechanisms influence the climate system—mechanisms not included in current models. If ECS is lower than commonly assumed, projected 21st-century warming would be substantially reduced under all SSP scenarios.
These graphs use Hadcrut4 and include the 2016 El Nino warming event. The exhibit shows since 1947 GMT warmed by 0.8 C, from 13.9 to 14.7, as estimated by Hadcrut4. This resulted from three natural warming events involving ocean cycles. The most recent rise 2013-16 lifted temperatures by 0.2C. Previously the 1997-98 El Nino produced a plateau increase of 0.4C. Before that, a rise from 1977-81 added 0.2C to start the warming since 1947.
The interplay between natural and anthropogenic factors is definitely more nuanced than often portrayed. When empirical models that include natural oscillations are used to project future temperatures, the result is typically moderate future warming rather than extreme trajectories. This raises important questions about the scientific basis for the most aggressive mitigation pathways.
The figure compares the warming expected from GCMs, as assessed by the IPCC, with the associated relative risks, alongside the expectations derived from the empirical modeling proposed in the paper. While net-zero pathways such as SSP1 are considered necessary to meet the Paris Agreement target of limiting global warming to below 2 °C by 2100, empirical considerations suggest that the same target could also be achieved under the far more moderate SSP2 scenario.
This distinction has major global economic implications, because the
prevailing climate-crisis narrative does not appear to be fully supported by the evidence, and far less costly adaptation strategies could be
more appropriate than highly aggressive mitigation policies.
The study stresses the importance of addressing the key open questions of climate science. Climate policy should be informed by the full spectrum of scientific evidence, including uncertainties and alternative interpretations.
UN is sounding alarms about glaciers, and media is amplifying as usual.
Climate emergency:2025 declared international year of glaciers, UN News
Climate change is shrinking glaciers faster than ever, AP
Glaciers Are Melting Twice as Fast as Predicted and We’re Not Ready, Science News Today
1st glacier declared dead from climate change seen in before and after images, Live Science
Nearly 40% of the world’s glaciers are already doomed, CNN
Nearly Half of Earth’s Glaciers Are Already Doomed, Even Without Future Warming, SciTechDaily
World’s Melting Glaciers Threaten Food and Water Supply for 2 Billion People, Carbon Brief
Glaciers on the Brink: UN Calls for Bold Action, Climate Fact Checks
This short video puts this alarm into perspective. Additional detail is provided by Dr. John Happs in his article Glaciers And Ice Sheets: Here Today And Here Tomorrow. Dr. Happs comments on many glaciers around the world, this post has only some excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.
How often do the climate alarmists tell us that few glaciers still exist because of (imaginary) global warming and those that remain are rapidly melting away? Not surprisingly, the alarmists, particularly those from the media and vested interest groups, always point to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) computer model projections, referring to one in particular–the Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP8.5.)
Even the political/ideological IPCC has sensibly branded RCP8.5 as “Highly Unlikely”
So, what are the glacier numbers?
There are more than 200,000 alpine/valley (land-based) glaciers and many others stemming from the ice sheets of Antarctica and Greenland.
Glaciers have advanced, retreated and halted many times over the last 400,000 years being influenced not only by temperature but also by other factors, such as wind, precipitation, altitude, latitude, aspect, topography and slope angle.
Global temperature is often promoted, usually by naïve climate alarmists, as the only important input into glacier formation, growth and retreat yet, in very dry parts of Antarctica, where low temperatures are seemingly ideal for glacier growth, the small amount of net annual precipitation results in glaciers growing very slowly, or even diminishing in size.
Glaciers can also be influenced by sublimation or the transition of a substance directly from the solid to the gas phase. Glaciers can experience this process resulting in the “evaporation” of ice, exacerbated by wind action. Sublimation can be seen in the way that ice cubes left in the freezer will shrink over time.
More than 18,000 glaciers have been identified across 50 World Heritage sites but this represents less than 10% of the Earth’s glaciated area. The media, climate activists and vested interest groups like to argue that all glaciers are receding because global temperature is increasing. Not surprisingly, many glaciers have been retreating since we emerged from the Little Ice Age (1250-1850), a time when many farms and houses across Scandinavia were destroyed by advancing glaciers between the 14th and 19th centuries.
