Home/Blog…we are the “Red Team”; the “Blue Team” has had their say since the late 1980s.
PREFACE: What follows are my own opinions, not seen by my four co-authors of the Dept. of Energy report just released, entitled A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate. Starting sometime tomorrow, the comment docket at DOE will be open for anyone to post comments regarding the contents of that report. We authors will read all comments, and for those which are substantiative and serious, we will respond in a serious manner. Where we have made mistakes in the report, we will correct them. That is the formal process for adjudicating these issues. Regarding the informal process, tomorrow I expect we will agree on how to handle media requests to respond to objections from the few “climate alarmist” scientists that journalists usually turn to for such comments. To those journalists I would say: read our report, as journalists used to do; you might be surprised to learn a lot of the published science does not support what the public has been led (by you) to believe.
Yes, Increasing CO2 Causes a Warming Tendency in the Climate System… So What?
In my experience, much of the public has splintered into tribal positions on climate change: We either believe increasing CO2 (mainly from fossil fuel burning) has no effect, or we believe it is causing an existential crisis. There are a smaller number of individuals somewhere in the center (climate independents?)
But there is a lot of room between those two extremes for the truth to reside. Among other things, our report presents the evidence supporting the view that (1) long-term warming has been weaker than expected; (2) it’s not even known how much of that warming is due to human greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; (3) there are good reasons to believe the warming and increasing CO2 effects on agriculture have so far been more beneficial than harmful to humanity; (4) there have been no long-term changes in severe weather events than can be tied to human GHG emissions; and (5) the few dozen climate models now being used to inform policymakers regarding energy policy are not fit for purpose.
Those models, even after decades of improvement, still produce up to a factor of 3 disagreement between those with the least warming and with the most warming (and ALL produce more summertime warming in the critically-important U.S. Corn Belt than has been observed). How can models that are advertised to be based upon “basic physical principles” cause such a wide range of responses to increasing CO2?
And there are many more than those 5 elements contained in our report; those are just my favorites as I sit here thinking at 4:30 a.m.
One of the things we did not delve into was costs versus benefits of energy policies. Clearly, the politically popular switch to energy sources from only wind and solar involves large tradeoffs. If it were not so, there would already be a rapid transition underway from fossil fuels to wind and solar. Yes, those “renewable” sources are growing, and becoming less expensive. Yet, global energy demand is growing apace. But there are practical problems which make ideas such as “Net Zero emissions” essentially impossible to achieve. Maybe that will change in the distant future, who knows? I personally don’t really care where our energy comes from as long as it is abundant, available where it is needed, and is cost-effective. But I won’t buy an EV until it can transport me 920 miles in 14 hours during winter.
But I digress. Yes, recent warming is likely mostly due to increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. But is this necessarily a bad thing, in the net? Cold weather kills far more people than hot weather. Increasing CO2 is causing global greening and contributing to increased agricultural yields. These are things that need to be part of the national conversation, and things our Report begins to address.
Virtually everyone on Earth endures huge changes in weather throughout the year, with as much as 130 deg. F swings in temperature. Can we really not adapt to 2 or 3 degrees more in the yearly average?
Sure, if we can “fix” the “problem” without sending us back to the Stone Age, then do it. But the public has been grossly misled about what that would entail in terms of human suffering (energy is required for literally everything we do), and they have been grossly misled about how much climate change has actually occurred. Read the report.
Why Would Climate Science Be Biased Toward a Specific Outcome?
I’m old enough to remember when climate change meant the global cooling resulting from particulate pollution in the atmosphere. And there was a lot of that pollution as late as the 1970s. In the 1960s during my family’s car trips between Iowa and Pennsylvania, every pass through Gary, Indiana was dreaded. You could see maybe one or two blocks away, because there was so much industrial pollution. I could not understand how anyone could live in those conditions.
Then the EPA was formed in 1970. Messes were cleaned up, on land, in the air, and in our waterways. We came to believe any environmental problem we created could be fixed.
Then we had the ozone depletion scare. With the Montreal Protocol signed in 1987 the countries of the world agreed to gradually phase out production of chlorinated compounds that are believed to cause destruction of the protective ozone layer in the stratosphere.
Finally came the Big Kahuna of manmade pollution: Carbon Dioxide, and fears of global warming. By the late 1980s the U.N. formed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to evaluate the science of greenhouse gases and how they affect the climate system. Large amounts of federal funds went into this new area of science.
In the early 1990s I visited Robert (Bob) Watson at the White House who was Al Gore’s science advisor on environmental matters. Bob, a stratospheric chemist, was instrumental in getting the 1987 Montreal Protocol established. In that meeting, Bob remarked on the formation of the IPCC something to the effect of, “We are now regulating ozone-depleting chemicals, and carbon dioxide is next”.
I was astounded that the policy goal had already been decided, and now all we needed to do was to fund enough science to support that goal. That was how I interpreted his statement.
In the early years the IPCC was relatively unbiased in its assessments, and conclusions were tentative. All scientists, whether climate alarmists or skeptics, were allowed to participate. But as the years went by, those with skeptical viewpoints (e.g. John Christy) were no longer invited to participate as lead authors of IPCC report chapters.
Other scientists simply chose to stop participating because their science was being misrepresented (e.g. Chris Landsea from the National Hurricane Center, who thought the hurricane data did not support any human influences.)
Today, global warming is big business. According to Grok, since 1990 the U.S. Government has spent $120-$160 Billion on climate change research. As one of the NASA instrument lead scientists on “Mission to Planet Earth”, I was also a beneficiary of that funding, and most of my funding over the years has come from climate-related appropriations.
So, why is climate science biased? First, when we decided that essentially 100% of research funding would come from the government, we put politicians (and thus policy goals) either directly or indirectly in charge of that funding.
Second, Congress only funds problems to be studied… not non-problems. As President Eisenhower warned us in his 1961 farewell address, these forces could lead to a situation where “public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite”.
That has now happened. We now have a marching army of scientists (myself included) whose careers depend upon that climate funding, and possibly trillions of dollars in renewable energy infrastructure in the private sector dependent upon the whims of government regulation and mandates. If the climate change threat were to disappear, so would the government grants and regulations and private investments.
As they say, follow the money.
I used to say there are two kinds of scientists in the world: male and female. (Now I’m probably not even allowed to say that). My point was that scientists are regular people. They have their own opinions and worldviews. I went into a science field because I thought science had answers. How naive of me. I should have been an engineer, instead. In the field of climate science (and many other sciences) two researchers can look at the same data and come to totally opposite conclusions. Your data can be perfect, but what the data mean in terms of cause and effect is often not obvious. With engineering, either it works or it doesn’t.
We proved this cause-vs-effect conundrum in the context of climate feedbacks (positive feedbacks amplify climate warming, negative feedbacks reduce it) back in 2011 in this paper. We showed that natural variations in clouds, if not accounted for, can make the climate system seem very sensitive (lots of warming) when in fact it is insensitive (little warming).
The morning that (peer-reviewed) paper appeared in the journal Remote Sensing, the journal editor publicly apologized for letting it be published and was (we believe) forced to resign. Who forced him? Well, from the Climategate emails we get a hint: as it was revealed by one of the “gatekeepers” of climate publications, “[name redacted by me] and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
That same morning I was called by a particle physicist who heard all of this news and said something to the effect of, “What’s wrong with you climate guys? We have people who believe in string theory and those who don’t, but we still work together”. We both laughed over the divisive nature of climate science compared to other sciences.
Which tells you there is more than science — and even more than money — involved in the disagreement. Every environmental scientist I have ever met believes Nature is fragile. That is not a scientific view, but it is a view that colors how they interpret data, and then what they tell environmental news reporters as it is passed on to the public.
Finally, wouldn’t everyone like to work on something that can make a difference in the world? And what higher calling could there be than to Save the Earth™?
About unreliable “renewables” the economics was thoroughly studied by Google engineers few years ago. Google invested billions pursuing them (es: Ivanpah solar plant, among other things). Their conclusions? “Renewable energy ‘simply won’t work'”. You should add those findings in you report. Here the link I bookmarked, you should easily go to the source.
https://www.theregister.com/2014/11/21/renewable_energy_simply_wont_work_google_renewables_engineers/?page=2
“there have been no long-term changes in severe weather events than can be tied to human GHG emissions”
IPCC is wrong?
It is an established fact that human-induced greenhouse gas emissions have led to an increased frequency and/or intensity of some weather and climate extremes since pre-industrial time, in particular for temperature extremes. Evidence of observed changes in extremes and their attribution to human influence (including greenhouse gas and aerosol emissions and land-use changes) has strengthened since AR5, in particular for extreme precipitation, droughts, tropical cyclones and compound extremes (including dry/hot events and fire weather). Some recent hot extreme events would have been extremely unlikely to occur without human influence on the climate system. {11.2, 11.3, 11.4, 11.6, 11.7, 11.8}
Regional changes in the intensity and frequency of climate extremes generally scale with global warming. New evidence strengthens the conclusion from the IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C (SR1.5) that even relatively small incremental increases in global warming (+0.5°C) cause statistically significant changes in extremes on the global scale and for large regions (high confidence). In particular, this is the case for temperature extremes (very likely ), the intensification of heavy precipitation (high confidence) including that associated with tropical cyclones (medium confidence), and the worsening of droughts in some regions (high confidence).
What I stated was FROM THE IPCC. Read the report. You have been misled. -Roy
Ken’s comment is direct quote from:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-11/
He is not the one being misled.
I believe you are misusing Table 12.12 pretty much in the way the authors cautioned against. Here’s Tim Osborne on ‘X’
Some people are mis-using IPCC Table 12.12 to falsely claim that the latest IPCC assessment is that most types of extreme weather have not increased. Thread to explain why they’re wrong.
Table 12.12 lists extremes that have, across the globe, already increased by more than 1 standard deviation of their normal local variability. They (and others) call this “emergence”.
An increase in a type of extreme weather may already have been observed, may already be significant, but may have not yet exceeded 1 SD of interannual variability. This is especially the case for extremes such as heavy precipitation where the interannual variability is very large.
Furthermore, “emergence” depends on spatial scale of analysis: trends at individual locations may not individually ‘emerge’ but if they are consistent across many observing stations in a region then they can be significant (in both a statistical and a practical sense).
A clear increase in the probability or intensity of extreme weather in a region can be expected even if we cannot say which specific location will see the next unprecedented extreme event.
So Table 12.12 addresses a very narrow question with a high bar. It is unsurprising those wishing to delay climate action cherry pick and misrepresent this table. But IPCC AR6 says much more about observed increases in extreme weather events.
