Climate change

Why reducing carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuel will have no effect on climate

Politicians and international organizations think we can stop climate change by eliminating 0.13% of the greenhouse gas in the atmosphere in spite of the fact that climate has been changing all by itself for four billions years. “…the most dangerous greenhouse-gas emissions come from the front ends of politicians, not the back ends of cows…” – Walter Russell Mead

The “greenhouse effect” is proposed as an atmospheric “blanket” that keeps Earth warm. However, the term “greenhouse effect” with respect to the atmosphere is an unfortunate analogy because it is misleading. The interior of a real greenhouse (or your automobile parked with windows closed and left in the sun) heats up because there is a physical barrier to convective heat loss. There is no such physical barrier in the atmosphere. The greenhouse hypothesis deals only with heat transfer by radiation and conduction, but completely ignores convective heat transfer. Convective heat transfer in the atmosphere shreds the alleged “blanket.”

In short, the “greenhouse effect” is this:

Solar radiation, mostly short-wave radiation, passes through the atmosphere and warms the surface. In turn, the heated surface re-radiates energy as long-wave infrared radiation back to the atmosphere and eventually, back to space.

Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere intercept specific wavelengths of the long-wave infrared radiation and transfer some of the energy to excite (warm) other molecules in the atmosphere, some of the radiation goes back to warm the surface, and some of the radiation is radiated into space. Once all or most of a specific long-wave infrared radiation wavelength is intercepted (become saturated), additional amounts of a greenhouse gas will have no effect. Carbon dioxide reaches saturation at about 280 parts per million (ppm). Currently carbon dioxide is at 413 ppm. (Source)

The major greenhouse gases, water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane, represent about 2% of the atmosphere. Water vapor comprises 95% of total greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide comprises 4% of total greenhouse gas. Human carbon dioxide emissions represent just 3.4% of atmospheric carbon dioxide, or 0.13% of the total greenhouse gas. (Source)

Do you think that eliminating 0.13% of greenhouse gas can significantly effect global temperature? I think not.

This table from Geocraft shows more detail (and slightly different) data about greenhouse gases:

03-Antropogenic contribution to greenhouse effect


Additional Reading:

A Review of the state of Climate Science

The Broken Greenhouse – Why Co2 Is a Minor Player in Global Climate

A Summary of Earth’s Climate History-a Geologist’s View

Problems with wind and solar generation of electricity – a review

The “Social Cost of Carbon” Scam Revisited

ATMOSPHERIC CO2: a boon for the biosphere

Carbon dioxide is necessary for life on Earth

Methane- The Irrelevant Greenhouse Gas

Biden Unveils Costly Oil And Gas Rules To Cut Methane Emissions At COP26

by Jeff Mordock, Washington Times

The Biden administration presented sweeping regulations targeting the oil and gas industry in an effort to cut back on the emission of methane. (Read more 

Biden claimed that methane “amounts to half of the global warming we’re experiencing today.”
 Both Biden and the author of the story above ignore some facts. Most atmospheric methane come from rice cultivation, termites, and cattle. Rice growing produces methane gas by feeding microbes that live under the rice paddies. Termites and cattle produce methane during their digestive process.

About the hypothetical greenhouse effect:

Solar radiation, mostly short-wave radiation, passes through the atmosphere and warms the surface. In turn, the heated surface re-radiates energy as long-wave infrared radiation back to the atmosphere and eventually, back to space.

Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere intercept some of the long-wave infrared radiation and transfer some of the energy to excite (warm) other molecules in the atmosphere, some of the radiation goes back to the surface, and some of the radiation is radiated into space.

The major greenhouse gas is water vapor which absorbs almost all wavelengths of infrared radiation. Carbon dioxide absorbs four specific wavelengths of infrared radiation, three of which are also absorbed by water vapor. Other minor greenhouse gases are oxygen and ozone, methane, and nitrous oxide.

Once a particular wavelength becomes saturated, i.e., almost completely absorbed, additional quantities of greenhouse gases have no effect.

According to an article by Dr. Tom Sheahen:

Methane is only 0.00017% (1.7 parts per million) of the atmosphere. Moreover, both of its absorption bands occur at wavelengths where water vapor is already absorbing almost all of the radiation. Hence, any radiation that methane might have absorbed has already been absorbed by water vapor. The ratio of the percentages of water to methane is such that the effects of methane are completely masked by water vapor. (Source)


Methane is just another global warming boogeyman because it has almost no effect on global warming.


See also: Arctic Methane Scare – Cancelled


A Review of the state of Climate Science

The Broken Greenhouse – Why Co2 Is a Minor Player in Global Climate

A Summary of Earth’s Climate History-a Geologist’s View

Problems with wind and solar generation of electricity – a review

The “Social Cost of Carbon” Scam Revisited

ATMOSPHERIC CO2: a boon for the biosphere

Carbon dioxide is necessary for life on Earth

Impact of the Paris Climate Accord and why Trump was right to drop it

New study shows that carbon dioxide is responsible for only seven percent of the greenhouse effect

Six Issues the Promoters of the Green New Deal Have Overlooked


Old Farmer’s Almanac Predicts Cold Winter for U.S.

