We’re publishing an original piece today by Rudolph Kalveks, a retired executive with a PhD in theoretical physics, about the shortcomings of climate change models. The reason their predictions are so off, according to Dr. Kovacs, is because the modellers don’t know enough about physics. Dr. Kovacs is the author of a series of articles for the Daily Sceptic called “Canaries in the Mine”. (Read the first of those here.) Here is the introduction to his latest piece:
As the media, politicians and climate activists continue to circulate hysterical hot air from the Cop26 conference, the topic of climate change or anthropogenic global warming (AGW) has become an emotional one, increasingly detached from the thoughtful and meticulous process of theory development, calculation and observation that is supposed to characterise scientific endeavour.
It may come as a surprise to some that “The Science”, as expounded in the IPCC Summaries for Policymakers that inform conference participants, is not uncritically accepted by all scientists in the field, and that widely different views are held by a substantial cadre of experienced and eminent researchers. Moreover, a multitude of peer-reviewed papers contradict many aspects of the IPCC’s alarmist narrative. Furthermore, a coherent theory about the impact of changes in greenhouse gases (GHGs) is starting to emerge, one that is built up from the underlying physics, rather than extracted from fanciful computer simulations. My aim here is to highlight some of the relevant papers and to inform any motivated layman who wishes to explore outside the dogmatic strictures of the mainstream narrative.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Thank you Professor but I think we knew that about a decade or so ago.
Gosh, that’s impressive. You knew about Wijngaarden and Happer (2020), Dübal and Vahrenholt (2021) and Coe et al. (2021) back in 2011? Could you please provide a link to the article you wrote at the time about all this please, I’d be very interested to read it.
I used to take a great deal of interest in the climate change debate (wattsupwiththat. etc)
Once it became clear how falsely the alarmist camp presented their case (climategate of which I was aware the day it broke) and that they were wrong the ongoing technical reports, from both sides, became repetitive and boring merely confirming what we already know.
Much the same is true of the lockdown/vaccine debate except that it is kept lively by the government forever changing the goalposts.
I have no idea what I initially might have done to upset you loopDloop but you have been rude and sarcastic towards me before, not behaviour that is usual on this forum.
Not my downtick btw, I don’t go in for them except downright commercial spam.
Indeed – hasn’t Richard Lindzen been saying ECS is around 0.6degC since about forever?
I think Karenovirus is referring to the fact that anyone with two eyes, two ears and a nose for bullshit knew about the 30 years of failed climate models and the endelssly shape shifting climate scam some time ago.
Quite so psychedelia.
True but the value of the Professor’s paper is he is quoting from and pointing to any number of papers that refute the current narrative and show why it’s wrong. I think that’s worth knowing about, even if most of it was too technical for me! But when so many alarmists believe it’s all settled, whatever our eyes tell us, the fact that there are many scientists out there proving that it’s not settled at all is a good thing, surely?
Undoubtedly useful to those not already familiar with the discussion but, in that case, a none too technical summary of both points of view would be helpful.
Sadly the current acceptable narrative is the same as it was ten years and more ago except that it gets ever more extreme with still no real evidence to back it up.
Last time I looked there were claims that Climate Armageddon would cause the Gulf Stream to stop flowing so Western Europe would face another ice age. “. . .erm, no; .?. that doesn’t work, . . . let’s find something else to scream about”.
Almost 15 years ago I sourced a paper from the Newbery Group – astrophyicists in the main – for number 2 child’s geography project on CC; It nailed the ability of C02 to absorb light spectrum radiation (very little), Methane contributed not at all and found/proved that water vapour was the predominant GHG.
My interest is peripheral to the science – leaves me cold, read the words but have no knowledge of the physics ( no pun….) – it is the extent to which the AGW/CC agenda was/is driven by unscientific, biased in the extreme, agenda driven bollox and the gullibility of those who swallow it.