So the IPCC says plenty about increasing extreme weather (though this doesn’t mean that every type of weather event has or will become more extreme, and we don’t have good data to tell for some types of extreme and for some regions)
From
We said exactly what the IPCC said in the context of Table 12.12: there have been no changes in severe weather that can be blamed on anthropogenic influences. Roger Pielke Jr has discussed this extensively in recent years. -Roy
Im sorry Ken,but what you say about climate extremes is just not true,extremes occurred many imes in the past when C02 levels were at pre industrial levels or lower, they occur with or without C02’s influence, as Hubert Lamb said,the climate slaps from one state to another all by itself. Droughts and extreme heat in England followed by prolonged periods of heavy rain are common knowledge to any one who follows British climate history, one that sticks in the mind is the big sun summer and prolonged drought of 1911, it was followed by the cool wet summer of 1912 .a summer of floods and storminess on par with any in recent years.what we do not have are extensive temperature records before 1600. The report you quote from, never mentions the fact that modern day deaths from climate related events are miniscule compared with the past. Great North Sea floods killed tens of thousands on both sides of the North Sea,Ancient China had deaths in the millions on more than one occasion, a great Typhoon in the bay of Bengal killed a quarter of a million in Bangladesh. The governments of the world should be pleased they do not have to live with such events today.
Dear Dr. Spencer,
Please accept my deepest condolences for your loss. I am truly amazed at your continued ability to produce high-level work during this time. I have followed your research, particularly your and Dr. Christy’s satellite temperature records, for decades. I also want to commend your common-sense perspective on CO2-induced climate change.
It raises a significant question: how can anyone definitively attribute recent warming trends? While a doubling of CO2 alone is estimated to cause approximately 1°C of warming, the extent of climate feedbacks remains largely uncertain. I have skimmed your new report and intend to read it much more carefully soon. I am curious to understand your reasoning behind attributing most of the recent warming to increases in CO2, and I ask this not necessarily as a disagreement, but out of genuine interest in your insights.
Respectfully,
Dave
Dr. Spencer, et al.,
Nota bene: The Universe doesn’t give a shit.
I have a technical question. Any Climateball player should be able to guess who wrote which chapter, except for the one on sea level.
So, who wrote it, and is it the same author that has decided to talk about “neutralizing ocean alkalinity”?
We all contributed to each chapter, but a few chapters depended much more on one or 2 of the authors, due to their niche nature. But I take the blame when it comes to using “alkaline” then referring to ocean pH. I *THOUGHT* I had gotten all the references to “alkalinity” removed, because chemically that is something different from the oceans being alkaline, having to do with the pH buffering ability of seawater. So, we need to remember to fix that next time around.
If your “report” had been peer-reviewed, gross errors of this nature could have been caught. What other nuggets of error are there throughout the entire thing?
We all contributed to each chapter, but some chapters had one author who had the most experience. We all agreed “ocean acidification” was misleading. “Alkaline oceans” was what I insisted on as terminology… but I tried to remove all references to “ocean alkalinity”, which is a different issue (chemically) having to do with pH buffering ability. But from your comment it looks like at least one reference remained. So, that’s one of the needed fixes.
Thanks, Roy.
Looks like I found what I wanted:
https://judithcurry.com/2018/11/27/special-report-on-sea-level-rise/
Do you or an other author happen to have the citations file, by any chance? No need to be a bib file, but that’d help.
If not, I’ll see what I can do.
For my fairly new description marrying climate and political science on this all, in a what-how-why summary of three student-papers, search amazon.com/books for “climate-certainty trough”.
You might want to consider the one point that is crucial for climate sensitivity within climate models. They do not allow changes in the lapse rate to determine lapse rate feedback (LRF). If they did, this would generate a huge negative and dominant negative feedback, with ECS collapsing. Instead they do something else..
“Feedback parameters in climate models are calculated assuming that they are independent of each other, except for a well-known co-dependency between the water vapour (WV) and lapse rate (LR) feedbacks”
(AR6, p.978)
So LRF gets “coupled” with WV feedback and their sum is a hard coded ~1W/m2. I am afraid this is cheating logic and physics, but a total necessity to claim any substantial ECS.
https://greenhousedefect.com/the-holy-grail-of-ecs/the-climate-kill-switch-why-feedbacks-are-actually-negative
No, the models do not specify lapse rate. That’s why different models produce different lapse rate feedbacks. The fact that the (negative) correlation between lapse rate feedback and water vapor feedback across models is pretty strong is because POSITIVE WATER VAPOR FEEDBACK AMPLIFIES UPPER TROPOSPHERIC WARMING (NEGATIVE LAPSE RATE FEEDBACK).
Thx for your response.
As explained in the article, it is a simple mathematical problem. Either you “cheat” around it, or feedbacks turn negative. Theoretically if you look at an emagram, you should get ~1.7K of warming at average emission altitude for every 1K warming of the surface. Let us do the math:
255^4*5.67e-8 = 239.74
256.7^4*5.67e-8 = 246.2
246.4 – 239.74 = 6.46W/m2 dOLR per K warming of the surface.
You can also reduce this by Planck Feedback and get..
6.46 – 3.3 = 3.16W/m2 negative LRF
You can play around with this, try different assumptions on how much the lapse rate shrinks, or introduce multiple emission layers, but the problem prevails and can not be fixed. You get a dominant negative feedback. An LRF of only -0.5W/m2, as central estimate in AR6, would only be compatible with a negligible change in the lapse rate. But that is not what the models have.
Having trouble with comments appear, I’ll try again…
What you are seeing is the fact that all climate models have positive water vapor feedback. The stronger the water vapor feedback, the more the upper troposphere warms, which is stronger negative lapse rate feedback.
These are not “specified” in climate models. But they fact they tend to track together, and their sum remains fairly constant, is (in my opinion) evidence that the models’ convective parameterizations are all pretty similar. That doesn’t mean they are accurate, though.
Water vapor feedback still dominates in the models, and so the lack of a “hotspot” in the tropical upper troposphere in the observations means positive water vapor feedback is weaker than in the models.
I hope that makes sense.
I know, and I also know what the idea is based on: observation. More precisely the observed dOLR/dTs relation. So it has to be right. The problem is, what you see is not necessarilly what you believe to see, Plato’s cave allegory sends greetings.
If say the observed dOLR/dTs relation is 2.2W/m2 (with clear skies), as opposed to a Planck Feedback of 3.6W/m2, then the combination positive WV and negative LR feedback must have reduced OLR by 1.4W/m2. The question is just about the respective combination. Maybe it is 1.8 – 0.4, 2 – 0.6, or.. whatever. We know the total.
But this includes the assumption the lapse rate would behave as expected over variations of Ts by latitude, season or interannual. The assumption is wrong. Over these variations, the lapse rate is not negatively, but positively correlated to Ts. Dessler et al 2008 points that out, at least with regard to “latitude”:
“This result demonstrates the unsuitability of using variations in different regions in our present climate as a proxy for climate change.”
But it is equally true for seasonal variations and, although to a lesser degree, for interannual variations. The whole approach is nonsensical.
You’re not the only one having trouble with comments appearing. I see comments from myself on my Android phone that do not appear on my Linux PC. I appreciate that comments are pre-moderated, but this is still very anomalous.
There is one point that is crucial for climate sensitivity within climate models. They do not allow changes in the lapse rate to determine lapse rate feedback (LRF). If they did, this would generate a huge negative and dominant negative feedback, with ECS collapsing. Instead they do something else..
“Feedback parameters in climate models are calculated assuming that they are independent of each other, except for a well-known co-dependency between the water vapour (WV) and lapse rate (LR) feedbacks”
(AR6, p.978)
So LRF gets “coupled” with WV feedback and their sum is a hard coded ~1W/m2. I am afraid this is cheating logic and physics, but a total necessity to claim any substantial ECS.
https://greenhousedefect.com/the-holy-grail-of-ecs/the-climate-kill-switch-why-feedbacks-are-actually-negative
pls. delete
There is one point that is crucial for climate sensitivity within climate models. They do not allow changes in the lapse rate to determine lapse rate feedback (LRF). If they did, this would generate a huge negative and dominant feedback, with ECS collapsing. Instead they do something else..
“Feedback parameters in climate models are calculated assuming that they are independent of each other, except for a well-known co-dependency between the water vapour (WV) and lapse rate (LR) feedbacks”
(AR6, p.978)
So LRF gets “coupled” with WV feedback and their sum is a hard coded ~1W/m2. I am afraid this goes against logic and physics, but is a total necessity to claim any substantial ECS.
This “report” is just another instance of the right-wing fixing facts to the policy.
Roy, you and your co-authors know that’s true. Not only did you rush to get it done with zero peer review, you know that its sole purpose is to provide “scientific” CYA for undoing the endangerment finding.
Any other claim is just pure nonsense. This “report” isn’t science, it’s a political screed.
It was reviewed by several scientists, and it is now open for public comment from anyone. We will respond to all substantive and serious comments. -Roy
Who were the “several scientists” that reviewed it? DIck and Willie?
Who were the scientists who reviewed your paper?
Dear Alan Smithee, your comment is ill conceived. It does not deserve a response. Roy was very polite to give one.
Dr. Spencer
That was a good blog post! I have been reading the 5 person report and agree with much. I am the tiny middle you talk about. I think it is wrong to link every extreme weather event to climate change. When i look at past data i always see extreme weather events happening. I think this is the bad science when they try to link every severe weather to global warming of 1 C. I think attribution studies are voodoo science. Not a big fan. I do accept GHE as solid science and MOTRAN model (which is a good model that closely matches observations) cleary shows increasing CO2 will increase temperature (adding more insulation). The severe weather side is not sound evidence based science. It is more an emotional belief.
The reason MODTRAN “clearly shows increasing CO2 will increase temperatures” is because that’s how it’s programmed. The relevant acronym is “GIGO”.
He must have meant Motrin. MODTRAN is not raw data. Neither is UAH, but I trust its integrity.
This is a superb post. Roy, you’ve touched on nearly all things I decided are the big points since 2008 when I got deeply involved in understanding what climate change is all about.
The only two things I can think of off hand that you may have missed are James Hansen (though I don’t know what I would say about him) and the Holocene Warm Period (aka Climate Optimum) some 5,000-7,000 years ago. It was warmer then than it is now, yet we survived. That is the major thing that makes me confident we will survive the current warm period. (I’m not so sure about surviving the next glaciation.)
I’ll add a link to this from my climate WWW page. BTW, the last entry in my “Preservation” section are links to Chris Landsea’s resignation letter. Well worth saving.