Old Farmers winter 2021-2022

The Old Farmer’s Almanac predicts a “Season of Shivers” for most of the U.S. for the winter of 2021-2022. OFA has been doing this for 230 years and has an accuracy of 80%.  Their method depends on observing solar cycles which also affects longer-term weather patterns such as the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), the Pacific/North American Index (PNA), and ENSO (La Niña/El Niño).

The IPCC ( Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) ignores solar cycles and uses the greenhouse effect as their main imput. The IPCC, even after spending billions of dollars, has never accurately predicted climate changes—and they admit it.

See full OFA article here.

See also:

Wryheat Climate articles:

A Review of the state of Climate Science

The Broken Greenhouse – Why Co2 Is a Minor Player in Global Climate

A Summary of Earth’s Climate History-a Geologist’s View

Problems with wind and solar generation of electricity – a review

The “Social Cost of Carbon” Scam Revisited

ATMOSPHERIC CO2: a boon for the biosphere

Carbon dioxide is necessary for life on Earth

Impact of the Paris Climate Accord and why Trump was right to drop it

New study shows that carbon dioxide is responsible for only seven percent of the greenhouse effect

Six Issues the Promoters of the Green New Deal Have Overlooked


Bottom line: Man-made carbon dioxide emissions pose no danger regarding global temperature nor climate. All efforts to reduce emissions are futile and will impose massive economic self-harm to Western Nations.

Quadrupling Carbon Dioxide Would Cause Only 1.0°C Warming According to New Study

There is no climate crisis says a new study published in the International Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences.

The study Citation:

David Coe, Walter Fabinski, Gerhard Wiegleb, The Impact of CO2, H2O and Other “Greenhouse Gases” on Equilibrium Earth Temperatures, International Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences. Vol. 5, No. 2, 2021, pp. 29-40. doi: 10.11648/j.ijaos.20210502.12.

[You can read the full paper by clicking on the link at the end of this post.]

From the paper: “It has long been accepted that the ‘greenhouse effect’, where the atmosphere readily transmits short wavelength incoming solar radiation but selectively absorbs long wavelength outgoing radiation emitted by the earth, is responsible for warming the earth from the 255°K effective earth temperature, without atmospheric warming, to the current average temperature of 288°K.” Of the 33°K warming, the authors conclude that water vapor (H2O) is responsible for 29.4°K , with carbon dioxide (CO2) contributing 3.3°K, and methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) combined just 0.3°K. This result, the authors say, strongly suggests that increasing levels of CO2 will not lead to significant changes in Earth’s temperature and that increases in CH4 and N2O will have a very little discernable impact. A four-fold increase in CO2 concentrations to 1,600 ppm will increase temperatures by 1°C and it would take around 800 hundred years to reach that point at the current rate of CO2 level increases.

The authors conclude:

“There is, and never can be, a tipping point. As the concentrations of greenhouse gases increase, the temperature sensitivity to those increases becomes smaller and smaller. The Earth’s atmosphere is a near perfect example of a stable system.”

“The atmosphere, mainly due to the beneficial characteristics and impact of H2O absorption spectra, proves to be a highly stable moderator of global temperatures. There is no impending climate emergency and CO2 is not the control parameter of global temperatures, that accolade falls to H2O. CO2 is simply the supporter of life on this planet as a result of the miracle of photosynthesis.”

For some background on the “greenhouse effect” see my blog post:

The Broken Greenhouse – Why CO2 Is a Minor Player in Global Climate

Bottom line: This study, and other studies, show that carbon dioxide has an insignificant effect on global temperature. Therefore all efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and achieve “net-zero” will not stop climate change and are just very expensive and futile exercises.

Click on this link to read full paper:

The Impact of CO2, H2O and Other “Greenhouse Gases” on

IPCC still pedaling junk science via its new AR6 report

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has just published their sixth “Assessment Report” (AR6). If you suffer from insomnia, you can read the whole thing here:

The new AR6 report alleges, among other things that:

“Human-induced climate change is already affecting many weather and climate extremes in every region across the globe. Evidence of observed changes in extremes such as heatwaves, heavy precipitation, droughts, and tropical cyclones, and, in particular, their attribution to human influence, has strengthened since the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5).”

That statement has spawned alarming headlines from the “main-stream media.”