Thanks to WUWT/Tony Heller/the Oregon”declaration” and a host of others including Patrick Moore, my scepticism has been nurtured on a daily basis. Tony Heller should get a medal for skewering the fraudulent misuse of data, and those whose gambits include hiding data that runs counter to “the narrative”. WWF should be prosecuted for deliberation use of lies in their adverts especially about Polar bears. The Nat Geo lost me forever over the picture of the starving polar bear and David Attenborough should be stripped of every award and honour for participating in the tissue of lies he spouts viz the Elephant Seal video.
Sustainability is key – Net Zero etc is not the way forward.
Seth’s Nature Trick – YouTube
US burn acreage over the past 100 years
Sarcastic, ad hominen attacks are the sign of having no rational answer to the points raised
Have not read this yet but to stop it losing credibility PLEASE NOTE that Observations is spelled incorrectly in the title of the first diagram.
Two figures for you to consider: 0.04% and 3.5%. The former is the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, the latter is mankind’s contribution to the former.
Personally, I think that massive yellow thing in the sky, geomagnetic activity, the global electric circuit and volcanoes have more of an influence on the Earth’s climate than a trace gas, to which mankind’s contribution is insignificant. But there you go, there is money to be made and gullible populations to control… A bit like this covid thing, wouldn’t you say?
Personally i think water vapour controls temperature via controlling pressure and cloud cover.
It’s how barometers work after all.
Here’s Tony showing it’s not CO2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKWqK_qV4HU
Water vapour is indeed the largest green house gas of all but the concentration varies day by day and the main thing determining the concentration is the temperature! So it acts to amplify the effect of other greenhouse gases. A small increase due to CO2 etc will raise the temperature slightly which will increase the water vapour which will raise the temperature a lot more (and vice versa for coolling)
MTF, the idea that CO2 forces increases in the greehouse effect of water vapour is something peddled for 30 years with absolutely no evidence or scientific validity.
As Professor William Happer emphasises, the more water vapour, the more cloud cover, therefore less heating. So there is no positive feedback loop. If there was then, big swings in CO2 concentrations in the past would have caused major temperature excursions but there is no evidence for this in fossil remains etc. All of the computer models (he admits including his own!) fail to correctly allow for clouds hence they all (more than 100 of them!) have grossly over-predicted mean temperature increases.
The effect of clouds is mixed. Low clouds tend to be cooling, high clouds to be warming. Recent models do try to allow for this but it is recognised that this is a major area of uncertainty.
Big swings in CO2 in the past have been associated with big temperature swings but when you are dealing with hundreds of thousands or million of of years other effects make a big difference that are not of concern to us e.g. changes in the sun’s power.
I am in a hurry but will provide references if required.
The first figure is irrelevant. All it shows is that there is a lot of other gas up there as well as CO2. 0.4% of the atmosphere is plenty to make a big difference. If you took it all away we would freeze.
The second figure is wrong. We contribute 3.5% of the CO2 that is emitted every year – a very different figure. In more normal times most of the emitted CO2 is absorbed- the carbon cycle – the extra 3.5% accounts for the steady increase in CO2 in the atmosphere over the last 100 years. The result is that about 30% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is man-made. We can verify that by examining the mix of Carbon isotopes in the atmosphere – CO2 from fossil fuels has a different isotope mix from other sources.
The correlation between lockdown/vaccine supporters and ‘global heating’ enthusiasts is 100%. If wearing blue bobble hats became an emblem of totalitarian regimes you would be wearing them 24/7.
I would be interested to read how this is disputed. It is A level (maybe GCSE) physics that higher temperatures increase evaporation.
From my personal experience , ‘A level’ Physics has very little relevance to how things really work.
As you clearly have opinions based on years of study, you must be ideally placed to know exactly where to read all about every aspect of this topic. No point in asking us mere novices.
From my personal experience , ‘A level’ Physics has very little relevance to how things really work.
You must lead an extraordinarily limited life. It is over 50 years since I did A level physics, so maybe it has been changed, but two small examples were: statics – the reasoning behind designing bridges that stay up – Bernoulli’s principle – the reason planes fly.