You might also like:
https://www.salon.com/2006/09/19/noaa/
Climateball is baaaack.
Thank you so much for all of your work. I have followed your work for years and always considered you honest and clear headed, even when your temperature data wasn’t going the way I would have preferred.
I look forward to getting into the detail of the report. I must admit It seems I have beenscreaming the evidence of the 5 key points you listed for nearly 20 years.
I’m am a retired economics and finance adviser who majored in econometrics, so I was pretty good at compiling and reading data. I made a pretty good living out of it but was forced to retire more than 20 years ago due to chronic illness. My first wife departed with much of what we’d built,but thankfully left the two great kids. I’m no genius but by following the data I’ve been invested pretty much in the right areas to achieve acceptable growth and avoid losses. Unfortunately I was far too practical and sensible to get into Bitcoin, but in the 1990’s I was absolutely convinced that renewable energy, specifically solar and wind, was the place to be.
I didn’t look at the science, that’s what climate scientists were for. But if they were right then we’d all be scrambling for wind and solar power. So I put some seed capital in with a bunch of engineers and we developed some good stuff. First with the objective of replacing all those remote locations around Australia and the world burning diesel 24/7 for power. We got some contracts and we won some awards, but we couldn’t get away from the unreliability of wind and solar, and whenever there was a problem in a remote location, there was never a technician for the wind and solar, but there was always a diesel mechanic.
The only solar and wind farms that were financially successful for the owner, were those which came with hefty guaranteed prices for all power generated whether it was needed or not.
But I was still a true believer and when Al Gore came out with an Inconvenient Truth I booked a premier and got tickets for all my friends and colleagues.
As I watched that movie, because it wasn’t a documentary, I started getting a very dark feeling in my gut. Gore was doing all the things we taught in Statistics 101 including how not to present a graph.
I thought why the hell would he have to do that if the science was so clear? At the end of the movie the true believers attending gave it a standing ovation. I was doing my best not to throw up.
I then went and read everything I could on the topic including of course what the three men you mentioned had to say, (who dropped out of the assessment reporting). I was horrified at what I found. I spoke to my engineering professor friend. All he said is I’ve got to rely on the peer review process. He figured if it worked in his area it’d work in Climate Science.
Then Climate gate happened and I thought at last, now everyone will see the emporer has no clothes. But when all that got wallpapered over I understood it had go beyond the science and the environmental evangelists who always wanted de-industrialisation. It now involved the income redistribution commies, the population explosion worriers, but more importantly the kingdom building bureaucrats nationally and internationally, the financiers who liked the numbers involved in rebuilding the global grid and transport systems and so on, the developing countries, particularly China who saw a massive upside for them and so much more.
So to see you guys make those 5 points I’ve tried to make for so long, is just magic. I just hope Trump still has enough political capital to get his team on board and to get a lot of countries on board.
These last couple of weeks or so can’t have been easy for you. I was lucky to find the love of my life, who is so easy to live with, I had to go through 20 years of difficult times to get there, but I’d hate to lose her. So I really appreciate the work you are doing and have done when it was probably the furthest thing from your mind in recent times..
If I could, right after I give Trump the Nobel Peace Prize, (does anyone even know what he did for Rawanda and the Congo to add to his long list?), I’d be giving you the Medal of Honour.
Dr Spencer.
I read your post with interest.
While I may not agree with every conclusion in your report, I appreciate your willingness to challenge prevailing narratives and highlight underexamined aspects of the climate policy debate. There is indeed a wide middle ground between denial and alarmism, and we need more voices engaging there with clarity and rigor.
That said, I’m less convinced by the argument that the climate models’ variance alone invalidates their utility for policy forecasting; uncertainty does not necessarily imply unreliability, only the need for cautious interpretation.
Rgrds.
“The morning that (peer-reviewed) paper appeared in the journal Remote Sensing, the journal editor publicly apologized for letting it be published and was (we believe) forced to resign.”
For completeness here’s a link to the journal editor’s letter of resignation:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258547322_Taking_Responsibility_on_Publishing_the_Controversial_Paper_On_the_Misdiagnosis_of_Surface_Temperature_Feedbacks_from_Variations_in_Earth's_Radiant_Energy_Balance”_by_Spencer_and_Braswell_Remote_Sens
The key takeaway is, “the problem I see with the paper by Spencer and Braswell is not that it declared a minority view (which was later unfortunately much exaggerated by the public media) but that it essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents.”
“I’m old enough to remember when climate change meant the global cooling resulting from particulate pollution in the atmosphere.”
False memory syndrome. Science publications were 6:1 warming cooling.
Peterson, T. C., W. M. Connolley, and J. Fleck, 2008: THE MYTH OF THE 1970s GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 89, 1325–1338, https://doi.org/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1.
From Peter Gwynne who wrote the seminal Newsweek story.
https://www.aip.org/inside-science/my-1975-cooling-world-story-doesnt-make-todays-climate-scientists-wrong
Jack,
I must suffer from the same false memory syndrome, except I didn’t read the Newsweek article then and I don’t trust _anything_ written by William Connolley.
My favorite article then was Science News’ “Chilling Possibilities,” https://www.sciencenews.org/archive/climate-change-chilling-possibilities – it may have been the first place I read about the meridional jet stream flow that is so tied to extreme weather, both recently and in my all-time favorite blizzard in 1978.
I see Peterson et al references the SN article and actually say some nice things about it. Perhaps the ratio of warming:cooling articles was 6:1, but I suspect more people read the SN article and others than any of the journal articles they reference. Which ones do you recommend we read?
Two things alleviated my concerns. First, I flew out to the west coast on a business trip and saw Ponderosa pine trees sticking above the snow. Perhaps the tundra wouldn’t lose snow cover some summer (a suggestion was that might trigger the new glaciation), but tree covered mountains certainly would capture enough heat to melt most of their snow.
The other was David Keeling Sr’s first paper with Mauna Loa data, released in 1976. My sister was working on her Marine biology PhD at MBL on at Woods Hole MA. That graph wound up getting included in just about every students’ papers that season! (Sigh – I finally found the image, but still haven’t gotten it online.) Still, the Blizzard of ’78 was truly awesome. (Oh – that was the New England blizzard, apparently the midwest blizzard was equally awesome, but it brought us rain that washed away a lot of the record snow from our storm before the blizzard. It was quite a year!
Finally, can you go into more about my false memory syndrome? It does turn out that a lot of people in New England completely forgot about the midwest blizzard – including some of the TV Mets! You can readily find my web pages on the storms. I spent some time with old Boston Globe and NY Times articles and I think I got things straightened out.
I was in my first or second year of meteorology at U. of Michigan during the 1978 blizzard. First time U of M was closed due to heavy snow. I had a recording barograph, and it went all the way off the bottom of the drum. The storm was so wound up that the warm front went all around the east side of the low, up north, and started coming back south through Michigan. It believe it set record low barometric pressures at many stations. It was well forecast by the weather forecast model, which was still an evolving technology back then.
A local storm does not refute the review of literature.
Harold The Organic Chemist Says:
ATTN: Roy and Everyone
RE: CO2 Has Caused No Warming Of Air Since 1920.
Please go to the late John Daly’s website:
“Still Waiting For Greenhouse” available at:
http://www.john-daly.com. From the home page, page down to the end and click on “Station Temperature Data”. On the “World Map”, click on “NA”, then page down to U.S.A.-Pacific. Finally, scroll down and click on “Death Valley”
The chart shows plots of temperatures at the Furnace Creek weather station in Death Valley from 1922 to 2001. In 1922, the concentration of CO2 in dry air was ca. 303 ppmv (0.59 g CO2/cu. m.) and by 2001, it had increased to 371 ppmv (0.73 g CO2/cu. m.), but there was no corresponding increase in air temperature at this remote desert. The reason there was no increase in temperature at this arid desert is due to saturation of absorption of the out-going long wavelength IR light by the CO2 band at 667 wavenumbers. In 1920 the concentration of CO2 was 300 ppmv.
John Daly found over 200 weather stations located around the world that had no warming up to 2002. The many charts of temperature from weather stations falsify the hypothesis that the increasing concentration of CO2 in air causes an increase in air temperature and hence “global warming”. How is it that the climate scientist community did not know of John Daly’s website?
At the MLO in Hawaii, the concentration of CO2 in dry air is currently 439 ppmv. One cubic meter of this air has mass of 1.29 kg and contains 0.86 g of CO2 at STP. There is too little CO2 in air to have any effect on weather and climate.
RE: The Saturation of the Absorption of IR Light by CO2.
After a search on this topic, I found this paper:
“The Saturation of Infrared Absorption by Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere” by Dieter Schildknecht. He shows that the absorption of IR light CO2 becomes saturated when the concentration of CO2 in air reaches 300 ppmv. This means that an increase in the concentration of CO2 in air above 300 ppmv will not result in an increase in air temperature and there is no need to control or reduce the emission of CO2 from the use of fossil fuels.
URL: https://arixiv.org/pdf/2004.00708v1 or
URL: https://arixiv.org/abs/2004.00708
Roy, you should send copies of my comment to the other members of the committee.
Sorry, but you can always find some stations that haven’t warmed in certain areas. And the IR saturation issue is a half-truth… all climate models (even those that warm a LOT) already include that effect. It is impossible for the atmosphere to have its IR effect saturated, even at 1000x todays CO2 values… because it just raises the effective emitting layer to higher and higher in the atmosphere. The modelers aren’t that stupid… they are just wrong in some important ways, and unduly confident in other ways.
I stand by what I posted. There is too little CO2 in the air to have any effect on weather and climate. Now consider the following:
At the MLO in Hawaii, the concentration of CO2 in dry air is 439 ppmv. One cubic meter of this air has mass of 1.29 kg and contains
0.86 g of CO2 at STP. In air at 70 deg. F and 70% RH, the concentration of H2O is 14,780 ppmv. One cubic meter of this air has a mass of 1.20 kg and contains 11.9 g of CO2 and 0.80 g of CO2. To the first approximation and all things being equal, the amount of the greenhouse effect (GHE) due to H2O is given by:
GHE = moles H2O/moles H2O+moles CO2 = 0.66/0.66+0.02 = 0.97 or 97%
This calculation assumes that molecule of H2O and and a molecule CO2 each absorbs about the same amount of out-going IR light from the earth’ surface. Actually, H20 absorbs more than CO2.