In six major reports since 1990, the IPCC has published thousands of pages of material, none of which provide any physical or observational evidence that our carbon dioxide emissions have a significant effect on global temperature. All their dire predictions are based on scenarios produced by “garbage-in-garbage-out” computer modeling, the results of which all run hotter than physical measurements. See graph below:

Christy models vs observations

The IPCC ignores natural variation in temperature and climate which has been happening for billions of years. By some magic, all temperature variation since about 1850 is due entirely to humans according to the IPCC. In the new report, the IPCC also makes false claims about sea level rise and ocean acidification (see here and here).

Contrary to what the IPCC says, we see that increased CO2 and warming have had no effect on hurricane frequency or intensity.

Hurricane frequency July 2021
Hurricanglobal_ace July 2021
We also see that, not-with-standing the heat-waves in Pacific northwest in 2021, U.S. heat-waves were greater in the 1930s.


Additional Comments:

Heartland Institute Reacts to ‘Alarmist’ UN IPCC Climate Report:

“The new IPCC report, in which the IPCC bureaucracy must strike an alarmist tone in order to justify and perpetuate the bureaucracy’s existence, adds virtually no substantive scientific evidence to the global warming debate. The objective data still show that global temperatures are rising much more slowly than the IPCC previously predicted, and that most extreme weather events and climatological factors are either not being impacted by modest warming or are becoming more benign rather than harmful. IPCC may be ramping up its rhetoric and fear-mongering, but this merely highlights the lack of any new scientific evidence to resuscitate the climate alarmism narrative.”

“Last week, the IPCC admitted the newest climate models they used in their report are flawed, running unrealistically hot. Yet, rather than delaying their report, they released it based on unbelievable inputs. How can the IPCC claim to have ‘high confidence’ that the warming of the past 50, 100, or 150 years is unusual, much less unequivocally caused by humans, when the models used to source the claim don’t track observed temperature data sets from weather balloons or satellites? The answer is, they can’t. This a political, not a scientific document. (Read more)


“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” — H. L. Mencken (1880-1956)

“The urge to save humanity is almost always a false-front for the urge to rule it.” – H.L. Mencken

For some real science, see my blog posts:

A Review of the state of Climate Science

Carbon dioxide is necessary for life on Earth

Climate Alarmist Claim Fact Checks as of Aug 5, 2021

Climate Alarmist Claim Fact Checks

Joseph D’Aleo, CCM Link

Below are a series of fact checks of the 13 most common climate claims such as those made in the recently released Fourth National Climate Assessment Report. The authors of these reviews are all recognized experts in the relevant fields. For each claim, a brief summary of the relevant rebuttal is provided below along with a link to the full text of the rebuttal, which includes the names and the credentials of the authors of each rebuttal.

Climate Change Claim Fact Checks With updates through 07/29/21


Claim: The globe has experienced among the warmest ever month or year. This claim is recurrent – often monthly.

Fact Check: These claims are totally unsupported by any credible analysis of raw global surface temperature data and its availability.  Moreover, this Global Average Surface Temperature Data invalidation alone, invalidates the EPA 2009 GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding as well as the subsequent EPA Findings’ claimed link between rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations and the other Climate Alarmist claims – which are also independently invalidated below by relevant empirical data. Thus, all such climate alarmist claims are in reality just politically driven fictions. See details here.
Fact Check as of: 05/02/21

Claim: Heat Waves are more frequent and extreme. Heat waves kill people and greenhouse gases are to blame.

Fact Check: Heat waves like cold waves are a normal part of our global climate. Heat Waves have been decreasing since the 1930s in the U.S. and globally. See details ahere.  See Cliff Mass’s excellent “Flawed Heatwave Report Leads to False Headlines in Major Media Blogpost.  “Last week we witnessed a major failure in science communication regarding the Northwest heatwave. A failure that misinformed you and millions of others, and a failure that highlighted glaring weaknesses in the media’s ability to cover important scientific issues.  And it revealed the disappointing behavior of some members of the scientific community.” See full detailed analysis here. See this why amplified patterns, a feature of cooling climates, are behind the warm and cold extremes in 2021 here. Cold is the real threat. Cold kills up to 20 times more than heat globally and has disastrous economic impacts. See details here.
Fact Check as of: 07/23/21

Claim: Hurricanes have been increasing in number and/or extremity.

Fact Check: Even with a few very active seasons, the decade just ended was the second quietest for landfalling hurricanes and landfalling major hurricanes in the U.S since the 1850s. . 2020 saw a record 30 named storms and many Gulf impacts like the the late 1800s and active periods this past century, but the Accumulated Cyclone Energy Index (ACE) ranked only 13th highest in 2020. The 1860s and 1880s had the most landfalling hurricanes and major hurricanes. See this June 2021 NOAA study that though 2020 was technically a record, modern technology is likely a reason including the ability to see storms over the open oceans of the central and eastern Atlantic with satellites that would not have been seen and counted in the pre-satellite era. See 2020 season similarity to late 1800s here and global comparisons here. See details here
Fact Check as of: 04/26/21

Claim: Tornadoes have been increasing as the world has warmed due to human influences.