We might expect that glaciers and ice sheets would recede after the Little Ice Age yet we know that glaciers in many parts of the world are advancing, with glaciers growing in the Alps, North America, Patagonia, Antarctica, Alaska, the Himalayas, China, Iceland, Greenland, New Zealand, Norway, Antarctica and Greenland.
Where glaciers reach the sea, the media, and some tour guides, like to promote the dramatic calving-glacier image as pointing to (imaginary) global warming but fail to point out (perhaps they don’t know) that a calving glacier is the sign of an advancing inland glacier and certainly not one that is about to disappear.
In his silly, but influential, 2005 movie “An Inconvenient Truth” Al Gore said:
“Within the decade, there will be no more snows of Kilimanjaro.”
“The speed and consequences of Himalayan glacial retreat have been grossly exaggerated by the media and environmental activists.”
A significant proportion of Himalayan glaciers are advancing. In fact, 58% of glaciers examined in the westerly Karakoram range, a chain of snowy peaks along the border of India, Pakistan and China, were stable or advancing with annual snowfall increasing. A study of Himalayan glaciers, published in the American Meteorological Society’s Journal of Climate reported that cooler summers are failing to melt winter snows, which are themselves becoming more frequent, resulting in advancing glaciers. Source: Live Science
GLACIERS/ICE SHEETS IN ANTARCTICA
The Antarctic ice sheet is the world’s largest mass of ice covering around 14 million sq. km.
Ice sheets can be described as glaciers that cover very large areas and the most obvious examples are found in Greenland and Antarctica where around two-thirds of the Earth’s fresh water is stored.
Alarming reports that the Antarctic ice sheet is rapidly melting misrepresent the science of a very complex situation. Antarctica has been ice-covered for at least 30 million years. The ice sheet holds over 26 million gigatonnes of water (a gigatonne is a billion metric tons). If it were to melt completely, sea levels would rise 60 metres. Such a change is many millennia in the future, if it happens at all, although climate alarmists will always claim that such a response is just around the corner because of (imaginary) global warming.
Modest ice loss is normal in Antarctica. Each year in summer, more than 2,000 gigatonnes of ice is discharged in the form of melt and icebergs, while snowfall additions keep the ice mass in equilibrium.
Summary
So it is a familiar story. A complex naturally fluctuating situation, in this case glaciers, is abused by activists to claim support for their agenda. I have a lot of respect for glaciologists; it is a deep, complex subject, and the field work is incredibly challenging. And since “glacial” describes any process where any movement is imperceptible, I can understand their excitement over something happening all of a sudden.
But I do not applaud those pandering to the global warming/climate change crowd. They seem not to realize they debase their own field of study by making exaggerated claims and by “jumping the shark.”
Meanwhile real scientists are doing the heavy lifting and showing restraint and wisdom about the limitations of their knowledge.
Figure 1. A comparison of presentations of satellite data capturing Greenland’s ice mass loss. The image on the right shows changes in Greenland’s ice mass relative to Greenland’s total ice mass. Sources: The data plotted in these graphs are from the Ice Sheet Mass Balance Inter-Comparison Exercise, a joint exercise by NASA and the European Space Agency.4 Graphs originally by Willis Eschenbach. Adapted and annotated by Anthony Watts.
Tom Nelson interviews independent researcher Javier Vinos reporting his discoveries of facts and evidence ignored or forgotten in the rush to judgement against humanity for burning hydrocarbon fuels. When these factors are acknowledged they can be integrated into a more wholistic view of Earth’s climate activity. For those who prefer reading, below is an excerpted transcript with my bolds along with some images and key exhibits included. TN refers to Tom Nelson and JV to Javer Vinos.
JV: For the past ten years I’ve been studying climate quite in depth with a basic focus on natural climate change, on how the climate changes naturally. I did this because I had a science blog and one day I decided I was going to talk about the science of climate and when I started to read the articles and looking for the information I became very surprised because I do molecular biology and Neuroscience that is experimental science. And climate science is not an experimental science and I was very surprised because they were claiming the evidence was there and it was not.