You should download the essay” Climate Change Reexamined” by
Joel M. kauffman. The essays is 26 pages and can be downloaded for free. Shown in Fig. 7 is the IR absorption spectrum of a sample of Philadelphia air from 400 to 4000 wavenumbers (wns). In 1999 the concentration of CO2 was 300 ppmv. The gas cell was a 7 cm Al cylinder with KBr windows. Only the peaks of H2O and CO2 in the 400 to 700 wn range are involved in the greenhouse effect. The absorbance of the CO2 peak at 667 wns is 0.025. If the cell was 700 cm t(23 ft )in lenght the absorbance would be 2.5 and 99+% of the IR light would be absorbed, i.e., the absorption is saturated.
You should also check Fig 10. In 1820 the concentration of CO2 in northern Europe was 450 ppmv. This high concentration of CO2 apparently had little effect on The little Age.
BTW: Did you check out John Daly website?
As much as I appreciate the effort of these five, I would have liked to have seen some physicists included. But, even with physicists you have to be careful. You might end up with someone like Pierrehumbert, who has claimed Sun could heat Earth to 800,000K! Like all of the climate science industry, he doesn’t understand radiative physics or thermodynamics.
So when I say physicists, I mean REAL physicists.
Steve Koonin is a physicist. Except for Ross McKitrick (economist and statistician), the rest of us were trained in the physics that matter to the atmosphere and climate: thermodynamics, radiative transfer, etc.
There is “climate science” physics, and there is REAL physics.
In “climate science” physics, Earth flux is treated as energy and can be estimated to accuracy exceeding +/- 0.5% In REAL physics, flux is NOT energy, and estimates are worthless in considering the bogus EEI.
In “climate science” physics, Earth can be compared to an imaginary sphere, to claim the surface is 33K hotter than it is “supposed to be” due to CO2. In REAL physics, it makes no sense to compare Earth to an imaginary sphere. That would be like comparing a tortoise on the ground to a soaring eagle in the sky, and claiming the reason the tortoise can’t fly is due to CO2!
In “climate science” physics, all infrared is “heat”. In REAL physics, only infrared with the “right stuff” can raise the temperature of a surface.
In “climate science” physics, putting on clothing is an example of “cold warming hot”. In REAL physics, that would be an example of someone not understanding thermodynamics.
In “climate science” physics, all incoming flux is simply added. In REAL physics, only incoming flux with the correct entropy matters. That’s why ice can NOT boil water.
The list goes on and on. REAL physics brings the CO2 nonsense to a sudden death.
*** Oh, OK, so that’s what this is about. Sorry, but cooler objects keep warmer object warmer than they otherwise would be ALL THE TIME. The examples are endless. Insulation around a heated oven, the walls of a house in winter. The greenhouse effect is radiative insulation around the Earth. –Roy
—Insulation works by trapping air. It inhibits conduction and convection. Radiant insulation is reflective material like clouds reflecting incoming solar radiation. Are you saying CO2 acts to reflect IR back to the Earth? Are there any real-world examples of where CO2 is used to trap IR as in a building? Are greenhouses warmer because of the high CO2 or because of the trapped air? Do greenhouses become 15% warmer when they are filled with CO2? How do you explain the adiabatic lapse rate?
Oh, OK, so that’s what this is about. Sorry, but cooler objects keep warmer object warmer than they otherwise would be ALL THE TIME. The examples are endless. Insulation around a heated oven, the walls of a house in winter. The greenhouse effect is radiative insulation around the Earth. –Roy
Yes Roy, that’s what it’s about. That and the other items I mentioned, as well as many I didn’t mention.
Of course house insulation works by slowing conduction. But CO2 does not effectively slow conduction. It’s oxygen and nitrogen that form Earth’s “blanket”. To be a radiative insulator, the spectrum of the radiator must be largely returned. CO2 doesn’t do that.
Also, clouds reflect radiant energy back into space, not back to the Sun. The Sun is at lower entropy than the Earth. How do Greenhouse gases reflect energy back to the Earth when the Earth is at lower entropy than the atmosphere?
Dr. Spencer,
P.S.-They’re hitting you from one side and we’re hitting you from the other. You are not in an enviable position even with your newly elevated status.
“How do Greenhouse gases reflect energy back to the Earth when the Earth is at lower entropy than the atmosphere?”
Same way that any insulation reduces heat loss from a warm object to a cold environment. There is no entropy problem with that, is there.
REAL physicists.
I agree.
Not ones who do not understand the WDL.
What Pierrehumbert actually said:
“In a single second, Earth absorbs 1.22 × 1017 joules of energy from the Sun. Distributed uniformly over the mass of the planet, the absorbed energy would raise Earth’s temperature to nearly 800,000 K after a billion years, if Earth had no way of getting rid of it.”
https://courses.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/Courses/global-change-debates/Sources/CO2-saturation/more/Pierrehumbert-2011.pdf
Pierrehumbert wrote the textbook on radiative physics.
Pierrehumbert, R. T. (2010). Principles of Planetary Climate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Is that wrong? Why?
Why is there so much lying in mainstream science on a global scale about so much fundamental science?
Politics has always interfered with science, especially in modern times.
The root of the problem is the same reason, so many people voted for Trump/MAGA. The vast majority of humans have very low ethics. Low ethics comes from lack of empathy and compassion. People with low ethics don’t care about the truth and most human life around them. They are similar to the bad guys. The good guys are a small minority on earth, so politically very weak. The vast majority of humans support authoritarianism.
This political criminality pervades the corrupt political systems that is sanctioned by most humans. That political criminality will impact scientific research because political agendas are more important than scientific truth.
The most corrupt people in science are driven by money will tend to rise to the top in sciences where truth could irritate the power structures and the people at the grassroots levels. Education systems are built to indoctrinate humans all over the world. Truth has been suppressed to protect the religious establishments across the world.
The MAGA forces were around way before Trump, have promoted truth as a strategy of deception, sort alike a pied piper. On global warming, they expose the lies with one hand while endorsing political forces like Trump on the other that maintain the global warming lies. They talk out of both sides of their mouth.
It shows they have a hidden agenda. Longer term, they have been part of the extremist and violent organized crime force suppressing science. They couldn’t do it without a very corrupt extremist population. Racism and greed is what fuels the conservative political forces. They have long been the dark side of humankind.
Our earth is built on monumental lies because the truth is anathema to the vast majority of humans. The past election is a testament to how very low in ethics people will go. Putting scientists under a system dominated by such political criminals will help crush the scientific truth in the system.
It is the vast majority of humans who have aided and abetted in creating the system. When was the last time humans in any country complained to their school boards about the lies their children are taught about history and science. Virtually never. Because they simply don’t want to know or care. They have very low ethics. These people help fuel the conservative agenda and current political mindset, who see critical thinking in children as a political and religious threat.
Any scientist allying themselves with these conservative forces show a lack of conscience.
Are you familiar with the studies of professor emeritus Jyrki Kauppila from University of Turku in Finland? For over 10 years he has done his work with his own money. Nowadays it’s difficult to get
funding if you are a so called “climate denier”, which means you don’t support political science aka consensus science. He should be in your “Red Team”.
Here are some links to his studies:
1) “NO EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE FOR THE SIGNIFICANT ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE”
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165
2) “NO RELIABLE STUDIES OF CLIMATE CHANGE WITHOUT HENRY’S LAW AND
A NEW THERMOMETER FOR THE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE”
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2304.01245
3) “MAJOR FEEDBACK FACTORS AND EFFECTS OF THE CLOUD COVER AND
THE RELATIVE HUMIDITY ON THE CLIMATE”
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1812.11547
4) “Major Portions in Climate Change: Physical Approach”
https://homepages.tuni.fi/tapio.rantala/opetus/files/FYS-1550.Fysiikan.seminaari/Fileita/J.Kauppinen-IREPHY-21Nov13.pdf
Many so-called climate deniers have been defunded. The problem is a lot larger than just climate.
We can talk about archaeology where mainstream spout the theoretical bs on how something was built. They have been given over a hundred years to demonstrate it, yet they have done nothing. Yet somehow the retain credibility. Countries around the world cooperate to keep the real history hidden whether it is Machu Petu, Pyramids or Gobelteki.
Astronomy/Astrophysics is another monumental lie filled subject. When this collapses, all the other lies will collapse in a cascade. The path to greater understanding is the plasma based electric universe.
Zoology won’t recognize the existence of the cryptids Sasquatch (with human dna) and Dogman (giant bipedal/quadripedal wolf) which run all over the landscape of North America. If we can’t admit to a Sasquatch in 2025, why would one expect the climate lies to be exposed.
Many other sciences are strewn with lies.
We can talk about all the suppression from the power structures, but the real source comes from the low ethics of grassroots level population who condone, sanction, easily indoctrinated, denial or indifferent to the truth.
War comes from the same place. The low ethics of the grassroots population sanction the imperialism or militarism of their country or other countries.
During the late 70s, I came to the conclusion that our bodies are biological computers imbued with some immaterial life force. We are the result of extraterrestrial terraforming/seeding. AI is bringing us closer to unraveling human consciousness and spirituality.
I think most humans low ethics is at the root of all the lies in science and the result of genetics which imprisons us in scientific lies and hate. It explains the support of racism, authoritarianism and criminality in the general populations.
As an aside, until we know the true physics or even biology of the universe beyond the material, we will be left with uncertainty about spirituality. We can’t even define what life is. Some cultures consider a rock a living thing. It seems conceivable that a life force is in everything but is limited by inherent functionality in the matter it resides in.
The monumental lies of mainstream science go way beyond climate. It involves astronomy, astrophysics, archaeology, zoology, subatomic physics etc. The vast majority of humans on earth have very low ethics. Human population as a whole are the soil that gives rise to authoritarianism, racism, war, criminality, corruption, indoctrination etc. The truth struggles in such a soil, whether it has to do with science or anything else. It is a taboo subject for most humans.
Dr. Spencer,
I’ve been following the back and forth between “alarmists” and “skeptics” for a while now. I’m not a scientist but I can read and understand to a degree most scientific articles on the subject along with the comments, replies and critics from relevant experts.
One thing that keeps me siding with the scientific consensus represented by the IPCC and most climate scientists has little to do with science though. It has to do with rhetorics instead and how each side presents their views.
Consistently the “skeptics” side use rhetorical tactics rather than scientific arguments because their goal seems to be to convince the general public and policy makers rather than correct or improve scientific understanding of the subject (which partly explains “What’s wrong with you climate guys”).
I’m afraid a blatant exemple of such tactics can be found in your post.
You mention a paper you co-authored published in the journal Remote Sensing that has attracted a lot of comments and controversies, mainly because its finding and conclusions have been exagerated in partisan blogs and outlets.
