At the recent 28th Conference of Parties (COP28) convened by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), British political lobbyist, climate activist and aristocrat King Charles III said:
I have spent a large proportion of my life trying to warn of the existential threats facing us over global warming, climate change and biodiversity loss. [. . .] The dangers are no longer distant risks. [. . .] How can we bring together our public, private, philanthropic and N.G.O. sectors ever more effectively, so that they all play their part in delivering climate action, each complementing the unique strengths of the others? Public finance alone will never be sufficient. [. . .] [H]ow can we ensure that finance flows to those developments most essential to a sustainable future.
Two things stand out in Charles’ speech: his warnings of the dire consequences of “global warming” and his suggested solutions, all of which involve redirecting the investment strategies of a global public-private partnership.
Charles has long predicted climate catastrophe. It was 14 years ago when he reliably informed us that we had just eight years left to save the world.
The supposed need for a new global economic model is why the people who comprise the parasite class are so eager to push “climate alarm.” Just look at their alleged solution to their imaginary climate catastrophe: Sustainable Development Goals. These SDGs, however, have far more to do with worldwide economic, political, financial and social control by the parasites than they do with addressing “climate change.” Consider that many of the so-called “thought leaders” gathered at COP28—Charles among them—declared that fighting climate change necessitates much more global governance.
Indeed, the transformation of nearly everything on Earth is based on the globalists’ insistence that planet-wide warming is leading to dangerous levels of climate change and that we must collectively do something about it. Of course, “we” doesn’t include Charles or the other COP28 “climate activists”—many of whom are multi-millionaires, even billionaires, who each have a carbon footprint comparable to a small island state.
Even if we were to accept the selective, collective responsibility demanded of us, there are many reasons to doubt its alleged scientific basis. Not least of these doubts is the eminently questionable theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).
Broadly speaking, AGW theory posits that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other so-called greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as methane (CH4), are being added to the atmosphere and that they have the cumulative effect of supposedly reducing the rate that heat is radiated from Earth. This effect allegedly causes additional warming in the lower atmospheric layer, called the troposphere.
The theory also posits that burning so-called fossil fuels for energy is the primary reason humans emit these alleged GHGs.
Furthermore, its proponents believe this purported man-made warming is unprecedented and is adversely affecting weather patterns to such an extent that life on Earth is in imminent peril.
Consequently, our use of energy, often referred to as the energy mix, is said to be leading us toward a “climate disaster.” Whenever the media reports on the “disastrous” effects of AGW, it engenders widespread “climate alarm.”
Governments and many [quote-unquote] “climate scientists” strongly argue that we must change the energy mix toward a reliance upon what they term renewable energy. In addition, they urge us to radically alter our consumption patterns and accept increasing restrictions on all aspects of our lifestyle. These measures form part of the United Nations’ “sustainable development” agenda.
One of the foremost dissenters of the AGW theory is South African economist Robert “Rob” Jeffrey, who achieved brief fame after earning his PhD at the ripe age of 80. His remarkable doctoral dissertation, published in June 2022, is one of the few published documents to collate a large body of scientific evidence questioning both AGW theory and the prevailing “climate alarm” narrative in one single resource.
The three-part series of articles you are reading is partly based on some of Dr. Jeffrey’s findings, though we cannot hope to do his work justice. Thus, we highly recommend that you read his paper first.
In our series, we will discuss some of the many scientific and other empirical reasons to question the AGW theory.
For example, a recent statistical review of the historical temperature record published by the Statistisk Sentralbyrå—the Norwegian Statistics Bureau—considered the extent to which historical temperature change is driven by man-made GHG emissions. In the abstract, the researchers noted:
[. . .] [standard climate models are rejected by time series data on global temperatures. [. . .] [T]he effect of man-made CO2 emissions does not appear to be strong enough to cause systematic changes in the temperature fluctuations during the last 200 years.
The article you are reading does not represent “climate change denial.” On the contrary, no one who seriously questions AGW theory or the claimed “climate crisis” or the resultant “climate alarm” denies that the climate always changes. Nor do these sceptics deny that Earth, and its atmosphere, are currently in a general warming phase. Furthermore, they do not “deny” that natural changes in the climate could potentially have a significant impact on the environment and on the global population.
This article is not intended to be a rebuttal of the consensus AGW climate science. Rather, it will refer to a small percentage of the science that calls into question the consensus-driven climate science.
Much, but not all, of this evidence is cited by Rob Jeffrey in his thesis. Our objective is to stimulate open, honest debate. Included in that debate should be a lively discussion of the United Nations’ claimed justification for its sustainable development agenda.
Understanding AGW Theory
According to German theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder, AGW theory determines that primarily shortwave “ultraviolet” solar radiation is initially absorbed by Earth and is then emitted by Earth in the form of longwave “infrared” radiation. The infrared radiation coming from Earth’s surface slowly spreads upwards through the atmosphere, where it is trapped by GHGs.
The total incoming solar energy must balance with the total outgoing energy to achieve “radiative equilibrium.” That radiative balance is called the Earth’s “radiation budget.”
Atmospheric pressure and temperature both decrease with altitude. (Meaning: at higher altitudes.) Thus, the density of GHGs reduces to the point where the infrared radiation from Earth’s surface is emitted by GHGs, notably CO2. When the CO2 emits radiation, in all directions, some of it is emitted “back” toward the Earth’s surface.
In order to maintain radiative equilibrium, the resultant average surface air temperature (SAT)—which is at a very low altitude, only two meters above Earth’s surface—will always be proportionately warmer than the “top of atmosphere” (TOA), where the infrared radiation is finally released by more sparsely distributed GHGs.