Fact Check: The number of strong tornadoes has declined dramatically over the last half century. More active months occur when unseasonable cold spring patterns are present. Warmer cycles feature fewer big tornado seasons. The number of strong tornadoes has declined dramatically over the last half century. More active months occur when unseasonable cold spring patterns are present. See more here.
Fact Check as of: 04/26/21

Claim: Droughts and Floods are becoming more severe worldwide due to global warming.

Fact Check: Droughts and Floods. Droughts and floods here has shown no statistically significant trends. Each year wet and dry areas are seen but their locations change, related to ocean warm and cold pools that drive atmospheric patterns that persist for months at a time. See details here.
Fact Check as of: 04/26/21

Claim: Wildfires are increasing due to drought and increasing heat.

Fact Check: Wildfires diminished very rapidly in size and numbers after the very active 1800s. The increase in damage in recent years is due to population growth in vulnerable areas and poor forest management. See details here. See Australia Wildfire story here.  See this analysis that shows how public lands are ablaze but private lands are not because they are properly managed here.
Fact Check as of: 08/05/21

Claim: Snow is decreasing as the earth warms, threatening the winter sports industry.

Fact Check: Snowfall has actually been increasing in the fall and winter in the Northern Hemisphere and North America with many records being set. with many records being set. This has been true not only in mountain areas but even to coastal cities and urban areas where snow had been rare. See more here.
Fact Check as of: 04/26/21

Claim: Melting of the glaciers and ice caps are causing sea levels to rise at an alarming rate threatening coastal cities

Fact Check: The rate of global sea level rise on average has fallen by 40% the last century. Where today, it is increasing – local factors such as land subsidence are to blame. See details here. See how sea level trends are being adjusted here.
Fact Check as of: 12/26/20

Claim: Ice in the arctic, Greenland and Antarctic is melting at an alarming rate.

Fact Check: The polar and glacial ice varies with multidecadal cycles in ocean temperatures. Current levels are comparable to or above historical low levels. Arctic ice returned to higher levels with a very cold winter in 2019/20. Ice was highest level since 2013. See details here. See update here on the AMO, PDO ocean cycles, the Solar cycles and Arctic temperatures.
Fact check as of: 11/02/20

Claim: Climate change is endangering food supply.

Fact Check: The vitality of global vegetation in both managed and unmanaged ecosystems is better off now than it was a hundred years ago, 50 years ago, or even a mere two-to-three decades ago thanks in part to CO2. A greening of the planet has resulted and the Sahara desert has shrunk by 8%. CO2 has reduced the vitality of plant life and reduced the water need. A greening of the planet has resulted and the Sahara desert has shrunk by 8%. CO2 has reduced the vitality of plant life and reduced the water need. See the update here.
Fact Check as of: 02/06/19

Claim: Carbon pollution is a serious and growing health hazard.

Fact Check:  The term “carbon pollution” is a deliberate, ambiguous, disingenuous term, designed to mislead people into thinking carbon dioxide is pollution. Thanks to the use of clean burning natural gas and other measures, the amount of particulate matter and other criteria pollutants identified by the EPA have declined over 77% and are well below the standards set. The United States has now the cleanest air in the world according to NASA and the World Health Organization (WHO). See details here.
Fact Check as of: 08/05/21

Claim: Rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations are causing ocean acidification, which is catastrophically harming marine life.

Fact Check: Ocean acidification (really only slightly reduced alkalinity) is often found to be a non-problem, or even a benefit. Numerous scientific studies have demonstrated the robustness of multiple marine plant and animal species to ocean acidification when they are properly performed under realistic experimental conditions here. See also Peter Ridd’s recent finding of a new Record high Coral Cover of the Great Barrier Reef here.
Fact Check as of: 02/03/19

Claim: There is a 97% Consensus of the world’s scientists that climate change is serious and man-made.

Fact Check: The claim of a 97% scientific consensus is a contrived fiction. CO2 is not a pollutant but a beneficial gas, particulate matter is. But as shown above, small and large particulate matter is not an issue. As also shown above all the claims of dangerous effects on the climate are also shown to be exaggerated or outright falsifications. See details here.\
Fact Check as of: 08/04/20

See the detailed rebuttals here. Each section details claim and links to a detailed scientific analysis with supporting graphics and links.