And then you say : “the journal editor publicly apologized for letting it be published and was (we believe) forced to resign. Who forced him? Well, from the Climategate emails we get a hint: as it was revealed by one of the “gatekeepers” of climate publications, “[name redacted by me] and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!””
1) The editor explained why he chose to stepped down and it has to do with the perceived quality of your paper :
“The problem is that comparable studies published by other authors have already been refuted in open discussions and to some extend also in the literature, a fact which was ignored by Spencer and Braswell in their paper and, unfortunately, not picked up by the reviewers. In other words, the problem I see with the paper by Spencer and Braswell is not that it declared a minority view (which was later unfortunately much exaggerated by the public media) but that it essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents”
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/9/2002
2) The reference to “Climategate” is only there to stimulate the conspiracy-minded skeptics. So many scientists agreeing with each others findings can’t mean the skeptics arguments are wrong, it must mean they’re all part of a conspiracy, right?
So of course the CRU hack was (and apparently still is) a trove of out of context quote that would validate all that. And you used it, either failing to provide context or intentionnally removing it.
Despite the strong implied connection, the quote from Jones hacked email has nothing to do with your paper, the journal in question or its editor. Here’s the full email with names redacted :
“The other paper by MM is just garbage – as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well – frequently as I see it. I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !”
So it turns out the exchange was about including some articles in the IPCC report, not about forcing them out of peer-reviewed litterature as you implied.
Here’s what Dr. Osborn from CRU qualifies this exchange :
“First, the majority of climate science articles are not discussed in the IPCC assessment reports – there simply is neither space nor need to do so. The focus has to be on those that are most relevant to the requirements of the report, or that represent greatest advancement in knowledge. It is quite reasonable (indeed necessary) for IPCC authors to form and express their opinion about which papers do or do not meet those requirements. The remaining body of literature still provides the supporting framework within which the IPCC reports are based. Second, these papers were discussed in the IPCC report, demonstrating that the IPCC writing and reviewing process works well. Third, these papers have both received considerable criticism since the IPCC report, perhaps substantiating the initial judgement about the quality of these papers. Fourth, redefining the meaning of peer-reviewed literature is not possible for an IPCC author and the final comment is clearly flippant.”
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc2802.htm
I’m sorry this comment turns out to be this long but here’s the point I’m making : as long as so-called “skeptics” keep grasping at out of context straws in this manner, they will remain of limited credibility regardless of their scientific credentials because it shows a level of disreguard AND disrespect for civil debates, sound and apolitical science and ultimately the general public they are trying to influence.
I think you’re right that any reference to Climategate is simply dog-whistle tactics to fire-up the fan-base and shows a lack of sincerity.
Ask a cosmonaut who observes the Earth from space if he is surprised how thin the troposphere is with its clouds, where all weather phenomena occur. In contrast, the pressure of the stratosphere and its influence on circulation is underestimated in winter.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/
“Virtually everyone on Earth endures huge changes in weather throughout the year, with as much as 130 deg. F swings in temperature. Can we really not adapt to 2 or 3 degrees more in the yearly average?”
This leads me to my simple challenge to anyone who believes climate change represents an existential threat to the human race. Go to the climate normals at, I believe, the NWS. Look at the current annual average temperature at the NWS weather station closest to your home. This is a 30 year average (1990-2020). Now look at the “legacy” average, also available at the same site (1980-2010). The increase (not all show increases) will be quite underwhelming. Now, pick a city 100 miles or so directly south of you. Look at several stations and find one that is approximately warmer by the same amount that your local station increased by over a ten year period. Could you survive there? I live in Cincinnati and London Ky, I believe, fits those parameters for me (my memory is a bit foggy there, but I think that works.)I have traveled through London, Ky and actually survived that harrowing experience. In fact, I have traveled to Key West and even the Caribbean and came back to tell that harrowing tale. Phew!
Roy, make journalists who call for an interview take that test first. You could even walk them thru it.
an interesting take on the subject of adaptation, people have experienced extremes all through history,even more so since the jet era,as a visitor to Cuba from North East England in winter i have met many Canadians who have flown from Toronto to Havana in search of warmth, as a world traveler since 1968 i have endured many temperature changes,my most memorable experience was in 1973 . when I left Newcastle it was 10c , two days later i was in Gafsa Tunisia not far from the border with Algeria ,by around one in the after noon the mercury hit 49c , one hell of a culture shock ,made me think about the desert rats of WW2. my father had photographs of eggs frying on truck bonnets, a little closer to today, in december 2010 i left my home with an outside temperature of -18c at midnight,by four pm the following day i arrived in west Africa ,temperature was a warm 34c ,a little oppressive at first, but after a couple of days i was walking around as if i had lived there all my life,we adapt,
The purpose of this “critical report” is to provide “scientific” support as Zubrin revokes the EPA CO2 endangernent finding.
This may be a bad idea, even for the fossil fuel companies at whose behest it is being done.
https://theconversation.com/revoking-epas-endangerment-finding-the-keystone-of-us-climate-policies-isnt-simple-and-could-have-unintended-consequences-252271
You’re precisely right. Roy and the gang concocted a political document to serve an ideological end. It’s not scientific at all.
I respect Dr Spencer as a scientist of considerable ability though his views on the environmental effects of climate change differ considerably from my own.
Seeing him used as a political tool like this is, at the very least, disappointing.
Testing.
“Sure, if we can “fix” the “problem” without sending us back to the Stone Age, then do it.”
Apparently we can. Solar and wind are competitive sources of energy in many places right now.
Going forward, the renewables growth looks bright. Do we, as a country, want to be left behind in this development by China and Europe?
“In my experience, much of the public has splintered into tribal positions on climate change: We either believe increasing CO2 (mainly from fossil fuel burning) has no effect, or we believe it is causing an existential crisis. There are a smaller number of individuals somewhere in the center (climate independents?)”
I don’t think that number is small. I think a good many people agree with the basic proposition of AGW, and understand that there is uncertainty about how much it will warm in the future.
I think what some ‘skeptics’ miss is that we don’t get a second chance if the worst comes about. As Pielke once said, it is not because we know what will happen that we should be cautious, it is precisely that we don’t know for sure. If we knew, we could plan appropriately. But while we are inside the test tube with no way to undo the experiment in short order, prudence now is the sensible avenue.
It’s not that the “blue team has had their say since the 1980s”, Roy. The understanding of the importance of CO2 to the energy balance of the climate system goes back to Arrhenius and continues through Callendar, to Keeling, then on to Revelle and the report given to LBJ and all that’s happened since.
If you’ve seen the clip from the Bell Telephone science series (directed from Frank Kapra) that describes the burning of fossil fuels as changing the climate then you know that the issue was acknowledged in 1958.
It’s not a “blue team” thing unless you want to force a partisan trope onto a subject that’s been studied for well over a century and by scientists worldwide.
When I say “Blue Team” I’m not referring to those who believe adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes a warming tendency. I already believe that, too. I’m talking about the organized effort to build scientific justifications for desired policy outcomes, which started with the IPCC’s formation in the late 1980s. Did you not even read my article??
“I’m talking about the organized effort to build scientific justifications for desired policy outcomes”
Unfortunately you are doing exactly that.
The Trump administration are not interested in the science per se. They are interested in maximising the profits of those who benefit from burning fossil fuels.
To do so they are distorting the evidence to manipulate public opinion and bringing in policies designed to make life difficult for anyone competing with the fossil fuel burners.
“they are distorting the evidence to manipulate public opinion and bringing in policies”
Oh, and so the existing policies just kind appeared in the clouds beyond the magic rainbow, and everyone saw and loved them dearly?
Are you really that “naive”?
Probably not.
Andrew
That’s correct, Alan. The CO2 nonsense started back in the time of Arrhenius. The story goes that he was trying to figure out what ended the last ice age. He believed that CO2 was the cause. But, beliefs ain’t science.
Have you ever figured out how CO2’s 15μ photons can warm a 288K surface? Realizing that can’t happen would be REAL science.
“the importance of CO2 to the energy balance of the climate system”
This part has been, shall we say, abused?
All the gases in the air are important to all the balances.
But then you need to get more scientific, not political.
Andrew
“In my experience, much of the public has splintered into tribal positions on climate change: We either believe increasing CO2 (mainly from fossil fuel burning) has no effect, or we believe it is causing an existential crisis. There are a smaller number of individuals somewhere in the center (climate independents?)”
Nonsense. The “mainstream” argument has always been “lukewarmer” vs. “alarmist” whilst both groups demonise and try to make socially unacceptable the group and position that questions the GHE. And, that’s deliberate. The whole idea from the beginning has been to try and steer the “debate” in that direction so that it became unthinkable to even question the GHE. But, questioning the GHE is what all scientists and public alike should be doing.
DREMT
Why should scientists and the public question GHE? It is and observable fact. I think I have already linked you to Measured radiant energy ground observations which show a GHE. Also satellite measurements of outgoing Longwave Radiation confirm a real GHE. The surface is emitting a much greater IR energy than what is measured leaving the planet. First Law of Thermodynamics is Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
Norman, when preposterous claims are made, they need to be questioned.
But, you have to understand the basics to ask meaningful questions. Too often people just believe whatever they find. Like with your SURFRAD stuff. You’re still having trouble understanding the graphs.
Since that confuses you, let’s keep it simple and just address your last sentence:
“First Law of Thermodynamics is Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.”
That’s not really 1LoT, but we can accept it. But that’s exactly what the CO2 nonsense does. The original Arrhenius CO2 equation creates flux out of thin air.
ΔF = αln(C/Co)
The scientific question would be: “How does it do that?”
Magic!
“Why should scientists and the public question GHE?”
That’s like saying, “why should scientists and the public be skeptical?”
Scientists should be skeptical because that’s their job. The public should be skeptical so as not to get hoodwinked.
“It is and observable fact.”
That GHGs absorb and emit IR is an observable fact. For some, that’s enough. But the E in GHE stands for “Effect”, and that “Effect” is, supposedly, warming. Tying the fact that GHGs in the atmosphere absorb and emit IR to “warming” is the difficult thing. Even though warming has been observed, linking the two things together is problematic to say the least. There’s quite a lot of other stuff going on. And, that’s an understatement.
Clint R
1st Law of Thermodynamics is kinda conservation of energy.
https://www.chadsprep.com/chads-general-chemistry-videos/3-laws-of-thermodynamics-definition/?srsltid=AfmBOormZ6MKbzPO9CcWXz2CPa9w9EKFpoUjUFnLAJ12C9lSxa4vu8jZ
DREMT
The GHE is not a slight unmeasurable effect that is drowned out by other processes. It is a very considerable effect that allows life to thrive on Earth. It is around a 33 C effect.