A 2018 paper on TOA by Loeb et al. states:
Climate change involves a perturbation to Earth’s energy budget [. . .]. Changes in the composition of the atmosphere either through natural or anthropogenic sources alter how energy is distributed and can lead to irreversible changes in regional climate. At the top-of-atmosphere (TOA), the Earth’s energy budget involves a balance between how much solar energy Earth absorbs and how much terrestrial thermal infrared radiation is emitted to space. Since only radiative energy is involved, this is also referred to as Earth’s radiation budget (ERB). Approximately 30% of the incident solar radiation reaching Earth is scattered back to space by air molecules, clouds, the Earth’s surface, and aerosols. The remaining 70% is absorbed by the surface atmosphere system, providing the energy necessary to sustain life on Earth. The absorbed solar radiation (ASR) is converted into different forms of energy, and transported and stored throughout the system. The Earth also emits thermal infrared radiation to space as outgoing longwave radiation, which must balance ASR in an equilibrium climate.
Different GHGs have different wavelength absorption and emission properties. CO2 best absorbs longwave radiation with a wavelength of around 15 micrometers. This means that at approximately 12 kilometres (km) above the earth, where the atmospheric temperature is about 220K (-53°C), CO2 causes a notable dip in outgoing longwave radiation.
However, CO2 doesn’t just absorb and emit longwave radiation in a narrow emission band at this altitude (12km above Earth). It also absorbs longwave radiation, to a lesser degree, at shorter and longer wavelengths—at both lower and higher altitudes. Increasing total atmospheric CO2 slows the emission of an expanding chunk of longwave radiation. In essence, this raises the altitude at which infrared radiation leaves Earth.
Speaking about what she calls the “enhanced greenhouse effect,” Dr. Hossenfelder said:
The greenhouse effect works because pushing the effective altitude of emissions up reduces the temperature emission, and that brings the system out of balance.
This positive “radiative forcing” creates Earth’s energy imbalance (EEI), measured as radiative flux (W/m2). Shukmann et al. (2023) currently estimated the EEI to be +0.76 W/m2.
The radiative forcing adds additional heat energy to the climate system. This largely manifests as potential and kinetic energy, which causes more frequent and severe weather anomalies. Proponents of AGW theory claim that this positive radiative forcing leads to an ever-more-energetic climate system, with possible dangerous implications for life on the planet.
AGW theory is allegedly proven by the observation of stratospheric cooling. In 1967, Manabe and Wetherall predicted that increasing energy trapped in the troposphere would lead to an observable cooling in the stratosphere. This is said to be the “fingerprint” of AGW. Santer et al. (2023) has observed stratospheric cooling, which, when combined with tropospheric warming, is “incontrovertible evidence of human effects on the thermal structure of Earth’s atmosphere.” Or so Santer says.
This is how Sabine Hossenfelder explains the significance of the simultaneous stratospheric cooling and tropospheric warming claimed by the AGW theorists:
This was a super important prediction because, if global warming was caused by an increase in solar radiation, rather than an increase in global gases, then they should both warm. And the upper stratosphere has in fact cooled. If someone asks you how we know it’s not a change in solar radiation a good answer is [. . .] “stratospheric cooling.”
Dr. Hossenfelder recognises that the basic diagrammatic representation of the mathematical model of the greenhouse effect—something we’ll discuss shortly—in nearly all the major introductory “climate science” textbooks is confusing.
Therefore, she has simplified the scientific explanation of how the greenhouse effect “really” works:
The incoming radiation from the sun comes through the atmosphere and hits the surface. It’s converted into infrared radiation and that heats the atmosphere from below. Somewhere up here [TOA], the infrared light escapes for good. If the concentration of CO2 goes up then infrared light escapes from somewhere further up where the atmosphere is a little colder. So now the total emitted energy is smaller and the system is out of balance. The Earth then has to heat from below until the emission comes into balance again.
This simple, layman’s explanation from a climate scientist is important for AGW sceptics. They agree with Einstein, who allegedly said to Louis de Broglie:
All physical theories, their mathematical expressions apart, ought to lend themselves to so simple a description that even a child could understand them.
In other words, if the theory is sound then it should be simple enough to explain it.
Questioning AGW Theory Consensus
AGW theory is widely considered “settled science.” Also, the scientific consensus on the theory is thought to be equally “settled” and is said to further strengthen the notion that AGW theory is scientific fact.
Legacy media (LM) outlets, such as the BBC, have editorial policies that prohibit any questioning of AGW theory in their coverage of the news and science. Other LM outlets, like the UK Guardian, refuse to call the questioning of consensus climate science “scepticism.” Instead, they insist upon labelling it “climate denial.”
But no matter what terms they use, their premise is wrong. There is no such thing as “settled science.” Moreover, what they call a scientific consensus is scientifically irrelevant. Consensus is not even evidence, let alone proof of anything. The very fact that there is scientific debate about the alleged consensus proves that science is never settled, either by consensus or otherwise.
In many respects, it is ridiculous that Rob Jeffrey, PhD, even needed to address the question of consensus. Unfortunately, though, the consensus about the climate is frequently cited by AGW theorists as if it were sufficient reason to accept their claims. For this reason, Dr. Jeffrey was compelled to tackle the issue:
Some years ago, a claim was made by Bedford and Cook (2013) that “There is an overwhelming consensus within the scientific community [. . .] the Earth’s global average temperature is increasing, and human emissions of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, are the main cause.” The conclusion of Cook was that on AGW [Anthropogenic Global Warming], “97.1 % endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.” [. . .]. This figure is often bandied about as experts’ clear-cut consensus on humans’ responsibility for Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). Many other experts have strongly disputed this, notably Legates (2015). They set out strong arguments that the figure of 97% is blatant misrepresentation.
Cook et al. (2013) examined the abstracts from 11,944 papers, published between 1991 and 2011, where topics such as “global climate change” or “global warming” were discussed. The researchers deemed the abstract to be supportive of AGW theory “consensus” if it expressed some degree of agreement with the following statement:
Human activity is very likely causing most of the current warming (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW).