Comments On Federal Scientific Integrity

Comments On Federal Scientific Integrity
By Kenneth Haapala, President,
The Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)
July 28, 2021 

[See original paper with End Notes here]
“It is one thing to impose drastic measures and harsh economic penalties when an environmental problem is clear-cut and severe. It is quite another to do so when the environmental problem is largely hypothetical and not substantiated by careful observations.
This is definitely the case with global warming.” – Frederick Seitz, 17th president of the United States National Academy of Sciences

This paper addresses the scientific integrity involved in the fear that human additions to atmospheric carbon dioxide will cause significant global warming. To comprehend how carbon dioxide influences the globe’s temperatures one must comprehend the greenhouse effect, how different greenhouse gases influence the loss of heat to space, how different greenhouse gases influence the effectiveness of other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and how increasing the greenhouse effect influences climate. Further, to comprehend how human emissions of greenhouse gases affect climate requires separating the greenhouse effect from other human impacts on climate such as urbanization. Also, it requires separating human impacts from natural climate change including changing ocean circulation and changing solar influences which we do not fully understand.

This brief paper is divided into six basic sections: One, the importance of the scientific method for understanding the physical world; Two, the changing climate; Three, the importance of the
greenhouse effect, including carbon dioxide, for life on this planet; Four, problems with global climate models used to predict dire consequences from increasing greenhouse gases, particularly
carbon dioxide; Five, modern physical evidence supporting an alternative analysis of the greenhouse effect; and Six, a suggested policy for going forward with steps the nation needs to take.

Section 1, The Scientific Method: The scientific method is a process of eliminating error in thinking and concepts by constantly subjecting concepts to rigorous testing using all available
physical evidence that is appropriate. As physical evidence changes, the concepts must be changed accordingly. The 20th century began without theories of relativity or quantum mechanics, which upset classical physics, and belief that continents did not move. Today, we
make use of these concepts and are experiencing constant change in communications, electronics, and similar technologies. Who knows what new developments may bring?

With dramatic change in our knowledge of the physical world, including science and science-based technology, such as nuclear weapons, scientists acquired political influence and responsibility. There should be no issue as to the rigorous application of the scientific method, particularly by scientists employed or sponsored by the US government, who are responsible to the American public. Political beliefs need to be set aside. As Steven Koonin (the Chief Scientist of the Department of Energy under the Obama Administration), who is familiar with complex mathematical physics, mathematical modeling, and the IPCC process, wrote:
“Philip Handler, a former president of the National Academy of Sciences, identified the problem in a 1980 editorial that resonates eerily four decades later:
‘With scientists’ unique role comes a special responsibility. We’re the only people who can bring objective science to the discussion, and that is our overriding ethical obligation. Like judges, we’re obligated to put personal feelings aside as we do our job. When we fail to do this, we usurp the public’s right to make informed choices and undermine their confidence in the entire scientific enterprise. There’s nothing at all wrong with scientists as activists, but activism
masquerading as The Science is pernicious.’”

Since the 1970s there has been a dramatic increase in evidence (data) on the greenhouse effect and how increasing greenhouse gases influence the earth’s atmosphere, thus the climate. It is
incumbent on government scientists and government sponsored scientists to apply the scientific method and incorporate these new data (evidence) in their reports, so they do not mislead the
American public.
Section 2, The Changing Climate: Atmospheric physicist Richard Lindzen is noted for his work in dynamic meteorology, atmospheric tides, ozone photochemistry, quasi-biennial oscillation, and the Iris hypothesis. Lindzen described the generally accepted view of the earth’s climate system as circulation of two fluids (atmosphere and oceans) interacting with each other and the uneven land, made turbulent by the rotation of the globe – exposing the fluids and the
land to uneven heating by the sun. (The energy flow from the sun to the earth varies as well.) The entire system involves fluid dynamics which is not fully understood. As such, “The fact that these circulations carry heat to and from the surface means that the surface itself is never in equilibrium with space. There is never an exact balance between incoming heat from the sun and outgoing radiation generated by the Earth. This is because heat is always being stored in (and released from) the oceans. Therefore, surface temperature is always varying somewhat.” 

After discussing the substantial energy transfers from the phase changes of water, Lindzen brings up the greenhouse effect and states: “…that the two most important greenhouse substances by far are water vapor and clouds. Clouds are also important reflectors of sunlight. “The unit for describing energy flows is watts per square meter. The energy budget of this system involves the absorption and reemission of about 200 watts per square meter. Doubling
CO2 involves a 2% perturbation to this budget. So do minor changes in clouds and other features, and such changes are common….” 

Lindzen concludes the section by discussing “unforced” natural variation that may take 1,000s of years to appear. Thus, climate change involves two parts of physics for which we have no
comprehensive theories established by physical evidence: 1) fluid dynamics and 2) the greenhouse effect.
Section 3, The Greenhouse Effect: The greenhouse effect makes the earth inhabitable. Developing laboratory experiments starting in 1859, John Tyndall recognized that greenhouse gasses warm the atmosphere by slowing heat loss from the surface to space. This slowing of infrared energy to space makes the earth inhabitable, with the principal greenhouse gas being water vapor. Tyndall noted that the influence of some greenhouse gases is not proportional to
their concentrations. 