It is okay to be skeptical and highly encouraged in science. Denial of observation and evidence are not admirable characteristics that help science. There are some who strongly believe the Earth is flat and provide some “proofs” of their misguided beliefs. The problem is when confronted with vast amounts of observation that reject their claims they will not consider the evidence and alter their views.
The GHG act as barriers to radiant energy flow. The only way the Earth system loses energy is by radiant means as the vacuum above does not support the other heat transfer modes (conduction or convection). The surface emits and average of 396 Watts/m^2 (give or take since it is an average and depends on how the average is arrived at might vary by a few watts from different researchers). The amount of energy lost to space at TOA is averaged at 240 W/m^2. The GHG create a strong radiant barrier from surface to space and act like a radiant insulation that keeps the heated surface warmer than it would be without such gases. Clint R believes that N2 and O2 insulated the surface but he has zero explanation of how they inhibit radiant energy loss.
Norman, if you were looking for a way that energy from the surface and lower in the atmosphere could be delayed in its escape to space then the N2 and O2 molecules are your prime suspects, simply because they don’t absorb and emit anywhere near as effectively as GHGs. In other words they “hold on” to the energy for far longer than GHGs. Maybe this is what Clint R is trying to explain to you.
Dear Norman, you write “First Law of Thermodynamics is Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.” That’s the law of conservation of energy. The First Law of Thermodynamics is that, with transfer of matter excluded, the change of the body’s internal energy is equal to the body’s gain of energy by heat transfer, less the energy lost by the body’s doing of thermodynamic work.
Norman’s keyboard has diarrhea, again.
He found a random link about 1LoT, so he believes he’s an expert on it even though he’s never had a course in thermodynamics.
Then he advertises his ignorance of science by claiming Earth has a 33C temperature rise due to, you guessed it, the GHE.
Followed by believing Earth’s outgoing flux is 240 W/m^2 at TOA. I don’t know how he could dream up such nonsense.
He continues by claiming that GHG “act like a radiant insulation”.
Finally, he ends with another false accusation, implying that I believe O2 and N2 “inhibit radiant energy loss”.
One has to wonder if he’s not on drugs….
Hello Norman,
‘The GHE is not a slight unmeasurable effect that is drowned out by other processes. It is a very considerable effect that allows life to thrive on Earth. It is around a 33 C effect.’
Rather the GHE and the 33 C effect are a product of men’s imagination based on a fundamentaly flawed cold Earth model.
The surface of the Earth is about 278 K without regard to solar input.
No GHE backradiation math games needed to explain it’s current temp
Dr Spencer.
Given the overlap in messaging between your Climate Working Group report and longstanding policy positions of organizations such as the American Petroleum Institute, the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, the Heartland Institute, and others aligned with fossil fuel interests, how do you ensure that your work remains independent of such advocacy networks, and is not perceived as producing science in service of predetermined policy goals?
Rgrds.
Your piece ahead of the comments and journalistic stampede is well written and balanced.
The polarisation to two tribes diametrically opposed through ideology, politics, self interest, attention seeking or outright delusion is clear in all we see around the topic and especially from the groups and institutions that profit from either alarm or denial.
I align with your “so what” statement Dr Spencer. The media and those that shout loudest without the requisite education, knowledge or insight have had the stage too long. Rational thinking and management of energy transition (I speak of Europe with its crazy decisions and politics as the “first world” that has depleted its resources and charges into reorganising its energy mix with seriously questionable policies, decisions and outcomes) is not the place for misguided politicians that seek to surround themselves with advisors that are ideologues with equal measure of ignorance. This only creates bad policy that damages the most vulnerable in society and destroys economies as we see with Germany and the UK who have the highest energy costs in the world but amoung the highest penetration of RE at the same time. Interestingly Safran, an aerospace equipment manufacturer, decide this week to invest c. $500 million in a carbon brake pad manufacturing facility in France based upon the cost of energy, ironically France owes its low reliable energy cost to nuclear power the nemesis of the greens from the 1970’s until now and the energy source Germany chose to shut down while still operational, economic and many years of life in their generating sites. Europe demonstrates what energy madness is in abundance.
You are not only a voice of reason Dr Spencer but an accomplished professional scientist that has stayed the course seeking truth. In spite of the irrational hostility you have suffered you have stayed the course and yes the tide has turned and the blues are on the way out, the red team needs grown up, sensible and grounded discussion to bring sense and order to the chaos the blues have created.
The swamp needs draining of those that have the oxygen of undue public exposure and to be replaced by people of your calibre so the public may benefit from qualified insight rather than the sound bites of maniacs.
Keep doing the good work Dr Spencer.
“I’m talking about the organized effort to build scientific justifications for desired policy outcomes, which started with the IPCC’s formation in the late 1980s.”
Isn’t that exactly what this report is all about?
Then you are OK with ‘science’ being decided by elections?
Would it not be better to try to achieve a balanced assessment of the state of the actual science?
And apropos, the President just announced that he was firing the head of the BLS after the weak jobs report.
The BLS collects and analyzes the employment data.
He’ll try to appoint someone who will give him the ‘stats’ he’s looking for.
He’s allowed to fire and appoint anyone he wants. I wouldn’t want a
Biden appointee if I were him.
Humphrey’s still there, so Troglodyte tells another porky.
stephen p anderson
Trump fired her, as he said, because he didn’t like the numbers.
This is banana republic stuff.
The economic data has always been non-partisan and therefore highly trusted. Lots of businesses rely on it’s accuracy.
Firing her because he didn’t like the data, and replacing her with someone more loyal to him, as opposed to the country, will undermine that trust.
“a Biden appointee”
86 – 8 Senate confirmation, because the appointment was so uncontroversial. Statistics bureaus are just not partisan.
The Trump message is clear to data compilers: tell us what we’d like to hear or get fired.
It doesn’t matter if you’re counting jobs or bananas, there’s no excuse for such glaring mistakes.
Drain the swamp!
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
Do you think our Ivy Leaguer will bet that the markets will rise on Monday, and would you go long TMV or TMF?
“there’s no excuse for such glaring mistakes.”
The figures are always revised as new data comes in, and often by large amounts. It’s been this way for decades under all BLS chiefs.
The solution to this is to wait until all or 99% of the data is in before reporting. But then you’d be waiting many months to get an accurate result.
The BLS is non-partisan, like many statistical bureaus. Trump’s summary firing (instead of seeking an inquiry, if he’s troubled by normal practise) sends a clear message – disappoint me and you will be ejected.
Petty tyrant behaviour.
That’s correct barry, there’s no excuse for such glaring mistakes.
There was no mistake. You just believe whatever Trump says, like a sheep.
Not a glaring mistake at all. Just normal revisions as new and delayed data comes in from employers.
To shamelessly label poor job performance due to his policies, as “rigged” and “concocted” as Trump did, does real damage to public trust in yet another highly respected source of facts.
Apparently the BLS has been putting out crap like this for a long time. But, Trump caught it.
Look for the problem to get fixed, one way or another….
“But, Trump caught it.”
Sure, if one is truly ignorant and very gullible, they could believe Trump knows better about the employment data than the Burea of Labor and Statistics..
“Apparently the BLS has been putting out crap like this for a long time. But, Trump caught it.”
Apparently you are a sucker for narrative devoid of facts.
Facts are that congress want the BLS to make a preliminary assessment ASAP when only 70% of the data are in, and that a second and third assessment is made after more data (totalling more than 90%) comes in, which often revises the initial estimate.
Facts are that the added 20% of jobs numbers between the initial and second assessments equates to between 20 and 30 million positions. So it’s no wonder that the revisions change by tens to hundreds of thousands of jobs, particularly when the job market is volatile, as it currently is due to tariffs and economic uncertainty.
Facts are that these revisions change total job numbers by less than a percent.
Petty tyrant Trump breaks anything that doesn’t make him shine. If a news organisation gets too mouthy he bans them from the Whitehouse. If a law firm goes against him he takes them out with an executive order. He uses the power of the presidency to go after his perceived enemies. It’s hard to imagine a more naked abuse of power than any number of things he has done with his authority. And MAGA loves a dictator.
I’ll try to keep this simple, for the TDS kids.
New jobs, as reported by BLS:
Month —– Estimate —– Revision
May —– 144,000 —– 19,000
June —– 147,000 —– 14,000
Incompetence or malfeasance, or both?
The point is — if they can’t do any better than that, we don’t need them.
Drain the swamp!
Yes, when the 2nd assessment a month later has 20 to 30 million more jobs worth of data, the numbers get revised. The last few months aren’t even the largest revisions ever made.
If congress and the business world didn’t want an early labour assessment with partial data, then the BLS could hold off until businesses finally get around to submitting their jobs numbers – which can take moths – and publish numbers for July in December. Then you wouldn’t have large revisions.
Being ignorant is curable. Being wilfully ignorant probably isn’t.
Trump points out something that happens all the time and is easily explainable without resorting to conspiracy theories,and his lemmings chirrup whatever he says.
Trump Devotion Syndrome
Stalking me three days later barry? Did you learn that from Nate?
The point is — if they can’t do any better than that, we don’t need them.
Drain the swamp!
I notice you don’t stalk me when science Is involved:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/07/some-thoughts-on-our-doe-report-regarding-co2-impacts-on-the-u-s-climate/#comment-1710207
BTW, it’s “Trump DERANGEMENT Syndrome”. You’re addicted to perverting reality.
“Stalking me three days later barry? Did you learn that from Nate?”
I work for a living and sometimes the hours are long. I am not able to come here every day.
Fascinating that you need to puff your chest up by commenting on my schedule.
“The point is — if they can’t do any better than that, we don’t need them.”
The point is that you are deeply mired in Trump Devotion Syndrome and will love what he loves, hate what he hates, disregarding any critical thinking of your own.
I can imagine how comforting it must be – to have someone else do all the thinking for you, no need to question or doubt. Like a religion. Or a cult.
How much of that blah-blah is true, barry? You don’t have a record of favoring reality. In fact, you have a fairly significant history of perverting reality.
Like here, you falsely accuse me of being in a cult for Trump. That’s just another example of you perverting reality. I see Trump as having faults along with his virtues. He’s a talented human, with flaws. He’s NOT a “god” to me. I don’t agree with every thing he says/does. A cult worships false gods, like we see here with your cult.
You try to fake a knowledge of science to support your false religion. You are the one that swallows everything your cult produces. If you can really think for yourself, find some things wrong with this:
https://postimg.cc/yJFTRZzW
(Sorry to bring this back to science.)
I can understand the desire to change the subject.
Trump has no idea about the jobs numbers, how they are worked out, what the difference is between initial estimates and revisions.