Later, Legates et al. (2015) would describe this as Cook’s “standard definition” of AGW consensus. From Legates (2015) we note:
It is not possible to discern either from the paper or from the supplementary information what percentage of all abstracts the authors considered to have endorsed the standard definition. [. . .] Of the 11,944 abstracts, 3896 (32.6 %) were marked as explicitly or implicitly endorsing at least the unquantified definition that humans cause some warming. It was only by arbitrarily excluding those 7930 abstracts that expressed no opinion (but retaining forty abstracts expressing uncertainty) that Cook et al. (2013) were able to conclude that 97.1 % endorsed ‘consensus’. However, the authors’ data file shows that they had marked only 64 abstracts (0.5 % of the entire sample) as endorsing the standard definition of consensus. Inspection shows that 23 of these 64 do not, in fact, endorse that definition. Only 41 papers (0.3 % of the sample) do so.
Effectively, it appears that the 2013 Cook et al. analysis excluded papers that did not promote the “standard definition” and rated the degree of agreement among the remaining papers to derive the 97.1% “consensus.” Yet, as Legates (2015) highlighted, this level of agreement is not evident from the full Cook (2013) reported dataset.
Concerned that some scientists and other sceptics were questioning the “consensus” claim, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) funded a group of scientists to double down on the alleged relevance and claimed importance of the consensus. Presumably for economic or political, rather than scientific reasons, the foundation and the scientists it funded were eager to promote the consensus narrative.
It is notable that Bill Gates and his foundation are heavily invested in climate alarm. Gates even wrote a book about his “alarmist” beliefs. Like many other billionaires who have profited enormously from the policy response to the pseudopandemic, Gates seems eager that we should all embrace the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals and related climate change policies.
No wonder BMGF board member Mark Suzman wrote:
As bad as the pandemic has been, climate change will be even worse if we do not start applying the same spirit of global collaboration right now to address it. [. . .] [O]ur global civilization needs to cut its greenhouse gas emissions to net-zero by 2050 [. . .] this is the time to aggressively reduce global emissions and help vulnerable populations adapt to the changing climate.
The BMGF paper claims that the consensus on AGW now stands at 99%. Building on the methodology of Cook et al. (2013)—referenced as C13 in the Gates paper—the BMGF scientists didn’t mention Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) but used the term Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC) instead.
The AGW theory is very clearly based upon the idea of unprecedented global warming. Anthropogenic climate change (ACC) is simply an alleged consequence of unprecedented global warming.
By searching more than 88,000 related articles catalogued by Web of Science between 2012 and 2020—using a set of questionable keywords—Gates’ researchers identified just “28 papers from the full dataset” that were said to be sceptical of ACC, though not necessarily AGW. Hence their reported certainty about the ACC “consensus.”
Web of Science is a database of scholarly books, peer-reviewed journals, original research articles, reviews, editorials, chronologies, abstracts, as well as other items. The database is maintained by Clarivate.
Clarivate is a British-based global data analytics company. It claims to be a “global leader in trusted and transformative intelligence” that collates “enriched data” with a view toward enabling investors to “direct funding toward the most promising research areas.” Clarivate asserts that Web of Science is “curated with care” by its “expert team of in-house editors.” Clarivate stresses that its “corporate sustainability goals are aligned with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.”
We can reasonably conclude, then, that the BMGF team searched a biased source and used biased criteria to arrive at an evidently biased, predetermined conclusion. Searching funding-reliant climate science for evidence that the prevailing climate science is doubtful is like surveying the opinions of postal workers for evidence that the postal service is unnecessary. In other words, the Clarivate database analysis by the BMGF backed researchers is junk “science.”
The funding bias in science reached crisis proportions years ago and has not improved since. We are now at the stage where scientific papers are often rejected for peer review by the so-called “prestigious journals” if these papers don’t support the “consensus.” Under this orthodoxy, perfectly legitimate scientific theories are considered heretical. Bluntly put, science is in deep trouble and is increasingly used as little more than political propaganda.
The problem with such scientific junk is that it is then deployed by the legacy media to bamboozle the entire population. It enables leading “climate scientists,” such as the BMGF-funded Mark Lynas (who is a climate change activist and lead author of the 99% consensus paper), to make such anti-scientific statements as: “[I]t is really case closed.” His unscientific claim is accepted by gullible millions—as if there were such a thing as “settled science.”
In 2019, approximately five hundred scientists, engineers, economists and academic researchers submitted a letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations stating the following:
1. Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming.
2. Warming is far slower than predicted.
3. Climate policy relies on inadequate models.
4. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a plant food that is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO2 is beneficial for nature, greening the Earth: additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.
5. Global warming has not increased natural disasters.
6. Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities.
7. There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic.
Their letter is reminiscent of earlier referenced PhD dissertation by Rob Jeffrey. In his paper, he cited numerous peer-reviewed scientific papers and articles from renowned climate scientists who question AGW theory and the associated climate alarm:
There have been many papers and much research done on this subject [AGW theory]. This thesis considers that the debate at this stage indicates that the Science is not settled, nor is there consensus.
Questioning The Greenhouse Effect
Not only is the claim of “consensus” open to scientific dispute, so is the claim of the greenhouse effect. As Jeffrey noted in his paper:
A crucial part of the argument against CO2 is the so-called “greenhouse gas theory.” At this stage, this is purely a hypothesis, and there is significant evidence that the greenhouse gas hypothesis is oversimplified and inaccurate.
As previously discussed, advocates of the greenhouse effect postulate that solar shortwave radiation—measured in watts per square meter (W/m2)—is the sole energy source that creates the climate. Some of the shortwave radiation is reflected off clouds, ice, snow, etc. This is called the albedo effect. Light-coloured surfaces have high albedo; dark surfaces have low albedo.