So I began researching it more and more until I became so involved I started writing books and telling other people what I was finding about climate.
The Scientific Method and Climate Science
One of the elementary principles of the scientific method is that establishing a theory before examining all the evidence leads to error and confirmation bias makes us stick to it. Has the scientific method been forgotten in the postmodern age? It seems so, at least in climate science. Climatology is not an experimental science which is a major handicap. It is also a very young science compared to the mainstream Sciences of physics, chemistry, geology and biology. The consensus was reached in 1988 almost without data and wholly based on the Greenhouse Effect and The Coincidence of temperature and CO2 during the Pleistocene in Antarctic Ice cores.
Understanding Albedo and Heat Transport
There are two absolutely essential processes in determining climate that are largely unknown. The first is albedoor the amount of sunlight reflected back into space. It’s crucial because it determines the amount of energy the Earth receives. We ignore why it has the value it has, why it varies so little from year to year, why it varies so much from month to month, why both hemispheres have the same albedo and how the albedo has changed in the past.
As a result of our ignorance, models are unable to adequately reproduce the Earth albedo failing to show its small inter-annual variability, its large seasonal variability and its symmetry between the two hemispheres. Nevertheless many scientists believe that the models are capable of predicting changes in albedo otherwise they will have to admit that the models cannot predict future climates. Small changes in albedo can produce large climate changes of natural origin and this is the basis of several alternative hypotheses to CO2.
ERBE measurements of radiative imbalance.
I have focused my research on a second essential process and this is what my book is about. The transport of heat from the equator to the poles also known as meridional heat transport because it runs in the direction of the meridians. There is much evidence that this is the primary cause of natural climate change. Heat transport is also an enormously neglected process, we do not know how it works and there is no established Theory to explain it. We also do not know how it is distributed between the atmosphere and the ocean, how it is divided among the different types of ocean currents, how it changes with the seasons, how it changes from year to year, why Antarctica receives less heat than the Arctic although it should receive more or why heat is transported from the colder hemisphere to the warmer hemisphere.
The models do not understand heat transport because no one understands it,
and that is where the evidence for most natural climate change lies.
In fact we can’t even measure it properly and if we don’t know how heat transport works, it’s obvious that the models don’t either. They fail miserably at reproducing the amount of heat being transported and reflecting transport changes in the atmosphere and ocean, they do not even correctly reproduce the distribution line, the climatic equator where the trade winds from both hemispheres converge. Nor do they reproduce seasonal changes since the amount of heat entering and leaving the ocean throughout the year is not known.
If no one understands heat transport, then models cannot understand it either. because they are just a product of our minds with no physical connection to reality. Even if there are other secondary causes of climate change, including increased CO2, the evidence points to changes in heat transport as the primary way in which the climate changes. In the end it’s like the joke about the drunk who looks under a street lamp for his lost keys because the light is better there than where he thinks he lost them.
Climatologists look for the answer where the knowledge is better in the greenhouse effect. the culprits are certain gases that together make up 1% of the atmosphere. In this graph we can see the profile of the gases that make up the atmosphere in different colors showing their abundance on the lower axis with respect to altitude on the vertical axis the gases in the squares do not absorb in the infrared. Note that water vapor with a blue dotted line is very abundant near the surface but a thousand times less abundant in the stratosphere. The opposite is true for ozone with a purple dust line which is almost entirely in the stratospheric ozone layer. The thick black line is the temperature profile which in the troposphere has a positive lapse rate, that is the higher we go the colder it gets. This is fundamental to the greenhouse effect.
The Greenhouse Effect and CO2
What is the greenhouse effect? In order to return all the energy is received from the Sun and maintain stability, the Earth must keep at a temperature of 23 degrees C below zero.