But he still tells you they are rigged or proof of incompetence and that’s all you have in your head about it. Despite being linked to source material and explanations on how the BLS operates.
If you were truly skeptical you wouldn’t parrot Trump on everything he says.
One of your problems barry, is that you believe government is your “god”. That’s a trait of Leftism. The more government, the better. The more incompetent, the better.
Trump believes the opposite. Government, and bureaucrats, are to serve the citizens. When they fail, they need to be fired.
That’s what “draining the swamp” means.
Your failure to find flaws in the graphic indicates your adherence to the cult’s false science.
No surprise there….
Your failure to take an interest in understanding the topic of this thread is a result of your Trump Devotion Syndrome, as is your need to change the subject.
The BLS regularly revise their figures from the initial estimate.
The second estimate for the same month adds millions of jobs worth of data that were not available in the first assessment.
And that almost always leads to revisions of tens to hundreds of thousands.
The revisions are not from errors in calculation, but from additional data becoming available.
This does not mean the numbers are ever perfect, but the fact that revisions are done (3 of them in total) as more data comes in attests to the fact that BLS is intent on improving the estimates.
Trump’s hissy fit is petty and destructive. If he thinks there is a problem with the BLS then he should create a task force to replace the BLS advisory panels and Labor Department watchdog he eliminated earlier this year. Firing people on an ego burst isn’t good business.
Wrong again, barry. Like science, this is all over your head.
A president doesn’t get into the details of every bureaucracy. He has executives that do that. But when a bureaucracy gets in a rut, and puts out the same crap every time, it’s necessary to change executives.
There are modern technologies available that can make get predictions, both in economics and science. The Kalman filter, to name just one. You can expect job numbers to become much more accurate, now that this part of the swamp has been drained.
This is a science blog. Your uneducated political views and TDS may be better suited for another blog. Maybe something for kids….
“But when a bureaucracy gets in a rut, and puts out the same crap every time, it’s necessary to change executives.”
If the boat went off course because the steering tillage decoupled then you’d be an idiot to sack the captain. Trump has no idea, but because the revisions didn’t favour him he reverted to The Apprentice and had a made-for-drama moment.
You simply refuse to learn that the BLS has ALWAYS revised the first estimate, and that the recent changes weren’t even the largest monthly revisions – which happened under different chiefs.
If you prefer wilful ignorance in order to excuse Trump’s petty and destructive move here, then nothing can help you, I guess.
barry, those issues have already been addressed here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/07/some-thoughts-on-our-doe-report-regarding-co2-impacts-on-the-u-s-climate/#comment-1710564
Have you given up on finding any mistakes in the bogus energy-balance graphic?
https://postimg.cc/yJFTRZzW
“barry, those issues have already been addressed here”
I already pre-addressed your point here. You have had no answer to it.
The president- or congress – may appoint or request an external body to audit any department. This is manifestly better than booting people before getting insight into what is happening.
Not only did Trump summarily eject one of the top experts, he DID NOT then initiate an enquiry into BLS methodologies.
That’s the clincher. He has ZERO interest in improving the BLS, only vengeance for results he didn’t like.
And the message is clear. If you upset me, you will be ejected.
Lets make it absolutely clear. If Biden or Obama fired the BLS chief after a bad jobs report, there would be a great big Republican meltdown and universal call for impeachment.
The monumental lies of mainstream science go way beyond climate. It involves astronomy, astrophysics, archaeology, zoology, subatomic physics etc. The vast majority of humans on earth have very low ethics. Human population as a whole are the soil that gives rise to authoritarianism, racism, war, criminality, corruption, indoctrination etc. The truth struggles in such a soil, whether it has to do with science or anything else.
The fact remains that there is no such thing as pure Climate Science. It is completely infected at all levels and on both “sides” by politics because of the policy implications. Each side will put forward its best case for the direction they think policy should go. Ultimately, climate is a policy debate that is pushed out by proponents with the science that is most favorable.
In the media battle for public opinion, there are a wide range of claims that are mostly speculative or outright false. The range of verifiable facts is very brief:
CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere due entirely to fossil burning. It is not coming out of the oceans. Much of it is going into the oceans by accurate measurement and simple calculation. The rate of emission is easy to calculate. Currently, less than half is accumulating in the atmosphere.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Heat transfer by thermal radiation is real. The emission spectrum of CO2 is very strong at ambient temperature. Claims of saturation are speculative considering the complexity of the greenhouse gas mechanism.
The exact effect of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is not known, but there is some effect and there are reasonable estimates from both “sides” of the debate. Some amount of warming should be occurring. Significant effects from other variables such as natural and somewhat random cycles of oscillation in ENSO make the analysis difficult. The recent sudden warming in 2023 and 2024 is largely unexplained.
Warming does not translate directly to actual changes in the climate despite those claims.
Computer simulations produce a wide range of results.
True climate change will take decades if not centuries to verify. Random odd weather is not climate change.
Statistics do not lie, but statisticians do. Data smoothing does not erase natural variability or prove cause and effect of intermediate or long term trends.
True skeptics should be skeptical of everything including easily proven false claims on both sides.
FYI, H2O is the one and the only one greenhouse gas of importance and 71% of the earth’s surface is covered with H2O.
If your concern is that water vapor is not properly mentioned and attributed by the climate change proponents, then I will agree with you. If your claim is that the other gases have no effect, then I will have to go with the data. If you still disagree, then your argument is with the editors at Wikipedia.
Anyone can sign up and propose edits. My experience as an editor is that the lead editor will very rudely accuse you of wasting their time and tell you to get lost, if they do not agree. That is how Wikipedia became so political. The rule is that everything has to have an internet source, but they choose which sources to use. Anyway, here it is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
This graph does represent water vapor, but it is the only place that it is prominently displayed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#/media/File:Atmospheric_Transmission.svg
FYI the consensus value for sensitivity to CO2 forcing is 2.8K, so why would we care what you think is “of importance”?
COW is a driver of temperature, H2O is a an amplifier.
https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/steamy-relationships-how-atmospheric-water-vapor-amplifies-earths-greenhouse-effect/
Go to Wikipedia and search for the Köppen-Geiger Climate Classification System. Wladimir Köppen (1846-1940) and Rudolf Geiger (1894-1981) were the original climate scientist.
“Warming does not translate directly to actual changes in the climate despite those claims.”
Strange comment, Tim.
Given that the climate of a region includes it’s temperature.
“The exact effect of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is not known”
This is as pointless as saying the exact effect of gravity on planetary motions is not known–because it is hard to solve it for many bodies interacting.
But of course we know quite a lot about the effect of gravity to produce the principle planetary motions.
And we know quite a lot about the main effects of increasing atmospheric CO2 to produce global warming, sea-ice melt, Arctic amplification, and greater warming over the N. hemisphere than the S. hemisphere.
Since the Earth’s troposphere is very thin and the global pressure near the surface is essentially constant, the temperature near the surface can only vary to a certain extent and is highly dependent on global cloud cover. Science should investigate the causes of the observed decrease in global cloudiness. Any increase in the mass of gases in the troposphere can cause an increase in temperature proportional to the added mass. In the stratosphere, only radiation acts anymore, and the lowest kinetic energy is invariably observed in the tropopause at a pressure level of about 100 hPa.
https://i.ibb.co/MxsrLQN0/zt-sh.gif
https://i.ibb.co/wZX4B0cZ/lat-pres-gfs-TMP-SH-f000.png
Milankovic cycles, which have always worked in the past, will continue to work on the scale of 6,000 years. Besides, solar activity is not at all constant over long periods of time. Therefore, climate changes have always occurred and will continue to occur. Throughout human history, they have always forced people to migrate en masse, and sometimes great civilizations have disappeared.
https://i.ibb.co/f3WKCkj/Polar.gif
None of which changes the fact of anthropogenic warming, or that it is forcing the climate outside of the envelope in which civilisation arose.
You suppose that the global concentration of CO2 (as measured for example at Mauna-Loa) directs “the envelope” in which “civilization” grows.
Historic CO2 measurements, for example those of Misra at Pune (India) in the 1940s, show otherwise. CO2 concentrations can vary widely at all time scales without any noticeable local effect. If you integrate no local effect all over the world, you end with no local effect.
No, I observe that there is an envelope in which civilisation grew. We are already outside the envelope in which modern humans evolved – CO2 levels have not been this high for 3 million years. The consequences of this have been thoroughly investigated and are summarised in the IPCC reports. They are generally deleterious.
Elliott, you’re confusing your beliefs with reality.
AGW is NOT a fact, it’s a belief.
The envelope in which civilization grew has NOT been violated. You just believe it has.
You don’t know what CO2 levels were even 500 years ago. You just believe…
You need to censor your beliefs until you learn some science. You’re looking like an uneducated child of the Left.
“AGW is NOT a fact, it’s a belief”
Well, according to the Red Team report written by Climate Science’s most skeptical wing, it is a fact.
Sorry, your opinion is worthless.
Child Nate, when you sneak in behind me two days late, your opinion is worthless.
But keep stalking me. You must get a thrill from giving me attention.
I see, facts are only valid for a day, according to you?
“Yes, Increasing CO2 Causes a Warming Tendency in the Climate System… So What?”
Pretty much my view. especially “So What?” To a lesser degree, yes it’s warmer than it was in 1850. How much of that warming is due to the increase of CO2 with its greenhouse properties is up for grabs.
“But I won’t buy an EV until it can transport me 920 miles in 14 hours during winter.”
A plug in hybrid solves that 920 mile issue. In the meantime, driving around town, trips to the gas station would be a rare event.
“Every environmental scientist I have ever met believes Nature is fragile.”
4.5 billion years ago life on Earth might have been fragile. Since then not so much. My back yard is testimony to that.
I would like to discuss with you the why the lunar Tav = 250 K provided by Fact Sheets
is theoretically impossible.
*************************
The Grok’s answer to my question: what is the lunar average surface temperature?
“The Moon’s average surface temperature is about -23°C (-10°F). However, it varies widely due to the lack of atmosphere. Daytime temperatures can reach up to 127°C (260°F), while nighttime temperatures can drop to as low as -173°C (-280°F). These extremes occur because the Moon has no atmosphere to regulate heat, causing significant temperature swings between day and night.”
That was his answer.
******************************
Let’s see then -23°C + 273K = 250K the Moon’s average surface temperature.
Because,
Daytime temperatures can reach up to 127°C ( which is 127°C + 273K = 400K ).
And,
nighttime temperatures can drop to as low as -173°C ( which is -173°C + 273K = 100K )
Now, let’s see,
400K + 100K = 500K and the average of the maximum and the minimum temperatures is
500K /2 = 250K !!!!!