The shortwave “ultraviolet” solar radiation is absorbed by surfaces with a low albedo, often referred to as a theoretically ideal “blackbody.” Shortwave solar radiation heats the low albedo “blackbody” surfaces, which then emit effective longwave “infrared” radiation that translates into heat energy in the atmosphere. GHGs impede the outgoing longwave radiation. This is said to destabilise the Earth’s “radiation budget,” causing the troposphere to warm.
Based on this greenhouse theory, NASA states:
Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (such as water vapor and carbon dioxide) absorb most of the Earth’s emitted longwave infrared radiation, which heats the lower atmosphere [troposphere]. In turn, the warmed atmosphere emits longwave radiation, some of which radiates toward the Earth’s surface, keeping our planet warm and generally comfortable. Increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane increase the temperature of the lower atmosphere by restricting the outward passage of emitted radiation, resulting in “global warming,” or, more broadly, global climate change.
The greenhouse effect is allegedly a radiative, heat-trapping phenomenon that assumes the reduction of surface cooling based on GHGs absorbing the outgoing longwave radiation and then re-emitting part of it “back.” This process supposedly causes net warming of the troposphere and Earth’s surface.
In 2013, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—more on the IPCC in Parts 2 and 3—provided a handy diagram [Fig 1] revealing how the “enhanced greenhouse effect” is said to work. The IPCC claimed the diagram was based on the measured radiative flux taken from a combination of terrestrial measuring stations and balloon and satellite readings.
The yellow arrows show the total absorbed incoming solar flux to the earth as 340 W/m2. Of this, 100 W/m2 is said to be reflected by the albedo effect at the top of atmosphere (TOA). Consequently, the IPCC AGW theory model—allegedly drawn from empirical measurements—shows net solar radiative flux supposedly received by the earth as 240 W/m2. This is comprised of 79 W/m2 absorbed in the lower troposphere (by clouds) and 161 W/m2 absorbed by Earth’s surface.
In AGW theory, the TOA is also the point where radiative infrared flux emitted from Earth is finally released back into space. As shown by the orange outward flux arrow in the top right (thermal outgoing TOA), the enhanced greenhouse effect emits 239 W/m2 from Earth via the TOA “atmospheric window.” Therefore, there is a suggested net imbalance of about 1 W/m2. This is the claimed “radiative forcing” leading to runaway net warming of Earth’s surface and climate system.
We note that, according to Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder, the only source of infrared flux absorbed by the “enhanced” GHGs, which allegedly cause the problem, is the “incoming radiation from the sun” that “comes through the atmosphere and hits the surface.” Hossenfelder says this 240 W/m2 of solar flux is “converted into infrared radiation” and “heats the atmosphere from below.”
In the IPCC diagram of the enhanced greenhouse effect, the outward surface radiative flux from Earth’s surface—shown by the orange arrow as “thermal up surface”—is 398 W/m2. This appears to be more than twice the radiative flux the surface received from the sun—161 W/m2—and, even if we add the 79 w/m2 absorbed in the lower atmosphere, it is still considerably more radiative flux than initially delivered by the sun. If Hossenfelder’s simple description is correct, then there must be another energy source in addition to the sun.
This additional energy source is supposedly accounted for in AGW theory by so-called “back radiation.” It is shown as the orange 342 W/m2 downward arrow—marked as “thermal down surface.” But this back radiation, so-called, is still more than twice the solar radiative flux initially received by Earth’s surface and remains much higher than the total 240 W/m2 allegedly input into the “heating” of the troposphere.
According to this theory, the atmospheric GHGs do not “reflect” infrared radiation received from the earth. They absorb it and then supposedly re-emit it “back” toward the surface.
But how can 240 W/m2 somehow becomes 398 W/m2 in the first place? And how can GHGs can emit 342 W/m2 without being supplied additional energy from somewhere? Both questions are unanswerable.
Yet AGW theory tries to answer by suggesting that the lower troposphere and the surface are “warmed” by re-absorbing infrared energy they have previously emitted. If that is true, it represents a net gain in energy from an unknown source. Alas, such a theory only compounds the problems that exist with the GHG model.
In physics, Kirchoff’s Law of Thermal Radiation states that the radiation emissivity and the absorptivity of a surface at a given temperature and wavelength are equal. In addition, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that net heat always flows spontaneously from hotter to colder regions of matter. That is to say, heat energy flows “downhill,” from warmer regions to colder regions. This includes energy transferred by radiation.
As explained by Hossenfelder, atmospheric temperature decreases with altitude. Furthermore, according to Hossenfelder, CO2 absorbs most infrared energy at about 12km above Earth at around 220K (-53°C). In keeping with Kirchhoff’s Law and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, even if we overlook the apparently inexplicable additional energy source problem, it does not seem possible that atmospheric CO2 can “warm” the planet’s surface with “back” radiation.
The rate at which the atmosphere cools with altitude is called the adiabatic lapse rate. This refers to the rate of reduction of a gas’s temperature without loss or gain of heat energy. Thus, gaseous temperature overwhelmingly decreases with altitude as a result of reduced internal gas pressure.
Lapse rate varies with moisture content. But, according to AGW theory, the average lapse rate is around -6°C per km until it reaches the tropopause.
AGW theory posits that adding CO2 enhances the greenhouse effect by increasing the altitude at which infrared radiation is ultimately emitted. Yet, crucially, AGW theory claims this effect somehow transpires without changing the temperature at which it is emitted. Except when it does change the temperature. Well, which is it? Apparently, the truth depends upon which “climate scientist” is doing the explaining.