The Greenhouse Effect
Without greenhouse gases this would be the average surface temperature instead of the current 14.5 degrees. The black line in this graph represents the temperature profile of the troposphere and the lapse rate is the slope of that line in the absence of greenhouse gases. Infrared radiation will be emitted from the surface but greenhouse gases make the atmosphere opaque to infrared radiation, so this radiation is emitted from higher altitudes as shown by The Black Arrow. Although in reality there is emission from all Heights including the surface the average height of emission is about 6 kilometers. The emission temperature at this height is 23° below zero but the lapse rate of about 6° per kilometer makes the surface about 37° warmer. If we were to double the CO2 as shown in red, and everything else remains the same, the average emission height would increase by about 150 meters. As the atmosphere becomes more opaque so the temperature at that height would be 1° cooler it would be necessary for the surface and atmosphere to warm by that degree in order for the earth to return the energy it receives from the sun which is absolutely necessary.
But in the climate system everything is interconnected and when something changes everything changes and nobody knows how much the temperature would change. So when they tell us that we have to reduce our emissions by a certain amount to avoid some amount of warming they are lying to us because nobody knows that these gases cause the greenhouse effect. Only the first three are really important. They are trace gases but that does not diminish their importance. Ozone is a thousand times less abundant than CO2, but its contribution to the greenhouse effect is only five times less.
Greenhouse effect is not uniform across the planet.
Look at water vapor in yellow. Together with the clouds it forms, it is responsible for 3/4 of the greenhouse effect but it’s abundance varies greatly because it depends on temperature. When the temperature drops it condenses and falls as water or snow. Because of this the greenhouse effect is highly variable on the planet. At the poles there is practically no water vapor or clouds in Winter. These are the places on Earth with the driest atmosphere and a much weaker greenhouse effect. Not much attention is given to this, but it is very important, and I point out in the book it’s one of the pieces that must be used to solve the puzzle.
Every year has two winters, and heat transport to the pole in winter is greater
Having such a weak greenhouse effect makes it very easy for heat to escape from the earth through the poles. The climate works like the internal combustion engine of a car; only instead of one cooling system it has two, one at each pole. The engine block is the tropics, the hottest part because that is where most of the sun’s energy arrives. The tropics lose heat by radiation but not enough. The excess must be transported to the radiators to be radiated to the outside. And this is done by a fan which is equivalent to the atmosphere and a circuit with a cooling liquid, which is equivalent to the ocean.
Climatologists do not see it this way, but the other way around. For them heat transport does not change the temperature of the planet but only warms the poles. But because of this erroneous view they encounter paradoxes that they cannot resolve. in the early Eocene, at the beginning of the age of mammals, the poles were so temperate that palm trees grew in the Arctic and frogs lived in Antarctica, indicating that the average temperature of the coldest mouth was above freezing. Climatologists do not understand how this was possible because the smaller temperature difference made the heat transport much smaller which prevented the poles from warming.
Like all paradoxes it is solved by changing the frame of reference. It was possible because the smaller heat transport made the planet lose less heat and get warmer, which warmed the poles along with the rest. When it is winter in one hemisphere, the atmosphere transports more heat to that hemisphere. But the atmosphere also carries angular momentum or rotational inertia since it is a conserved property. Any change in the angular momentum of the atmosphere must be compensated for by a change in the spin rate of the earth. Just as ice skaters increases their spin rate rate by bringing their arms closer to the body, similar to the skater the Earth’s spin rate increases by about 1 millisecond per day as atmospheric circulation and heat transport increase in Winter. Since 1962 it has been possible to measure this to an accuracy of one microsecond. Thanks to the invention of the atomic clock and radio astronomy, it is possible to know the exact orientation of the Earth in space, it has been well known since the 1970s.
The Earth spins faster in winter.
The Influence of Solar Activity on Climate
That solar activity affects the Earth’s rotation has been published many times. The phenomenon is particularly pronounced during the Boreal winter as we can see in the graph above for 2015 a year of high solar activity and 2018 with low activity. And it is measured by the variation in milliseconds of day length. In the lower graph we can see the solar activity represented by the sunspot cycle with a red dash line. The black solid line shows the changes in the Earth’s rotation caused by the Boreal winter. It shows the same cycle as the sun although the Earth’s rotation is also affected by equatorial stratospheric winds and the El Nino phenomenon. The dotted line is from a paper published in 2014.
