Guest Post From Dr. Bill Gray

Dr. Bill Gray is one of my heroes. He is a top hurricane forecaster, and one of the few people who actually understands the climate. He has been self-funded since 1993, when Al Gore cut off his long time NOAA funding because of his refusal to capitulate to the global warming orthodoxy. And most importantly because his late wife Nancy was the key player behind the excellent set of bike trails in Fort Collins, as mayor during the 1980’s.


William M. Gray
Professor Emeritus
Department of Atmospheric Science
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523

If you were to ask ten people on the street if mankind’s activities are causing global warming, at least seven or eight out of ten would likely say yes. This is due to nearly 25 years of gross exaggeration of the human-induced global warming threat by scientists, environmentalists, politicians, and the media who wish to profit from the public’s lack of knowledge on this topic. Many have been lead to believe that Al Gore’s movie and book, An Inconvenient Truth, provides incontrovertible evidence that human-induced global warming is a real threat. Yet, contrary to what is heard from warming advocates, there is considerable evidence that the global warming we have experienced over the last 30 years and over the last 100 years is largely natural. It is impossible to objectively determine the very small amount of human-induced warming in comparison to the large natural changes which are occurring.

Many thousands of scientists from the US and around the globe do not accept the human-induced global warming hypothesis as it has been presented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports over the last 15 years. The media has, in general, uncritically accepted the results of the IPCC and over-hyped the human aspects of the warming threat. This makes for better press than saying that the climate changes we have experienced are mostly natural. The contrary views of the many warming skeptics have been largely ignored and their motives denigrated. The alleged ‘scientific consensus’ on this topic is bogus. As more research on the human impact on global temperature change comes forth, more flaws are being found in the hypothesis.

It must be pointed out that most climate research is supported by the federal government. All federally sponsored researchers need positive peer-reviews on their published papers and grant proposals. This can be difficult for many of the ‘closet’ warming skeptics who receive federal grant support. Many are reluctant to give full expression of their views due to worries over continuing grant support. It is difficult to receive federal grant support if one’s views differ from the majority of their peers who receive support to find evidence of the warming threat. The normal scientific process of objectively studying both sides of a question has not yet occurred. Such open dialogue has been discouraged by warming advocates.

Implementation of the proposed international treaties restricting future greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 20 to 80 percent of current emissions would lead to a large slowdown in the world’s economic development and, at the same time, have no significant impact on the globe’s future temperature.

Many of the Global Climate Model (GCMs) simulations by large US and foreign government laboratories and universities on which so much of the warming science scenarios are based have basic flaws. These global models are not able to correctly model the globe’s small-scale precipitation processes. They have incorrectly parameterized the rain processes in their models to give an unrealistically enhanced warming influence to CO2. This is the so called positive water-vapor feedback. The observations I have been analyzing for many years show that the globe’s net upper-level water vapor does not increase but slightly decreases with warming. These GCMs also do not yet accurately model the globe’s deep ocean circulation which appears to be the primary driving mechanism for most of the global temperature increases that has occurred over the last 30 and last 100 years.

GCMs should not be relied upon to give global temperature information 50 to 100 years into the future. GCM modelers do not dare make public short-period global temperature forecasts for next season, next year, or a few years hence. This is because they know they do not have shorter range climate forecast skill. They would lose credibility if they issued shorter-range yearly forecasts that could be verified. Climate modelers live mostly in a ‘virtual world’ of their own making. This virtual world is isolated from the real world of weather and climate. Few of the GCM modelers have any substantial weather or short- range climate forecasting experience.

It is impossible to make skillful initial value numerical predictions beyond a few weeks. Although numerical weather prediction has shown steady and impressive improvements since its inception in 1955, these forecast improvements have been primarily made through advancements in the measurement (i.e. satellite) of the wind and pressure fields and the advection/extrapolation of these fields forward in time 10-15 days. For skillful numerical prediction beyond a few weeks, it is necessary to forecast changes in the globe’s complicated energy and moisture fields. This entails forecasting processes such as amounts of cloudiness, condensation heating, evaporation cooling, cloud-cloud-free radiation, air-sea moisture-temperature flux, etc. It is impossible to accurately code all these complicated energy-moisture processes, and integrate these processes forward for hundreds of thousands of time steps and expect to obtain anything close to meaningful results. Realistic climate forecasting by numerical processes is not possible now and, due to the complex nature of the earth’s climate system, may never be possible.