Professor Raymond Pierrehumbert is a lead author for the IPCC assessment reports. Like Dr. Hossenfelder, Prof. Pierrehumbert has followed Einstein’s reported advice to speak in a way a child can understand. Here is his attempt to explain the enhanced greenhouse effect—from an adiabatic lapse rate perspective—in layman’s terms:
[The Earth receives] energy at more or less a fixed rate from the sun. [. . .] When what goes out equals what comes in that’s your equilibrium temperature and that is called the radiating temperature of the planet [. . .] The radiating temperature may be around -20°C, though the surface temperature is a lot hotter than that. The difference between the radiating temperature and the surface temperature is accounted for by greenhouse gasses. When we add CO2 to the atmosphere we’re not primarily changing the radiating temperature. What we’re changing is the radiative altitude. [. . .] The temperature at the radiating level [. . .] remains at -20°C but that temperature is occurring higher up. And since the radiative temperatures increase as you go deeper in the atmosphere, and this [adiabatic lapse rate] is approximately fixed, but you’re starting at that -20°C from higher up, by the time you extrapolate to the ground you wind up with a higher temperature.
Prof. Pierrehumbert agrees with Dr. Hossenfelder and all other AGW theory “climate scientists.” They all maintain that Earth’s surface warms because its radiation budget is perturbed by additional CO2 absorption and by the “back” emissions of longwave infrared radiation.
But Pierrehumbert and Hossenfelder disagree about how “radiative forcing” supposedly works. Dr. Hossenfelder thinks “pushing the effective altitude of emissions up reduces the temperature [of] emission.”
Admittedly, from the layman’s perspective, it is hard to know what’s going on, thus hard to know whether Pierrehumbert or Hossenfelder is right.
It is possible that neither one is right. Many other physicists have numerous problems with the explanations offered by both Pierrehumbert and Hossenfelder. These other physicists maintain that, according to the laws of physics, one of two processes must occur in order to increase the temperature of a gaseous atmospheric layer. They contend that either diabatic heating provides additional heat energy from some external source or adiabatic compression heats the gas by increasing the internal gas pressure.
As far as anyone knows, absent these additional forces, the Ideal Gas Law suggests that both pressure and temperature decrease with altitude. Dr. Hossenfelder appears to be right in this regard. But if adding CO2 complies with known physical gas laws, by expanding its concentration higher up in the atmosphere while simultaneously maintaining the adiabatic lapse rate, there doesn’t appear to be any logical reason to explain why this would cause any “enhancement” or “additional warming” of the surface.
If, as Prof. Pierrehumbert contends, CO2 somehow maintains its temperature at higher altitude—without any added energy or compression—effectively elongating the distance over which adiabatic lapse occurs and perhaps reducing the average lapse rate to something like 5.6°C/km, this would theoretically support the notion of “radiative forcing.” Such a mechanism could cause surface temperature to rise. But this suggested process appears to contravene the known laws of physics.
It is all very confusing. Perhaps Einstein would have suspected something was amiss with AGW theory. If we accept fundamental physical principles, the suggested AGW “enhanced greenhouse effect” doesn’t appear to be physically real.
The AGW Theory Physical Reality Problem
Astrophysicist Joseph E. Postma has tried to point out what he considers to be a glaring error in the basic mathematical formula for the greenhouse effect. He suggests this mistake in the formula may account for the apparent divergence of AGW theory from basic physical laws, such as known gas laws.
In AGW theory, Earth’s equilibrium temperature is calculated by applying tefan Boltzmann’s Law of Thermal Radiative Emissions to a theoretically average Earth. Postma highlights that this calculation assumes that Earth is an isothermal flat disc—a constant temperature flat Earth—whereas, in reality, it is a globe with uneven solar radiative flux and uneven temperature distribution. If Postma is correct, the greenhouse effect “model” is seemingly based on something that physically does not exist.
This basic “greenhouse effect” equation calculates Earth’s equilibrium “radiating temperature.” Postma’s argument is that the product of this erroneous mathematical model is then used as an input for the “more complex” AGW climate models, which are, therefore, based upon an initial fundamental error.
Postma presented his relevant paper for peer review to some “prestigious journals.” His submissions were ultimately rejected because the scientific reviewers would not accept his observation that energy from the sun, not GHG radiative forcing, creates Earth’s climate. Fortunately, the paper was published on Dr. Tim Ball’s website, so at least we have an opportunity to read it.
In Postma’s paper, the basic greenhouse effect model assumes that the “radiative equilibrium temperature”—the average surface temperature of Earth warmed by the sun—is 255K, or -18°C. This, Postma observes, is assumed to be the result of the warming effect of the solar radiative flux “input” into climate models. In physical reality, Postma contends, it is the net “output” of Earth’s climate system.
Postma observes that, with an assumed solar input that equates to -18°C, the basic greenhouse effect model determines:
[. . .] the average ground temperature is +15°C or 288K.
This appears to suggest, he says, that the 33°C additional warming is created solely by the greenhouse effect. That is to say, in the basic AGW theory model, the atmosphere, not the sun, apparently generates considerable energy. But this cannot be so, since the sun is the only energy source of our planet. Therefore, Postma concludes, the IPCC’s basic greenhouse effect model must be wrong.
Postma’s argument has been resoundingly rejected and ridiculed by the proponents of AGW theory, among them the Skeptical Science website.
keptical Science was founded by John Cook, who was the lead author of the aforementioned 2013 Cook et al. (consensus) paper. On its website is a summary of Cook’s academic background:
John Cook is a Senior Research Fellow with the Melbourne Centre for Behaviour Change at the University of Melbourne. He obtained his PhD at the University of Western Australia, studying the cognitive psychology of climate science denial. His research focus is understanding and countering misinformation about climate change.
Two articles posted by Skeptical Science offer a rebuttal to Postma. But they do concede that the model Postma criticizes—a model that “is described in many climate books [. . .] and radiation books”—“fails to capture the physics of the greenhouse effect.”
This is why Hossenfelder also questioned the model. Why anyone would continue to publish a mathematical model in numerous “climate science” textbooks that supposedly “fails” to explain “climate science” is indeed perplexing.