Decades of laboratory experiments show that carbon dioxide is an effective greenhouse gas only at extremely low concentrations. Its effectiveness is exhausted at less than one-half of the concentration it was when humans began using fossil fuels. Humans increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide is like adding a thin sheet on top of a thick quilt, it does little or nothing. In the 1970s, with parts of the world undergoing economic development and carbon dioxide concentrations increasing, surface temperatures indicated the earth shifted from cooling to warming. The National Research Council formed an influential panel which asserted that even
though laboratory experiments demonstrate that carbon dioxide has a modest effect on temperature, the slight warming caused by carbon dioxide – less than 3 percent of the total atmospheric warming effect – would be greatly amplified by increases in water vapor. This was a guess, without physical evidence. The guess managed to turn a modest 2-degree Fahrenheit (°F) maximum increase due to a doubling of carbon dioxide alone into a speculative 6 °F total increase.  

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and many US scientific bodies have incorporated the guess into unstated assumptions. However, starting in 1979, the US
developed a significant body of observations of the atmosphere using satellites. Forty years of measured atmospheric temperature trends, the only comprehensive global temperature dataset
existing, confirm a century of laboratory experiments. The effect of increasing carbon dioxide is small, much less than natural variation. At the surface, it is difficult to separate the increase in the greenhouse effect from natural variation. Further, the speculated amplification from increased water vapor cannot be found. For over 40 years the US has compiled data on the greenhouse effect itself, supporting the atmospheric temperature trends – increasing carbon dioxide will produce a modest warming. The current warming of the atmosphere is 0.25 °F per decade since January 1979, or about 1 °F since January 1979, or about 2.5 °F per century. It is in the middle of the lowest set of estimates of warming currently developed by the IPCC, which assumes little increase in carbon dioxide. This includes
all greenhouse gases and natural variation. It is well within the range of natural historic warming.  

Based on observations by NOAA at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, each year the maximum atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration occurs in May. May measurements grew from 339 parts per million in volume (ppm) in 1979 to 419 ppm in 2021. This is an increase of 80 ppm or 24%. Yet the increase in atmospheric temperatures from all sources was only 1°F. The most appropriate physical evidence does not support the fear that increasing carbon dioxide is causing dangerous warming.  

For increasing carbon dioxide to cause surface warming, the atmosphere must warm at a greater rate than the surface, but the opposite is happening. The probable causes of surface warming are
urbanization, changes in ocean circulations, and solar variations that we do not fully understand, not greenhouse gases. In general, those using surface data to claim dangerous warming ignore such changes. They use models which have never been validated (using physical evidence from the atmosphere) to speculate 30 to 80 years into the future.
Section 4, Problems with Global Climate Models: In his book “Unsettled,” Steven Koonin identifies numerous deficiencies in the IPCC process that need to be addressed; its findings are used for public policy. Among the more serious deficiencies Koonin discusses are:
A) a confusion in scale between Celsius and Kelvin when estimating the influence of doubling carbon dioxide resulting in significant error, and
B) IPCC models do not track the warming trend in the surface temperature record between 1910 and 1940.
Koonin also points out the complexity of the climate models, which divide the surface and the atmosphere into various hypothetical boxes called cells. Accurate measurements are needed for all the cells, but the measurements don’t exist. Further, the cells are so large that important weather events may be missed. Most important, the IPCC conclusions are political not scientific:
“And—a very key point—the IPCC’s ‘Summaries for Policymakers’ are heavily influenced, if not written, by governments that have interests in promoting particular policies. In short, there are many opportunities to corrupt the objectivity of the process and product.” 

A book by Japanese climatologist and former NASA researcher Mototaka Nakamura shows the deficiencies in Earth’s surface temperatures and considers them unreliable before 1980.
A quasi-global observation system has been operating only for 40 years or so since the advent of artificial satellite observation. Temperature data before then were collected over extremely small
(with respect to the Earth’ s entire surface area) areas and, thus, have severe spatial bias. We have an inadequate amount of data to calculate the global mean surface temperature trend for the pre-satellite period. This severe spatial bias in reality casts a major uncertainty over the meaningfulness of “the global mean surface temperature trend” before 1980.  
Nakamura also discusses efforts to discredit his views which failed. Unlike Koonin, who accepts global mean surface temperature trends before 1980, Nakamura states these trends are highly
questionable. For example, for over 2,000 years changes in land use, such as draining wetlands, clearing forests, irrigation, urbanization, etc., have been recognized to change local climate temperatures. Nakamura states that global surface temperature trends are based on a few, highly localized measurements, and the entire record on which global climate models are based may be highly biased. Indeed, when comparing the results of global climate models to what is occurring in the atmosphere, where the greenhouse effect occurs, the models are highly biased in overestimating the warming effect of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Both authors
express major difficulties in the approach used by the UN IPCC and US government in assessing the effect of greenhouse gases.
The atmospheric temperature effects of greenhouse gases are far less than what the models show.

