Wednesday, January 31, 2018

My explanation of the global-warming 'pause' or 'hiatus'

By Denis Rancourt

It cannot reasonably be denied that the main continuous data series used by the IPCC to evaluate global mean surface temperature showed an approximately two-decade "pause" or "hiatus" starting around 2000, which deviated from the predictions of all the many general circulation models (more than 100 simulations from 41 climate models) that were calibrated from the same data series on data prior to 2000.

E.g., see IPCC itself; and Fyfe et al., Nature Climate Change 6, 224–228 (2016). doi:10.1038/nclimate2938

Those who would deny this plain historic fact should be discounted as climate trolls.

The question arises: How did this "pause" occur?

This is my best educated answer:
I believe the “pause” arose because the data could not continue to be manipulated to sustain such a large fabricated “warming” as in the previous decades of data manipulation.

Call me a crank but I am not the only scientist to have concluded that a global mean surface temperature cannot reliably be calculated from measured data with enough precision to confirm or infirm warmings or coolings of fractions of a degree (Celsius) on the modern observation timescale.

In my 2007 essay, I (in part) put it this way:

"It was no easy task to arrive at the most cited original estimated rate of increase of the mean global surface temperature of 0.5 C in 100 years. As with any evaluation of a global spatio-temporal average, it involved elaborate and unreliable grid size dependent averages. In addition, it involved removal of outlying data, complex corrections for historical differences in measurement methods, measurement distributions, and measurement frequencies, and complex normalisations of different data sets – for example, land based and sea based measurements and the use of different temperature proxies that are in turn dependent on approximate calibration models. Even for modern thermometer readings in a given year, the very real problem of defining a robust and useful global spatio-temporal average Earth-surface temperature is not solved, and is itself an active area of research.

This means that determining an average of a quantity (Earth surface temperature) that is everywhere different and continuously changing with time at every point, using measurements at discrete times and places (weather stations), is virtually impossible; in that the resulting number is highly sensitive to the chosen extrapolation method(s) needed to calculate (or rather approximate) the average.

Averaging problems aside, many tenuous approximations must be made in order to arrive at any of the reported final global average temperature curves. For example, air temperature thermometers on ocean-going ships have been positioned at increasing heights as the sizes of ships have increased in recent history. Since temperature decreases with increasing altitude, this altitude effect must be corrected. The estimates are uncertain and can change the calculated global warming by as much as 0.5 C, thereby removing the originally reported effect entirely.

Similarly, surface ocean temperatures were first measured by drawing water up to the ship decks in cloth buckets and later in wooden buckets. Such buckets allow heat exchange in different amounts, thereby changing the measured temperature. This must be corrected by various estimates of sizes and types of buckets. These estimates are uncertain and can again change the resulting final calculated global warming value by an amount comparable to the 0.5 C value. There are a dozen or so similar corrections that must be applied, each one able to significantly alter the outcome.

In wanting to go further back in time, the technical problems are magnified. [...]"

Several other scientist have stressed these same difficulties. The algorithms to correct known systematic effects (such as heat island effects, etc.) are guesstimates and the implementation choices affect the result...  I don't believe the GIS and spread-sheet magic.

I know what it is like measuring temperatures in a physics lab, and I know data analysis. There is no way geographers and data massage artists can take this kind of physical-measurement data and produce a meaningful global spatio-temporal mean with the claimed precision.

Such graphs should not even have been allowed to be published without complete transparency, from raw data through every algorythmic step to the final result. Any scientist should be able to see and reproduce every single step and know every assumption and manipulation and exclusion. Without this care, it is black-box magic, not testable science. The entire field has failed the test.

There you have it. Many have now argued that the "pause" is not "real". Well, I agree, as I have explained above. They argue that something else is real. I say none of it is real. None of it can even independently be verified.

Monday, November 13, 2017

Does gravity play a role in planetary surface temperature?

Does gravity play a role (other than confining the atmosphere, driving convection, etc.) in determining the temporal and spatial mean temperature at the surface of Earth?

In other words, does the gravi-thermodynamics of the adiabatic lapse rate make a significant contribution to determining the average planetary surface temperature on earth?