Describing this apparently incorrect model as a “simple textbook model,” Skeptical Science nonetheless asserts that the same model enables climate scientists to “build in complexity from there.” This is said despite the fact that Postma has repeatedly stressed that adding complexity to an incorrect model will not result in more convoluted models that are correct.
According to Skeptical Science, while the model does not “capture the physics of the greenhouse effect,” it provides “a useful approximation on Earth when coming up with an average emission temperature (255 K).”
Effectively, Skeptical Science proposes that a failed model that does not explain the physics of the greenhouse effect nevertheless accurately describes -18 °C as the average Earth equilibrium radiative “emission temperature.”
As Skeptical Science puts it:
Of course, this [simple text book equation] is never done in climate modelling or in more detailed analyses appropriate for scholarly literature.
This is precisely Postma’s criticism. He accepts that the model is discarded in the more complex climate science, but points to what that infers. The product of the failed equation, he shows us, is used as an input, without further verification, to the more complex models. Ultimately, this means that the AGW theory “climate science” starts from an incorrect assumption because it effectively ignores the natural variation caused by solar energy.
Postma’s paper explores what would happen if you don’t reduce the impact of solar flux and apply its full effect to a globe that has a day and night cycle. He concludes the following:
We hold that the average solar radiative input heating is only over one hemisphere of the Earth, has a temperature equivalent value of +30°C, with a zenith maximum of +87.5°C, and that this is not in any physically justifiable manner equivalent to an instantaneous average global heating input of -18°C.
Postma subsequently calculates the radiative aggregate output of the globe model which, he claims, does indeed equate to 255K or -18°C. Tellingly, however, all of the energy supplied to the climate model he describes is accounted for as solar radiative flux—energy from the sun. There is no additional energy provided by any “greenhouse effect.”
Postma’s argument includes the observation that the failed “simple textbook model” is used by the IPCC to define the greenhouse effect. This, in turn, forms the entire basis for the AGW theory. From the IPCC AR4 Synthesis Report 2008:
Effectively, infrared radiation emitted to space originates from an altitude with a temperature of, on average, –19°C, in balance with the net incoming solar radiation, whereas the Earth’s surface is kept at a much higher temperature of, on average, +14°C. An increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases leads to an increased infrared opacity of the atmosphere, and therefore to an effective radiation into space from a higher altitude at a lower temperature. This causes a radiative forcing that leads to an enhancement of the greenhouse effect.
This is a written account of the “simple textbook model.” Postma proffers that claiming -19°C is “in balance with net incoming solar radiation” is completely wrong.
In Part 2 of its Postma rebuttal, Skeptical Science expands on how the additional 33°C, or 33K, is apparently generated by the greenhouse effect in the more complex AGW climate models:
The way CO2-induced warming really works [. . .] is by reducing the rate of infrared radiation loss to space. [. . .] Increasing CO2 would nonetheless warm the planet by throwing the TOA [Top of Atmosphere] energy budget out of whack.
This is in keeping with Hossenfelder’s and Pierrehumbert’s claim that “the difference between the radiating temperature and the surface temperature is accounted for by greenhouse gasses.”
Postma concludes that the greenhouse effect is based upon a model where the atmosphere independently generates the energy that controls the Earth’s climate. The same model practically ignores the energy supplied by the sun.
Postma suggests that the greenhouse effect model is totally ridiculous. He questions why “climate scientists” maintain what he considers to be an absurd folly.
The frequent rebuttal made by “climate scientists” is that criticisms uttered by Postma and others like him fail to grasp the intricacies of highly complex climate science.
But why are these “climate scientists” dismissing Einstein’s reported observation that even children should be able to understand a scientific fact?
In other words, there is little point in saying that we mere mortals cannot understand “climate science” when these same so-called climate scientists don’t explain it logically, based upon known physical principles. This suggests they don’t understand it either—especially when their attempts to explain it are contradictory.
There is no “consensus” science about the climate. Even if there were, “consensus” is a scientifically meaningless claim, for it infers that, if anyone questions seemingly sacrosanct theories, they should be attacked as “climate deniers.” In “consensus” science, so-called, all debate is dismissed, and scepticism is framed as the confusion or mendacity of people who don’t understand or refuse to acknowledge “the Climate Science™.”
Along with the official climate science comes a raft of alleged “proofs” and consequent “climate models.” The proofs supposedly demonstrate the validity of AGW theory. The models predict the impact of AGW-driven climate change if humans do nothing to “save the planet.”
Yet, when we look at these experimental and measured proofs and at the models that stem from the AGW theory, we find that they, too, can—must—be questioned.
Questioning them is precisely what we’ll do in Part 2.
Please consider supporting my work. I really need your help if I am going to continue to provide the research and analysis that you value on a full-time basis. You can support my work for less than the price of a cup of coffee via my donor page or alternative become a paid subscriber to my Substack.
I extend my gratitude to my editor, who has provided invaluable contributions to my articles since October 2021 (but who, for personal reasons, prefers to remain anonymous).
Please feel free to share anything from iaindavis[.]com excluding any and all third party content. I use a Creative Commons License. All I ask is that you give credit to the author and clearly mark any changes you make. Please share my work widely. Censorship is increasing and we need to get this information out there. If you value what I do then please consider supporting my work. Many thanks.
Yes the climate is changing slightly,BUT look at history over the decades and this has always been so ,there is no alarm it’s a natural and wonderful cycle ,as many scientists ,meteorologists. and others agree on .
Two issues: Actions of WEFetal. The natural climate.
Totalitarianism intentionally kills every individual. Interfering with the natural climate causes harm.
Totalitarianism and intentionally changing natural climate break Natural Law’s cause no harm.
Thus neither action is ethical; no ifs, buts, maybes, complexity or excuses in it.
So, all SDGs and ‘net-zero’ policies must be promptly, permanently binned.
It’s for humans to fit with Universe, not for Universe to suit humans’ fads/whims.