Christy, et al., compared four different satellite datasets, four different weather balloon datasets, and four sets of weather reanalyzes with the average of model simulations used in the Fifth
Assessment Report of the IPCC. The researchers found the models grossly overestimate actual atmospheric temperature trends and that the disparity is increasing. Global climate models may
be useful teaching tools, but they are not useful for government policy on greenhouse gases. 

Section 5, Modern Physical Evidence Supporting an Alternative Analysis of the Greenhouse Effect: During the 20th century great changes occurred in physics such as relativity and quantum mechanics. which describes the physical properties of nature on the molecular, atomic, and subatomic level. Quantum mechanics led to the field of physics called Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics (AMO), which enabled the development of databases that can be
used to directly calculate the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere.  
Using the HITRAN database, AMO authorities W. A. van Wijngaarden and W. Happer have estimated the influence of water vapor, carbon dioxide, ozone, nitrous oxide, and methane in a
cloud free atmosphere to increase global temperatures. Under current atmospheric conditions, increasing water vapor and carbon dioxide have a minimal effect on temperatures. At last, we have calculations that agree with measurements of what is occurring in the atmosphere.  
Section 6, Going Forward: Scientific integrity requires that the Biden Administration employ the most rigorous application of the scientific method. As shown above, observations using 21st century technology support certain concepts of the 20th century and demonstrate others to be false. Scientific integrity requires that, the administration should not use long-range models for policy until the models reach the high standards for verification and validation met for modeling the reliability of nuclear weapons by Sandia
National Laboratories; or the standards required by the Apollo Team of scientists and engineers for manned lunar exploration. 
Since there is no current physical evidence of dangerous global warming from greenhouse gases or their effects, and no physical evidence of a climate crisis, the administration should use
atmospheric temperature trends and the MODTRAN and HITRAN databases to estimate the effects of increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Further, the government should continue to
• Monitor atmospheric temperatures as has been done for 40 years and
• Monitor outgoing electromagnetic radiation as being done by the CERES project.
Above all, the Biden Administration should inform the public that there is no current threat, and that it is using the best science possible to monitor the situation to assure that a threat is not


[Note: other papers from SEPP and a weekly review “The Week That Was”, published every Monday, can be found at ]

The Biden Administration Has Swallowed the “Climate Kool-Aid”

The Biden administration thinks they can stop global warming (aka climate change) by eliminating carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels and switching electrical generation to wind and solar installations. Biden says “follow the science.” If he did follow the science he would realize that there is no physical evidence that carbon dioxide plays a significant role in controlling global temperature (see posts at the end of this article).

Biden wants 80% hydrocarbon-free electricity generation by 2030, 100% by 2035 and elimination of fossil fuels from all sectors of the U.S. economy by 2050.

According to Paul Driessen (senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow), “ this would send the nation’s annual electricity requirement soaring from about 2.7 billion megawatt-hours (the fossil fuel portion of total U.S. electricity) to almost 7.5 billion MWh per year by 2050. Substantial additional generation would be required to constantly recharge backup batteries for windless, sunless days, to safeguard society against blackouts, cyberattacks and wholesale collapse. Generating all that electricity without new nuclear and hydroelectric plants would require tens of thousands of 850-foot-tall offshore wind turbines, hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of somewhat smaller onshore turbines, and billions of photovoltaic solar panels. All these turbines, panels, batteries and power lines would require tens of billions of tons of non-renewable iron, copper, aluminum, cobalt, lithium, rare earth elements, plastics, limestone and other materials. That would necessitate mining, crushing, processing, refining and transporting tens of billions of tons of ores – from thousands of mines and quarries, using gigantic gasoline and diesel equipment – followed by smelting and manufacturing, all with fossil fuels. None of this is clean, green or sustainable.”

So, how is “global warming” doing. We can consult with Dr. Roy Spencer who manages the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. This satellite system measures global atmospheric temperature daily. The latest results are seen here:

You should notice that global atmospheric temperatures in April, May, and June, 2021, were below the 1991-2020 average and similar to temperatures in 1983. According to the Global Monitoring Laboratory of NOAA at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, atmospheric carbon dioxide was about 340ppm in 1983 versus about 418ppm now. Although there has been deviation from the average due to things like the El Nino-La Nina cycles, there has not been any overall warming in spite of the increase in carbon dioxide.

Biden and other climate alarmists have swallowed the climate “Kool-Aid” and claim that reducing just one, small, insignificant factor will be the panacea in controlling global temperature, but it’s not that simple:

“The forcings that drive long-term climate change are not known with an accuracy sufficient to define future climate change.” — James Hansen, “Climate forcings in the Industrial era”, PNAS, Vol. 95, Issue 22, 12753-12758, October 27, 1998.