My short answer is "no". Here is a summary of my answer:

The planetary surface temperature is a result of radiation balance at the surface (including also other heat losses at the surface, such as convection and evaporation), irrespective of thermo-gravitational effects in the atmosphere above the surface. All the relevant energy transfers are "at the surface" because the temperature in issue is the surface temperature.

Lapse rate gravi-thermodynamic considerations are vital for calculating the altitude profile of temperature of the atmosphere, however, the exact temperature profile of the atmosphere has little effect on the resulting surface temparature that is constained solely by the energy exchanges AT THE SURFACE (caps for emphasis).

The exchange below was posted as response comments related to THIS VIDEO. The editor of the video had originally inserted a bubble comment critical of my point being made at approximately 26m33s. Then Gerald Sahd commented that the buuble was incorrect and this discussion followed.

 Gerald Sahd
Highlighted comment
Pinned by 1000frolly
8 months ago
The bubble comment at 26:33 is incorrect... do an internet search.
Ya, this is a misunderstanding. I would remove the editor's inserted "bubble". The calculation is for "no atmosphere" BUT imposing the same albedo and emissivity as the actual earth with atmosphere. In other words we instantaneously remove the gaseous atmosphere while leaving the ice/water-particulate clouds in place, and without affecting soil and plant humidity, etc. It is a hypothetical calculation. It is a physicist's "thought experiment" meant solely for educational purposes... I did not think it would become an issue. :) My actual paper makes all this very clear:::
Denis, I am reading through your paper, and it is very clear. In your abstract; "Also, the net warming effect from the atmosphere, including all atmospheric processes (not just greenhouse forcing), without changing anything else (except to add the removed atmosphere) is +18oC, not the incorrect textbook value of +33oC." And on page 8; "With no atmosphere we should use the albedo of the Earth’s present solid surface, in its present state. The latter shortwave albedo <as> has been measured by satellite and is 23/(23+161) = 0.125 ([1]: Fig.1). This gives (eq.3) the significantly higher no-atmosphere mean surface temperature of To = 269.4 K (or –3.7oC), for a total atmosphere warming effect without changing anything else on the present Earth of +18oC, not +33oC. The correct predicted surface temperature of an Earth with no atmosphere but otherwise unchanged is –4oC. ....the relevant question for the present discussion is “What is the net warming effect from the atmosphere, including all its processes, without changing anything else?” The answer is +18oC, not +33oC.". Both the abstract and Page 8 agrees with my calculation of 269.8K for the Earth without an atmosphere. It seems that we 100% agree on the 18c for the warming effect of the atmosphere - no?

CLICK "Read more>>" link below, to continue

Thursday, August 3, 2017

Geopolitics of CO2 alarmism

By Denis Rancourt (PhD)

My guess at the underlying big-picture forces that determine the CO2-alignment of Western institutions (science, education, media, congress, finance...).

I think the entire climate "debate" is underpinned by competing forces in the failing USA-based global-dominance structure.

On the pro-carbon-economy side are the USA globalists (global finance, America-first globalization). These guys and their USA finance-military-dominance-complex partners want three things: (1) strengthen and anchor the USA-dollar-based global economy using an embedded global carbon-economy scheme, (2) use the carbon-economy scheme to control/limit the increasing easy access of petro-energy to developing and competing economies (China, BRICS...), and (3) use the carbon-economy scheme to control/limit energy revenues to competitors (Russia, Venezuela...).

On the anti-carbon-economy side are the USA global profiteers (militarily-protected corporations given access via intimidated and sold-out local elites) who are frustrated by the global-financier gang and who could maximize their operations without global-finance-management interference.

The reason that the balance of influence appears to be shifting towards the anti-carbon-economy side is because the carbon-economy scheme is too far fetched to actually work. The driving force of the impetus for national and continental development, in Eurasia in particular, is simply too strong, and energy too accessible, for any USA globalization scheme to hope to be on top.

Geopolitical reality is sinking in. The USA is forced to abandon the carbon-economy toddler and turn to the usual crass blow by blow approach.