Everyone ignores this phenomenon especially the IPCC which says that the sun does not affect climate. But if the sun can change the Earth’s rotation speed then it can change the climate. My research has been like that of Sherlock Holmes looking for clues that have been missed, ignored and forgotten. Studies show the effect of the sun on the rotation of the Earth has been known for 50 years but very few people in the world know about it.
What I have learned about climate science is because I have stood on the shoulder of giants giants like the Canadian atmospheric physicist Colin Hines who explained in a 1974 paper that the sun’s effect on climate could be due to planetary waves. It was ignored and his theory was forgotten. Art lovers will recognize the Great Wave print by Hokusai. Atmospheric waves are like ocean waves except that they move in three directions, planetary waves are the largest. Many of you will remember the tsunami that occurred in Indonesia at Christmas 2014. It reached the coast of Africa 6,000 km away in 8 hours traveling at the speed of an airplane. Obviously water does not travel, energy travels, and when it is released upon reaching the coast it still causes damage.
Planetary waves are atmospheric tsunamis that hit the wind walls of the polar vortex and weaken them. It worries us when cold air escapes from the interior because it produces very cold waves and storms. But the climate is more affected by the heat that is exchanged with that cold, because the planet loses it and cannot compensate for it. Another Giant on Whose shoulders I stood is Karin Labitzke who in 1987 found a correlation between the temperature of the Polar Stratosphere in Winter and the solar cycle. it is an extraordinary finding because in Winter the sun does not shine on the pole, it is a relationship in the dark not based on solar energy. It is also extraordinary because it is the first proof of a solar effect on the climate after 190 years of a search began in 1800 by William Herschel the discoverer of Uranus and infrared radiation. Instead of giving her the Nobel Prize she deserved for such a fantastic discovery, her finding was ignored and she’s not even mentioned in climate books.
First evidence of the Sun’s effect on climate
Here I show only the data for years of low solar activity 30 Hectopascals is about 20 km in the stratosphere when the tropical Wind Blows from the West as shown by the blue circles. The polar stratosphere is very cold, but when it blows from the East as shown by the red circles, the polar Stratosphere warms by about 15°. In years of high solar activity the effect is reversed as I show in the book The El Nino phenomenon also strongly influences this effect.
For many scientists a solar effect that occurs in the dark, reverses depending on equatorial winds and depend on other phenomena is too complicated to understand and they prefer to ignore it. But not to me because I have studied Hines. The propagation of planetary waves into the stratosphere depends on several factors that affect the Dynamics of stratospheric circulation.
How does the Sun influence these Dynamics?
We know that solar activity affects the Earth’s rotation, heat transport and Atmospheric circulation. We also know from Labitzke for the last 35 years that it affects the temperature of the Polar Stratosphere. And it does so as Hines said 50 years ago by affecting the propagation of planetary waves into the stratosphere. These waves strike the polar vortex. This is a gigantic tornado that circles the polar regions in winter with sustained wind speeds of 180 km/ hour.
Planetary waves affect climate through the Polar Vortex
Since heat is carried by the wind, the Warm Winds from the South have a hard time getting through this wall of wind creating a strong temperature gradient as shown in the second image. The black line in the graph shows the profile of this gradient which is a real wall that creates a 30° difference between its two sides as shown by the red dash line. By weakening the vortex planetary waves allow heat to enter and cold to leave, changing the temperature of the polar region. As we saw at the beginning, the greenhouse effect inside the vortex is very weak causing the planet to lose unrecoverable energy.
This is how the Sun affects the climate as explained by Hines and Labitzke and I am not just alone saying this, It has been shown. The study of planetary waves in the stratosphere is extremely difficult because they are invisible and the stratosphere is little known but there is already a study based on measurements that proves it. And the intensity of the planetary waves depends on the solar cycle as its authors defend. The sawtooth appearance of the amplitude of the planetary waves is due to the effect of the tropical winds which change direction every one or two years and to the El Nino effect.