As you clearly have opinions based on years of study, you must be ideally placed to know exactly where to read all about every aspect of this topic. No point in asking us mere novices.
So in other words you don’t know why water vapour might not amplify CO2 warming. Anyhow here is some evidence to add to the rather basic physics: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2008GL035333
It is pretty old (2008) because this hasn’t been controversial for over 10 years.
Erm, quoting a couple of classical equations, one from the 18th century doesn’t answer my point. Its not that some ‘A Level’ Physics isn’t useful , especially in basic engineering, but that the concepts quickly become obsolete when dealing with macro or micro events.
The paper you have quoted is supported by a NASA grant , specifically from Gavin Schmidt. As I remarked previously given the requirements to meet the customer’s aim, the results of the paper could have been written in advance.
Peyrole, I watched the Dr. John Campbell video, warning of the perils of the Pfizer vaccine, that you provided a link to yesterday.
It was accompanied by a pop up ad, itself unusual, from Pfizer extolling its virtues as providing vaccines on favourable terms to the developing world.
The irony was not lost on me.
So Newton’s Laws of Motion quickly become obsolete when dealing with macro or micro events. Can I quote you on that as an example of climate sceptic thinking?
The funding of the paper is irrelevant. What matters is the content. Care to point out where it is wrong?
PS “That must be wrong because he would have said that wouldn’t he?” is a classic example of an ad hominem argument.
Not obsolete, just inadequate.
Of course funding source is irrelevant , unless its from coal, oil , gas or any organisation regarded as anti-warmist, then it becomes very significant.
Not obsolete, just inadequate.
Your word not mine – is this a correction?
Of course funding source is irrelevant , unless its from coal, oil , gas or any organisation regarded as anti-warmist, then it becomes very significant.
Not to me it isn’t. I don’t mind who funds it if the science is good. If you agree, then you need to address the science in the paper I referred to, not the funding.
Nope, concepts become obsolete; Newton’s Laws become inadequate to explain sub-atomic and cosmic events.
I don’t ‘need’ to do anything.
“what matters is the content”; interesting contention.
I don’t know who funded this but you might concede the content has validity in pointing out some difficult facts if you think the SARS COV2 strategy of “vaccination” …works:
Covid Jab Is Far More Dangerous Than Advertised
But then you might not; Peter McCullough knows a thing or too about that treatment of CV19 – do you think he is wrong?
Er.. .Bernoulli’s principle is NOT the reason planes fly. That old chestnut was rejected long ago, and though out-of-date physics teachers still cite it as an example of pressure differentials, simple calculation will show you that the pressure difference is nothing like enough to keep a plane in the air.
The reason planes stay up is because of the Newtonian reaction to the mass of air that the wings deflect downwards. The pressure differential between the lower and upper surfaces is a very small contributor.
Much like the climate scientists, you have fastened onto a small phenomenon and incorrectly given it exaggerated importance. They, at least, have the excuse that they are protecting their grants by ‘misunderstanding’ the science. What’s your excuse?
Fair enough. I was only looking for an example of something taught at A level that is relevant – Newtonian reaction will do fine.
homeopathy is more scientific
It’s not the case that they don’t know enough about physics.
it’s simply that they discovered that they could get money and power if they keep saying that 3=16, So they did. And now they have found that they are riding a tiger and can’t get off…..
Physics isn’t science.Not any more.
Please explain what you mean?
If you mean Physics has now more in common with advanced mathematics or even philosophy in extremis. Then there is truth in that. The concepts being juggled with are getting beyond human brain capability, they can only be expressed in mathematical terms. Which I personally believe means we have turned down a blind alley and need to retrace steps so we are on firmer ground. However people do love complicated stuff when they can play with computers, so maybe as a species we are becoming lost in the digitised universe.
Its not that the actual maths is too difficult to write down, but its too difficult to ‘picture’ what it means in our brains. As soon as we totally need computers to interpret for us, we are lost.