First consider ethics of our own actions. If intended action passes, only if it passes that test can we start to do it. Fallible humans must scrutinise, continuously re-scrutinise own actions.
Is action per se ethical? If not, do nothing. Not, most definitely not, ‘just do it’.
‘must all collectively do something … “we” doesn’t include aristocrats like Charles or other COP28 billionaire “climate activists”.’
Of course not: ‘net-zero’ is anti-equality. ‘Do something’ – what! Even if unethical?
Ultra-rich are doing their part, as they see it, by not tightening their belts; the more they take from us, the more they have to play with. Fewer cars, less food and heat, more travel disruption for us, more CO2 for them to emit – ‘off-set’.
‘existential threats facing us … no longer distant’
Imminent threat to our very lives and planet is WEFetal. Their hurry is to get ‘net-zero’ and SDGs surveillance fixed in place before we succeed in stopping them.
‘Sustainable development goals … much more global governance.’
i.e. to sustain their greed by developing their thieving, they need to impose more governance to try to prevent global rebellion.
“climate scientists” “settled science”
Those phrases trigger hatred of real scientists. Pseudo-science is anti-science and is what that hatred aids.
Ordinary people who work as real scientists would be at less risk of physical assault if articles more clearly distinguished real science from pseudo-science.
‘science in deep trouble and increasingly used as … political propaganda’
Real scientists gradually lost 20 years’ battle against pseudo-scientists who do no matter what to get what they themselves want.
Real scientists aim to cause no harm to wonderfully admirable Universe; forgetting self because there’s so much else that’s amazing. Hence ‘absent-minded’ caricature.
Real scientists accept fact of own fallibility; humility a basic fact of life. But most deride humility, only hear pseudo-science’s absolutely certain ‘consensus’ but certainty, being unattainable by fallible humans, is not factually based.
Pseudo-science looks to prove self right or other wrong; consequently many false positives and false negatives. Real science looks to see if can find whatever is there.
‘can and should be questioned’
Articles on natural climate distract from whole point of ‘net-zero’ while ‘net-zero’ implemented. We won’t win war against WEFetal while skirmishing over details.
As majority most actively counter something that adversely impacts self, stronger than reams of detailed theory: –
Net income is what we’re left with after tax is taken and phrase ‘net-zero’ coined by financiers an accounting tactic to maximise income and minimise outgoings from their point of view, not ours.
We and nature are on outgoing side of their books; only ultra-rich on maximised income side.
Instead of us left with something after ‘tax’ taken, ‘net-zero’ is us left with nothing after ‘tax’. We net 0%, ultra-rich get gross i.e. 100%.
‘Net zero’ transfers absolutely everything from us to ultra-rich as per ‘Great Reset’ leaving us with zilch: no change at all in overall total.
‘Net-zero’ transfers everything we each have (money, car, home etc) and, by ‘decarbonisation’ literally our lives, to ultra-rich: no change in overall total at all.
They end up with absolutely everything including our lives and that of all living things on Earth. Every aspect of ‘net-zero’ kills.
Last week Oxfordshire County Council split Cherry tree trunk with machine installing new street-lights to destroy nature’s nights.
Tree won’t survive their brutality. No blossom for bees next Spring, nor insects for birds, nor leaves to absorb pollution, trickery causing wild-life to be out at coldest time instead of sheltering, sense of nesting season eradicated, fewer nestlings.
Network Rail hacking down thousands’ acres of trees and vegetation throughout national rail network which were nature’s green corridors linking small areas for more wild-life to thrive than the now separated spots can sustain.
Councils smothering what was green ‘green belt’ land with houses to get more council tax into their personal pockets.
EVs not intended to replace all ICE vehicles: intend no cars for us. Articles about insufficient rare metals and energy for EVs are red-herrings.
To save planet and ourselves, we need act urgently against WEFetal’s ‘net-zero’.
Each of us is a target of ‘net-zero’. Least affluent hit first but not main target. The more affluent are main target because they have most to be taken.
Yet the more affluent believe they’ll be alright and only less affluent hit by ‘net-zero’ but, the more affluent have resource and contacts to stop ‘net-zero’ before it becomes inescapable by any.
However, their complacency and too few articles warning them what’s nearly here keeps them comfortably sitting like Grouse in the shooting season.
Once activists, councils etc complete their remit of forcing ‘net-zero’ on rest of us, thereby rendering themselves ‘useless eaters’, they’ll be eradicated by ultra-rich.
Here are some other energy sources (there may be others) which affect the atmosphere, not yet mentioned; are they accounted for in official-narrative models? 1. Vulcanism/geothermal/seismic, including various undersea vents/volcanoes; 2. Friction between the rotating Earth and the more-slowly-rotating atmosphere, caused by whatever mysterious energy keeps the Earth rotating; 3. Cosmic rays and/or whatever other perhaps-unknown energies may have been/may be causing recently-reported climate/weather changes/anomalies on the other planets of the solar system, not Earth alone. Also, does data from officially-received weather/climate data sensors take into account the effects of atmospheric geoengineering which has been going on for decades (unacknowledged and never having been voted for by pseudo-democratic process)? “Ignore what you see overhead, it’s merely your lying eyes.”
When Climate Alarmism is urged upon the public by the same people urginf Convid, taking a sceptical aooroach is fully justified.
A few key points to this issue as I see it. Al Gore claimed that CO2 drives temperature based on icecore data. 400.000 and 800.000 ice core data in fact show the opposite. Al Gore promoted the Michael Mann “hockey stick. Another swindle that has been covered up. Tim Ball got it right, Michael Mann got it wrong, and climategate disclosed this, but was buried in politically correct NOISE. “Little ice age”, Maunder minimum, medieval warm period, sub tropic climate in the north in the stoneage, its all gone out the window. Its all total bullshit, Greta is a usefull idiot, and I recommend the 2007 docu movie “The Great Global Warming Swindle”, for entry level study. Tony Heller, Patrick Moore, and many others. We have indeed moved from about 250 PPM to having 420PPM CO2, and what has that done to the Planet? It is the “Gas of (vegetable) Life” and it has led to an enormous increase in greening of the whole planet within the last 30-50 years, corresponding to about twice the area of north america (NASA satellite data). The deserts are shrinking and greening. So here we have it, the reason that we can be about 8 billion on the planet presently. More CO2 for Mother Earth! JAY!!! 🙂 – The global mean temp. data have been pretty steady since about 1998, but thanks to “modelling” and “adjusting”, not enough know the real unadjusted data. If only we could stop them from spraying their crap!