So we were able calculating the lunar average surface temperature by simple arithmetical average between the surface’s the two temperature extremes,
the minimum temperature and the maximum temperature.
But the lunar surface temperatures are not distributed linearly over the entire lunar surface.
Thus the 250 K number is an impossible figure. Not even close.
And it is impossible to happen even by coincidence.
The number should be much less than the 250 K.
The Tav = 250K is theoretically impossible !!!
So the 220 K is the appropriate one.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Dr. Spencer, some comments about the paper.
1) It has the same preconceived concept that warming, any warming, is likely catastrophic. That for some reason, 1850 temperatures are the long term goal. If one broadens ones view, it must be considered that the earth might be better off with an higher, optimum temperature. I have looked high and low for real scientific studies that attempt to study what a global optimum temperature would be. You can count them on one hand. Of those few, it can be conjectured that the entire globe, flora, fauna, sea life, etc. would be much better off with a global temperature of around 20°C. That means we are currently far below the optimum temperature. Even if we are currently at 16°C that leaves a range of 4 – 5°C for temperatures to grow.
It will be important for the DOE to show that the scientific community has never addressed the issue and this as a reason to eliminate the finding that CO2 is causing a climate disaster. More research is needed to determine the optimum temperature. It needs to include zoologists, botanists, agronomists, biologists, etc. Something like the IPCC but dedicated to only one determination, optimum global temperature.
Freeman Dyson made this observation in an interview at: https://e360.yale.edu/features/freeman_dyson_takes_on_the_climate_establishment
“There was an outfit called the Institute for Energy Analysis
at Oak Ridge. I visited Oak Ridge many times, and worked with
those people, and I thought they were excellent. And the
beauty of it was that it was multi-disciplinary. There were
experts not just on hydrodynamics of the atmosphere, which of
course is important, but also experts on vegetation, on soil,
on trees, and so it was sort of half biological and half
physics. And I felt that was a very good balance.”
2) The USCRN is the preeminent system for rural baseline temperatures. It shows little growth in temperature and what there is occurs in the winter. NOAA’s own website at
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/statewide/time-series
shows the same. Monthly Tmax averages in the summer months have little to no growth across all rural states while winter temperatures show a marked growth across all rural states. The temperatures over an entire continent can’t just be ignored with the excuse that the land area is small.
“If one broadens ones view”
This would entail collating all the available science. The reports which already do this are available from the IPCC, and they are perfectly clear in projecting that civilisation will NOT be better off.
“The reports which already do this are available from the IPCC,”
Why don’t you post some od the text from these “reports”? Everything I have read show any benefits at all, only bad things that are presupposed. The “reports” never amke a firm conclusion about what the optimum temperature should be. They only conclude that any warming is due to anthropogenic emmissions of CO2.
Better yet, why don’t you list a compendium of published studies that attempt to quantify what the best temperature for the globe actually is. The IPCC reports certaintly don[t have any comprehensive discussion of relevant studies.
Lastly, why don’t you stick your neck out and make a scientific prediction based on published studies of what you think the optimum temperature of the globe should be?
Start here:
https://bsky.app/profile/timosbornclim.bsky.social/post/3l7uvi27ipl2s
Every Climateball episode is a goog reason to RTFR, so perhaps you should return at Tony’s, Jim.
This report is worthless pseudoscience and can be ignored.
Maybe, but why should we agree with your personal opinion ?
I can get comments such as yours on the evening news from the talking-heads. Do you have an intelligent comment or analysis? Specifically, which of the hundreds of peer reviewed studies listed in the report do you disagree?
This report is worthless, agenda-driven pseudoscience and can be ignored.
This report is worthless, agenda-driven pseudoscience and can be ignored.
Why Would Climate Science Be Biased Toward a Specific Outcome?
You openly describe yourself as a “lukewarmer”. You are thereby admitting that you are biased towards a restricted set of outcomes.
Apologies for the repeat posts. My comments are only appearing on one of my devices and are being “swallowed” on the other.
A “Red Team / Blue Team” exercise has already occured. It led the APS statement on climate change.
https://asset.cloudinary.com/apsphysics/993aca974d7c16f49f846aab75bba5a1
From a scientific standpoint (assessing coherence, evidentiary support, and internal consistency) the mainstream or consensus-aligned team of Drs. William Collins, Isaac Held, and Benjamin Santer, presented the more convincing argument in support of their position.
The mainstream scientists presented a more scientifically rigorous, evidence-based, and internally coherent argument. Their position is supported by observational data, mechanistic understanding, and predictive performance, all consistent with accepted norms of scientific inquiry.
Dr. Steven Koonin resigned his chairship of the APS climate-statement review panel following disagreements over the final statement.
From a scientific standpoint (assessing coherence, evidentiary support, and internal consistency) the mainstream ignores the relevant physics. For example Ark, you can’t even find one thing wrong with nonsense like this:
https://postimg.cc/yJFTRZzW
And there is more than just one thing wrong!
That is clear from reading the debate.
Koonin has really gone off the deep end. I did manage to get through his book even though he starts by completely misrepresenting Stephen Schneider’s “double ethical bind”. He ignores that six words.
Dr Spencer
How do you respond to the concerns of those scientists who views were misrepresented in the DOE report?
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/how-the-doe-and-epa-used-and-misused
https://www.eenews.net/articles/doe-reframes-climate-consensus-as-a-debate/
https://bsky.app/profile/richardtol.bsky.social/post/3lvbowurbe222
https://www.wired.com/story/scientists-say-new-government-climate-report-twists-their-work/
https://richardtol.substack.com/p/is-climate-change-dangerous
https://www.science.org/content/article/contrarian-climate-assessment-u-s-government-draws-swift-pushback
The DOE comment website is the solution for the opponents of the report. They quote the report, they explain why they disagree.
Dr Spencer
Haw could you allow this statement go unquestioned in the DOE report
“Santer et al. (2023) use updated data to show that a cooling trend has not re-emerged in the lower stratosphere.”
1) Santer said no such thing.
“A U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) report released on July 29, 2025, fundamentally misrepresents the results published in our 2023 PNAS paper. Readers of Section 5.5 of the DOE report would not know that our 2023 PNAS paper had identified “incontrovertible evidence of human effects on the thermal structure of Earth’s atmosphere”. Instead, readers of the DOE report would incorrectly conclude that our 2023 paper had found no evidence of human effects on climate.”
From the abstract:
“Here, we perform such a “fingerprint” study with satellite-derived patterns of temperature change that extend from the lower troposphere to the upper stratosphere. Including S25 − 50 information increases signal-to-noise ratios by a factor of five, markedly enhancing fingerprint detectability. Key features of this global-scale human fingerprint include stratospheric cooling and tropospheric warming at all latitudes, with stratospheric cooling amplifying with height. ”
2) Your own data confirms lower stratospheric cooling
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.1/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.1.txt
Well Ark didn’t take me up on the challenge to find something wrong with:
https://postimg.cc/yJFTRZzW
So let’s open this up to all believers in the CO2 nonsense.
Find at least one major physics violation in the NASA graphic.
It should be easy, as there is more than just one….
After many years of measurements and investigations I can say that I fully agree with you Roy. Very balanced view.
So far I still have to see a convincing tight lab test CO2 vs. temperature increase.
We know that urban heat islands corrupt the temperature records.
We know albedo has changed due to humans.
We know that the earth orbit is not identical year in year out.
Yet for some, none of this matters, it’s only CO2. And anyone who says otherwise is a traitor to unborn child.
“And anyone who says otherwise is a traitor to unborn child.”
Why is the nonsense from ‘skeptics’ so often weapons-grade?
The IPCC in every report devotes sections to everything you’ve mentioned. These topics have been studied and talked about for decades.
Barry, then defend you claim with facts for your side. What is the consensus of the albedo change on the climate, or the change in orbit or the UHI contribution.
Google
IPCC urban heat island
IPCC orbital influence on climate
IPCC anthropogenic influence on albedo
That will immediately bring up lots of links. There is plenty for you to read, and if you want to dig into any of these topics you can dive into the relevant chapters to find the source material for the IPCC’s commentary. Assuming you are actually curious about this stuff.
Anon
All of your points have been considered.
Taken together all the national variations contribute to a cooling trend of 0.05C/decade.
This is countered by an artificial warming trend of 0.2C/decade, mostly due to the direct and indirect effects of increasing CO2.
Entropic man, that value is pure fantasy. Changes in Albedo, UHI and the earth orbit is not linear. Consider that changes in agriculture practices nd population changes have never been linear. Do you want to take another go at dismissing my comments, but please use facts this time.
Dr Roy
What if there really is no green-house effect at all? There simply is no mass for them ‘to hold’ any heat in and it re-radiates as much to space as it does towards earth….
I have proven that, at least for CO2, here.
https://breadonthewater.co.za/2022/12/15/an-evaluation-of-the-greenhouse-effect-by-carbon-dioxide/
I recently came across a paper from Robert Holmes 2017. Amazing. You can calculate the temperature at the south pole (+ca. 3000 meters above sea level) with an accuracy of 0.2%. All you need to know is the pressure at ground level, the air density and the average molecular weight of the air.
It works for any planet except where there is no pressure.
https://breadonthewater.co.za/2025/08/13/an-evaluation-of-the-green-house-effect-by-carbon-dioxide-3/
Please let me know what you think.
That argument comes from the ideal gas law, which is PV = nRT, where n is the number of moles of a gas, and R is the gas constant.
Or, in terms of density, P = rhoRT, where rho is density.
But this doesn’t tell you the temperature because YOU DON’T KNOW THE DENSITY, which is another way of saying you don’t know the number of moles is a certain volume of air. Could you know it? Sure…IF YOU KNEW THE TEMPERATURE.
IT ENDS UP BEING A CIRCULAR ARGUMENT. The ideal gas law INDEED holds under all conditions, but it does not, by itself, determine temperature. A common mistake among skeptics.
-Roy
I am so sorry Roy. This is not an argument.This is a formula used extensively here in the mining industry and it tells you exactly what the temperatures will be, regardless of the concentration of the so-called green house gases
I am so sorry Roy. This is not an argument.This is a formula used extensively here in the mining industry and it tells you exactly what the temperatures will be, regardless of the concentration of the so-called green house gases
You can derive air density without explicitly knowing temperature, but only if you know pressure and altitude (or pressure and geopotential) height.
See
https://chatgpt.com/s/t_68a2375299688191a2cfa9b6b385cad6
I gave a link here to prove the argument
So
There was no circular argument