I had a terrible Physics ‘0’ Level teacher, we spent most of the time trying to get chucked out of his class in which he was usually obliging.
Even without looking at how inaccurate most of the models are, their huge variance from each other should be enough to cause a religious schism in the climate “science” church.
By which I mean that those outlying heretics whose modelling actually closely approximate reality must be purged for their lack of faith.
All of which seems to boil down to the fact that clouds make it difficult, especially because not enough is known about cloud production.
There is continuing research into the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation (at CERN) which has the potential to completely change the calculation relating to the contribution of the sun to earth’s temperature.
To explain briefly, irregular variations in the sun (sun spots, solar flares eg) affect the impact on earth of galactic cosmic rays via changes in the heliosphere. Cosmic rays enhance the production of clouds in the lower atmosphere through nucleation.
And because Climate Change isn’t Science it’s Alchemy. The difference being with science you start with knowns and determine the unknown. With Alchemy you start with the result you want and you work to get that result. (ie Trying to turn base metal into gold).
With Climate Change they know what the result should be and they will manipulate the data to achieve that result.
Climate science turns gold into lead.
I’ve spent the last 20 years arguing with people in The Guardian that man made climate change has been blown out of proportion and there are many scientific papers that refute the IPCC claims.
These same people also adhere to the official Covid narrative.
There is no doubt that the fearmongering and hysteria from both is orchestrated to bring in centralised control by the global elite.
The long term failure of the IPCC perhaps spurred the Covid crowd into action; different battle, same conflict, many of the same participants on both sides.
Thank you for this highly detailed piece and associated links
Julian
Its a good summary. As Karenovirus remarks readers of WUWT and Notaltofpeopleknowthat will be well versed in this stuff already.
One point to make. The IPCC is a political body, it was set up that way from the beginning. Its purpose ( its defined in its terms of reference) is to find the effects of human causation CO2 on the earth’s climate. It was never designed to look at the overall physics of the atmosphere, or even the totality of CO2 in the atmosphere, just the narrow object of finding the effect from CO2 from human activity.
Unsurprisingly if people are given huge budgets and big incentives they go away and do their best to ‘find’ something that encourages the continuation of those huge budgets and incentives.
I gave up following the debate after COP@Copenhagen when it became even more clear that many advocates of Global Warming were fund seeking charlatans.
And how do you know that these people are knowingly lying to everyone? Simple. Imagine you rely on information from a model. This model is vital to you, and it predicts the future, and if you don’t listen to it YOU DIE. And someone comes and tells you: “Dude… your model is wrong.” What do you do?
And ask yourself what are these people doing?
Does anybody know when the climate was normal?
Moment environmentalist George Monbiot breaks down in tears on GMB as he spoke of about how climate change will affect his children
Why did he have children if he’s so worried about climate, the callous bastard, no excuse, lefties have been bleating about AGW since the 70’s, he knew.
But of course the man-made climate change fable never was about science.
and any well meaning environmentally conscious individuals who cannot accept this simple fact need to read/research more widely, do it while waiting obediently for your next “booster”
Bwahhahaha.
“scientist” with a clear pre existing agenda says “nothing to see here” https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Thank you Dr. Kelvaks for an excellent round up of where we are. Some of this I knew, but much I did not and it fills many gaps.
I realised decades ago that modellers (synoptic as well as GCMs) don’t really do Physics. The models have a Physics pack and it is my guess that many modellers just use it as a tool without any critical thought like I switch on the TV and expect it to work. This together with heavy Parametrisation in an evironment that can go ape very easily doesn’t inspire confidence.
You touch on the subject of “black bodies”. My understanding is that all models assume that CO2 acts as a black body. But now that a number of scientists in fields that have little skin in the climate game how found that modern experiments show that Kirchoff’s Law is flawed – and thus all that flows from it. Papers and video on the subject by Prof. Pierre-Marie Robitaille and others over the last few years. Has any of this been taken on board or is the questioning of a fundamental corner stone of Physics too much to bear?