Yep. Spot on I’d say.
Yes, the same kind of people who shoved conjob-19 down our throats. New/novel virus – or not – same result. Look at “The Club of Rome” and Maurice Strong, for background on the climatescam. A few links here: https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2015/12/discovering-maurice-strong/ – “he had an aversion to people. In his 2000 autobiography, he dreamed of the day when two-thirds of the world’s population could be wiped out”: https://www.newins.ru/en/articles/west/maurice_strong-_the_godfather_of_-climate_change – Heres the luciferian connection, I cant even see it myself on this public use PC: https://jimdukeperspective.com/united-nations-luciferian-connection/ – https://jimdukeperspective.com/lucis-trust-the-united-nations-and-lucifer-worship/
Thanks for the useful links.
Hi Iain
Did this series start as two parts or did I mis-read it first time?
Hi Jane. No it is a three part series. May I ask why you thought it was a two part series?
I have limited time on-line, so things get read quickly, consequently sometimes mis-read. I suspect answer is just that I mis-read it. Sorry
No worries
Hi Iain excellent article which clears up a lot of deliberate complexity generated to confuse and disorientate legitimate criticism.
I have first hand experience of the peer reviewed replication crisis-at least in chemistry- where it is something like 5-10%. Id wager it to be close to 90% in clinical science.
Bottom line of the climate argument seems to state something like ” We can control the climate of the Earth by micro-adjusting a 0.04% trace gas”.
That has to be the most insane scientific hypothesis/statement ever made.
Thanks Gary. Yep, it makes no sense at all.
Blablabla…so far nothing scientifically sound from you, fuckheads, except bullshit “science”…the Earth is flat and the sun is circling around it and inside it’s darker than later, that’s what you stupid morons believe in…hahahaha!!!
Thanks Jeff for another incisive comment.
Nasa data concerning sea ice extent for the poles since 2012 put together (WITH the columns all the way from zero) shows no trend. For 2 years (2012, 2013) there were ca. 5-8% more ice then the normal variation.
The other years the value is within +/- 7-8%.
Sea water level rises with 1,7-2 mm / year (1/13 of an inch).
In 40 years the sea level will be around 8 cm (3 inch) higher that now. AND the sperm quality for western men will be close to 0. Sperm quality has declined with around 60% since 1972.
What is worse?
But we are following the democratic UN about the “climate”. I wonder who to vote for the coming UN election…
/”fact checker”
Hello all, and sorry for my English, I’m German. +0,014 degree Celsius warming when carbon dioxide (CO2) doubling from (actual) 400ppm to 800ppm (IPCC calls that doubling “climate sensitivity”). +0,014 degree!!! That’s funny, isn’t it?
Take the law of Stefan/Boltzmann, make it have T (= the medium temperature of the earth’s atmosphere near to the ground = 288 Kelvin) standing alone on the left side of the equation. Then divide the equation both sides by the fourth root of 0,9998. That’s it: proportionality of T with A, the surface of the earth!
0,9998 = 1 minus the half of that (additional) 400ppm CO2. Half, because only the half of the infrared radiation being emitted from the earth’s surface will be reradiated to it by the CO2.
By that simple division of both sides of the equation, on the right side of the equation the 0,9998 becomes factor for the surface of the earth = A. Because reradiation is directly proportional to loss of radiating surface. So simple. But hush!
Danke Unbetreut für diesen prägnanten und aufschlussreichen Kommentar. Die Panik ist total lächerlich, nicht wahr?
– Thanks Unbetreut for such an incisive and telling comment. The panic is totally ridiculous sin’t it?
Yes, Iain, it is. Most rattling how the media universe succeeds to suppress that utmost simple computation giving that “terrifieing” result of 0,014 degree warming!
Obladi-oblada…
Great platform here, great people in UK!
Thanks Unbetreut Denken – I hope I spelled that correctly. LOL
Yes, correctly. Unbetreut (unattended) is short for Staatsunbetreut = unattended by the state. Too long for a name, even in German 😉
Like in beer and lemonade the sea water contains CO2 as a result of the pressure, equivalent to 10 meters of water, from the atmosphere. When the temperature rises on the planet, probably as a result of solar activites, the sea water cannot hold on to that CO2 gas. Some of the CO2 gas will escqape out in the atmosphere.
Studying Antarctic ice core from 400 000 years back it is shown that the temperature variation is followed by variation in the CO2 level in the atmosphere – not the opposite.
So the temperature is leading and the level of CO2 is following.
This I have learned from a biology professor.
Also water wapour will increase as a result of a warmer planet which in turn adds on to the rising temperature. But, of some reason, the water wapour is not included in many climate models.
As for the level of ozone in the atmosphere, humans have studied this for approximately 80 years. What do we know? The ozone has been there for several billion years. We study and make conclutions. But we have so little facts to base our conclutions on.
Anther interesting fact is that the CO2 gas i heavier than the air we breath. That makes CO2 more prone to accumulate on lower levels. It is CO2 in the upper atmosphere, but the level is lower than on the sea level.
Thank Janzen. Yep, climate alarm doesn’t make any sense at all really, does it?
Unless you want to keep people busy with a “crisis” when you plan something else.
Aswell as implement another area where to divide the sheeple (and eventually conquer what is to conquer).