Intensity of planetary waves depends on the solar cycle
My contribution to these studies is to put all the pieces together: the low polar greenhouse effect, and the effect of the sun on the Earth’s rotation heat transport atmospheric circulation, polar temperatures and planetary waves, and to show the effect that all this has not only on climate but also on climate change.
When solar activity is low, the Arctic warms
When there is low solar activity the Arctic warms as is shown in Blue by the temperature of the central Arctic according to data from the Danish meteorological Institute. Today global warming and Arctic warming are linked in our minds. We have forgotten that between 1976 and 1997, despite intense global warming, the Arctic not only did not warm but actually experienced a slight Cooling in its central zone. Just as we have forgotten that the Arctic warmed in a similar way 100 years ago. It was reported at the time and there are scientific studies that support Antarctic warming a century ago similar to today’s in its effect on Greenland’s melting.
When solar activity is high, the rest of the planet warms
Why did this happen. It is because solar activity has a cycle of about 100 years this graph shows the level of activity of each solar cycle relative to the average and we can appreciate the Centennial solar cycle shortly after 1700 1800 1900 and 2000 solar activity was below average and the Arctic warmed. When solar activity is high the opposite happens and the Arctic cools but the rest of the planet warms because it becomes more efficient at conserving energy.
Glaciers and proxies show modern warming before CO2 emissions
The IPCC acknowledges that solar activity in the 20th century was in the top 10% of the last 9,000 years. In the graph we can see the trend line indicating that solar activity has been increasing for the past 300 years and global warming is 200 years old. we can see it in the behavior of glaciers which began to shrink worldwide in 1820 as shown by the line in the graph. The photos are from the Rome Glacier in Switzerland which melted enormously between 1850 and 1900. People didn’t care, on the contrary they built hotels for tourists where the glacier used to be.
Climate proxies show the same thing. The green line is from tree rings and the orange line is from other proxies, both showing a 30-year oscillation on a long-term warming trend. In stark contrast, our emissions in Gray were nonexistent until 1900 and low until 1950, the curves clearly do not match. A much better match is obtained for solar activity shown in annual data with a thin line and a decade long smoothing that shows in red when it was above average and in blue when it was below average.
Global Warming is largely due to the Modern Solar Maximum
The modern solar maximum is the long 70-year period in the 20th century when it was above average, something that has happened only 10% of the time in the last 9,000 years. We can therefore conclude that a reduction in the transport of heat to the polls during most of the 20th century is responsible for the planet conserving more energy and warming up contributing greatly to global warming.
And as Sherlock Holmes would say the IPCC has made a capital mistake by establishing a consensus Theory without properly examining all the evidence. A this and much more is explained in my latest book solving the climate puzzle I want to thank three other scientists for reading my book before its publication and providing positive feedback. They are William Happer professor emeritus of physics at Princeton University who also wrote the forward to the book, Judith Curry professor emerita of atmospheric physics at Georgia Institute of Technology and Willie Soon research scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian center for astrophysics. I also want to thank Andy May, a writer I have collaborated with on many climate science web articles over the years. The book has been written at several reading levels and divided into a large number of short chapters to make it more accessible to a general audience despite the inherent complexity of the subject. It has been translated into five languages of which two have been published and three are in the process of being published. There are plans to publish it in three more languages including Greta Thunberg’s.
My main interest for the past nine years has been to find out why and how the climate changes on our planet. It is clear from the evidence that we are missing some essential processes because we don’t understand the majority of past climate changes. There are more scientists who agree on this than is usually acknowledge. Several new theories have been developed including mine and they should be seriously considered by the IPCC because the CO2 Theory lacks sufficient evidence. I defend my theory as having more support from evidence than the consensus one, but what is important to everybody is that on top of the IPCC’s Capital mistake of reaching a premature consensus, we don’t make the capital mistake of embarking the global economy on a planned experiment of unforeseeable consequences.
TN: You argue that climate change is largely due to natural causes and in particular you attribute a key role to high solar activity in the 20th century. How does your theory differ from others who also argue for such a role?