Recent USA energy-market sanctions against Russia are a good example. These sanctions are the opposite of "globalization" and are a major geopolitical gamble. They are intended (1) to open Europe to expensive USA boat-shipped liquified natural gas, and (2) to deprive Russia of vital gas revenues.

Both intended consequences are harmful to Europe. Therefore, the unavoidable risk to is that Europe will fragment its economic interests and align more with Eurasia, thus accelerating the loss of USA supremacy.

Geopolitical reality is such that the carbon-economy experiment will die, and the world will be increasingly multipolar rather than overwhelmingly USA-led.

Thursday, June 8, 2017

Ezra levant is not taking any shit on "the UN global warming garbage"


Ezra Levant is an influential Canadian media personality (former politico and lawyer). He has been a tireless and principled campaigner for freedom of speech, and against "the UN global warming garbage".

(I dislike his staunch extreme and radically-biassed Zionism, but to his credit he has been consistently critical of Israel lobby campaigns and positions against freedom of expression.)

Here, Levant makes a merciless and devastating attack against Conservative MPs and their new leader. This is going to hurt the Conservatives unless they decide not to be globalist Liberals, quickly and consistently.

Wednesday, June 7, 2017

Can't leave scientists alone with science

By Denis G. Rancourt, PhD

If the generalized global warming fever and "climate change" hysteria has taught societal observers anything it is that you cannot leave scientists alone with science.

The scientific enterprise is embedded, and scientists are manufactured service intellectuals.

Two outcomes are possible.

In the first extreme scenario, those scientists that are mainly responsible to recruit young minds and to fabricate the illusion of research freedom are given freedom within the framework of professional advancement based solely on peer-reviewed publication output. The result is irrelevant gibberish, as any institutional analyst would predict.

In the other end-point scenario, research funding is tied to professional advancement and is determined by government agencies and corporate interests. The outcome is again precisely as would be predicted: the research output exactly satisfies the contractual conditions.

This is true whether one is patenting a genetically modified organism, or approving a new "non-addictive" pain medication, or developing a next-generation delivery system for nuclear warheads.

The on-going episode of global warming "science" has illustrated a structural flaw in this otherwise functioning state-science system: If scientists are given career-enhancing supra-national political instruments to create exaggerated relevance of their work in driving a globalist agenda, then they will take the opportunity and run.

Such runaway irrelevance is already known to occur on its own within a career-centered science network (the so-called Gold Effect). [1]. With the climate scare example, we see that the phenomenon is highly amplified when there is a strong corporate or institutional and propaganda-supported driver.

Usually, societal observers and ordinary citizens would not notice. In this case however, the shrill alarmism that has been generated, propagated by the mainstream media, and condoned by the science establishment, is stratospheric. The independent-thinking blogger can detect the tenuous nature of the claims of everything from imminent human species extinction to continental flooding to engulfing forest fires to unprecedented mega-storms to war-causing droughts, and so on. [2].

You can't leave scientists alone with science. Thankfully, in this case, the propaganda runaway has caused the insanity to be palpable, influential domestic forces are not buying in, and a large segment of the middle-class is not swallowing it; species extinction or no species extinction, bumblebee migration or no bumblebee migration.

The heroes in this story -- in this unique and historic example where a large segment of society has correctly perceived a widespread profiteering construct -- are the bloggers and vloggers, the domestic industrial interests that resist finance globalization, the USA political networks that reject global governance, and, of course, the exceptional scientists that refused to compromise intellectual integrity and publicly said so.

All of this, in circumstances where the relevant planetary physics is straightforward, if anybody cared. [3].


[1] See the description of the Gold Effect in:  Rancourt, D.G., Cancer arises from stress-induced breakdown of tissue homeostasis, Research Gate (December 2015), 25 pages. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.1304.7129

[2] My critical review of the global-warming "science" of forest fires may be one of the best illustrations of how bad the science is, as I document the "runaway" recorded in the scientific literature: Rancourt, D.G., Anatomy of the false link between forest fires and anthropogenic CO2, Research Gate (May 2016), 18 pages. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.2059.6087

[3] Rancourt, D.G., Radiation physics constraints on global warming: CO2 increase has little effect, my climate blog (June 2011),

Denis Rancourt's articles and interviews on climate are listed HERE.