“In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the prediction of a specific future climate state is not possible.” — Final chapter,Third Assessment Report, IPCC 2000.

While controlling CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels may have some beneficial effects on air quality, it will have no measurable effect on climate, but great detrimental effects on the economy and our standard of living. The greatest danger of climate change is that politicians think they can stop it. But the climate has always been in a state of flux. In my opinion, the debate over global warming is truly a scam designed to control (and tax) production and use of energy from fossil fuels.

The alleged “climate crisis” is just a scam perpetrated for political gain.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” —H. L. Mencken (1880-1956)

(Note to younger readers: The term “Kool-Aid” used in this context refers to cult leader Jim Jones who, on November 18, 1978, instructed all members living in the Jonestown, Guyana compound to commit an act of “revolutionary suicide,” by drinking poisoned punch. Link )

For the real science, see these articles from my blog:

A Review of the state of Climate Science

A Summary of Earth’s Climate History-a Geologist’s View

Problems with wind and solar generation of electricity – a review

The “Social Cost of Carbon” Scam Revisited

ATMOSPHERIC CO2: a boon for the biosphere

Carbon dioxide is necessary for life on Earth

Impact of the Paris Climate Accord and why Trump was right to drop it

New study shows that carbon dioxide is responsible for only seven percent of the greenhouse effect

Six Issues the Promoters of the Green New Deal Have Overlooked

Recent Heatwaves are Weather – Not Climate Change

Weather in June, 2021, contained some record high temperatures in the western U.S. The alarmist media claims that these heatwaves must be due to global warming.


Many media reports show heat wave data beginning in 1960 and how it has been increasing since then. They ignore stronger heatwaves that occurred in the 1930s.

Record high temperatures occurred in the Pacific northwest. Meteorologist Chris Mass (professor of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Washington) predicted as few days before the event why this would happen:

A unique combination of factors will come together to make the unthinkable possible. Forget the “heat dome” explanations found in the Seattle Times and some media outlets, or those saying that the extreme heat can only be explained by global warming.

I will call the phenomenon a downslope heat surge on the western slopes of the Cascades.

A relative of the extreme heat associated with Santa Ana winds in southern California, but with a twist.

To get this amazing event, a series of ingredients had to occur at the same time and same place.

Ingredient One: An unusually strong area of high pressure aloft over our region (known as an upper-level ridge), associated with sinking air and unusually warm temperatures.

At the surface, this feature is associated with high pressure to the east of the Cascade crest, which tends to produce weak offshore (easterly) flow. Such easterly flow keeps the cooling influence of the Pacific Ocean away.

Why did we get this high amplitude ridge? It is associated with a highly amplified wave pattern in the eastern Pacific, which may have been caused by a tropical system interacting with the jet stream. This is the result of natural variability.

Ingredient Two: An Approaching Trough of Low Pressure That Creates Strong Easterly/Downslope Flow over the Western Slopes of the Cascades

The key to this situation is that there will be high pressure inland and an approaching area of low pressure (called a trough) that will approach our coast. Between these two features, a zone of very large pressure difference will be created, which will be associated with strong southeasterly flow.

Surface temperatures will get above 112F over and near the western slopes of the Cascades. Large portions of western Oregon and Washington away from the water will be above 104F. (Read full post)

Much of the Western U.S. is experiencing drought conditions. In Arizona, the usual summer rains went missing last year. It is predicted that the summer monsoon season will be closer to normal this year. Again, droughts are part of normal variation and have occurred in the past.


For more information on climate change and evidence that carbon dioxide emissions have nothing to do will global warming, see these posts:

A Review of the state of Climate Science

A Summary of Earth’s Climate History-a Geologist’s View

Problems with wind and solar generation of electricity – a review

The “Social Cost of Carbon” Scam Revisited

ATMOSPHERIC CO2: a boon for the biosphere

Carbon dioxide is necessary for life on Earth

Impact of the Paris Climate Accord and why Trump was right to drop it

New study shows that carbon dioxide is responsible for only seven percent of the greenhouse effect

Six Issues the Promoters of the Green New Deal Have Overlooked

National Interagency Fire Center Deletes Inconvenient Data

This post is an excerpt from an article by Anthony Watts. Read full article here.

“The National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) has been the keeper of U.S. wildfire data for decades, tracking both the number of wildfires and acreage burned all the way back to 1926. However, after making that entire dataset public for decades, now, in a blatant act of cherry picking, NIFC “disappeared” a portion of it, and only show data from 1983.”

“Why would they do this you ask? The answer is simple; data prior to 1983 shows that U.S. wildfires were far worse both in frequency and total acreage burned. By disappearing all data prior to 1983, which just happens to be the lowest point in the dataset, now all of the sudden we get a positive slope of worsening wildfire aligning with increased global temperature, which is perfect for claiming ‘climate change is making wildfire worse.’”

See also: Wildfires Not Related to Global Warming