JV: Well the mechanism is different. There is a lot of debate about the role of the sun in climate and over the last 30 years there has been a lot of advances in understanding how solar variability affects the stratosphere and how this effect is transmitted to the surface. What I add is how these effects change the energy content of the climate system and thus produce climate change. In my book I present evidence that climate is changing due to changes in the amount of heat that is being transported to the poles and the amount of solar energy that changes is not that important. So in essence I refute the IPCC’s arguments that dismisses a solar effect on climate based on small changes in solar energy and in the trends in solar activity not being the same as temperature Trends
TN: Okay so how does your work fit with other theories like there’s the role of geothermal heat by Viterito and Kamis and the role of cosmic rays by Svensmark and Shaviv.
JV: It is good that there are all these theories because in science we should always discuss several explanations. The important point is that the climate is always changing and it is a very complex process, so there is not a single cause for for climate change. Many of these processes may be contributing to climate change including the the increase in CO2 and it is important to determine which ones are the most important in driving climate change.
We should continue researching and debating these processes. Any viable Theory should provide a mechanism for changing the energy balance at the top of the atmosphere because this is what changes the energy content of the climate system. And it should be supported by the more evidence the better. The theory that I propose meets both requirements, while the theory that it is all due to CO2 lacks evidence.
The Role of Water Vapor and Volcanic Eruptions
TN: What do you think of Joe Bastardi’s views about the importance of water vapor in the climate?
JV: I think it is fundamental because water vapor is the main greenhouse gas and what really defines the Earth is that it is a planet that has a lot of water in its three states, And I believe that the role of water is to provide stability to The Climate system through its thermal inertia. This is what explains that for the last 540 million years when everything has happened the temperature of planet has remain compatible with Life. So I think none of the IPCC’s predictions is going to come true because I think the role of the water is misunderstood and it doesn’t behave the way it is expected to. I don’t think water increases climate change, I think it actually decreases it
TN: What do you think about the eruption of the hunga Tonga volcano in 2022. Is that a major reason for the recent temperature Spike?
JV: I think it is very likely. The volcanic eruption of 2022 was very unusual in that it was underwater so it placed 146,000 tons of water vapor into the stratosphere and the stratosphere is very dry so in a single day the water vapor in the stratosphere increased by 10% and the greenhouse effect is very sensitive to changes in the stratosphere because it is a lot less opaque to infrared radiation than the troposphere. So the expected effect from this change as was published in January in natural climate change is a substantial increase in the warming rate so and this is what has been observed. The fact that the onset of this warming has such a delay is normal for volcanic eruptions for example the eruption of the Mount Tambora in April of 1815 produced the year without the summer more than a year later in 1816. If this explanation is correct we should expect over the next months the warming rate should decrease substantially, and this increased warming should disappear over the course of four to five years as the extra water vapor leaves the stratosphere.
Concluding Remarks and Future Implications
TN: So if your theory is correct what are the economic implications?
JV: Well if humans are are not primarily responsible for climate change this will have huge implications for the global economy. We should question the energy transition in the form of urgency that is being made because it is not exempt of risk. Even if the theory is correct, we should be aware that a lot of people will not be willing to accept it regardless of the evidence.
TN: Other than the economic implications, what are the other consequences if your theory is right?
JV: Well I think people should be very calm. We are very lucky to be living through a warming period because cooling periods are much worse, usually accompanied by famine and epidemics. Being in a warming period is a lot better. So we should not fear climate and only be concerned when the warming period turns into a cooling period. That will happen eventually, but we don’t expect it during the 21st century. So essentially I think we are uh very lucky with respect to climate and as long as the cooling period doesn’t doesn’t start I think the climate is our Ally not our Enemy.
Moreover, despite ongoing controversy surrounding long-term solar variability, current GCMs are typically forced with solar reconstructions that exhibit extremely low secular variability. This helps explain why these models attribute nearly 0 °C of the observed post 1850–1900 warming to solar changes and simultaneously fail to reproduce the millennial-scale oscillations evident in paleoclimate records.
Science Matters 