Global temperatures have always fluctuated and will continue to do so regardless of how much anthropogenic greenhouse gases are put into the atmosphere.
The globe has many serious environmental problems. Most of these problems are regional or local in nature, not global. Forced global reductions in human-produced greenhouse gases will not offer much benefit for the globe’s serious regional and local environmental problems. We should, of course, make all reasonable reductions in greenhouse gases to the extent that we do not pay too high an economic price. We need a prosperous economy to have sufficient resources to further adapt and expand energy production.

Even if CO2 is causing very small global temperature increases there is hardly anything we can do about it. China, India and third world countries will not limit their growing greenhouse gas emissions. Many experts believe that there may be net positive benefits to humankind through a small amount of global warming. It is known that vegetation and crops tend to benefit from higher amounts of atmospheric CO2, particularly vegetation which is under temperature or moisture stress.

I believe that in the next few years the globe is going to continue its modest cooling period of the last decade similar to what was experienced in the 30 years between the mid-1940s and the mid-1970s. This will be primarily a result of changes in the globe’s deep ocean circulation. I am convinced that in 15-20 years we will look back on this period of global warming hysteria as we now look back on other popular and trendy scientific ideas that have not stood the test of time.
The author is a Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University where he has worked since 1961. He holds a Ph.D. degree from the University of Chicago in Geophysical Science. He has issued Atlantic basin seasonal hurricane forecasts since 1984.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

122 Responses to Guest Post From Dr. Bill Gray

  1. geran says:

    What’s great about this is his ability to clearly attack the “Bad Science” in a way even non-scientists will be able to understand.

    Some favorites:

    “GCMs should not be relied upon to give global temperature information 50 to 100 years into the future.”

    “GCM modelers do not dare make public short-period global temperature forecasts for next season, next year, or a few years hence. This is because they know they do not have shorter range climate forecast skill. They would lose credibility if they issued shorter-range yearly forecasts that could be verified.”

    Climate modelers live mostly in a ‘virtual world’ of their own making. This virtual world is isolated from the real world of weather and climate. Few of the GCM modelers have any substantial weather or short- range climate forecasting experience.

  2. squid2112 says:

    Eh, he’s a lukewarmer … still believe humans have an effect through the magic of CO2 … pfffft….

    • Obviously humans have some effect on the climate due to CO2.

      • mkelly says:

        Again I disagree.

        • nielszoo says:

          Of course we have some impact on climate… so do termites, plankton, trees, grasses etc. We cannot be part of a system without having some influence on that same system. What is in doubt is the amount of that impact and whether or not it is even perceptible. As Dr. Gray pointed out we may never be able to understand the overall climatic system of this planet and without that understanding we can’t know our (most likely) miniscule influences on it.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Very tiny and approaching zero.

        audio and Dr Happers slides:

        Slides 22, 42, 43 and 44 are the critical slides.

        The other associated comments:
        Physicist Peter Malcombe

        Physicist Dr. Robert Brown

        More important in the long term is the earth is and has been in CO2 starvation mode and humans are releasing much needed naturally sequestered CO2. I would like to see about 1500 ppm. Most of the human food crops are CO2 sensitive C3 with the big exception of corn. C4 plants include the most troublesome weeds.

        Carbon starvation in glacial trees recovered from the La Brea tar pits, southern California (This is at sea level so no partial pressure confounding.)

        Royal Society Publishing: Carbon dioxide starvation, the development of C4 ecosystems, and mammalian evolution


        The decline of atmospheric carbon dioxide over the last 65 million years (Ma) resulted in the ‘carbon dioxide–starvation’ of terrestrial ecosystems and led to the widespread distribution of C4 plants, which are less sensitive to carbon dioxide levels than are C3 plants. Global expansion of C4 biomass is recorded in the diets of mammals from Asia, Africa, North America, and South America during the interval from about 8 to 5 Ma. This was accompanied by the most significant Cenozoic faunal turnover on each of these continents, indicating that ecological changes at this time were an important factor in mammalian extinction.….

        Here is one of the problems for herbivores going from C3 to C4 even in those species that managed to adapt.

        Comparative digestibility and anatomy of some sympatric C3 and C4 arid zone grasses
        The importance of C4 (panicoid) and C3 (festucoid) leaf anatomy to differences in in vitro dry matter digestibility (DMD) of grasses was assessed using two Australian summer-growing arid zone C4 grasses…. C4 leaves consistently had less mesophyll and more of the less-digestible epidermis, bundle sheath, sclerenchyma and vascular tissues…

        Within each group the C3 species consistently had the highest leaf DMD [dry matter digestibility ], but across groups the difference of 18-27 days in time to develop a new leaf sometimes overrode the advantage to DMD of the C3 anatomy. Stem DMD did not differ consistently between C4 and C3 species. The DMD was highest for water-stressed material, and higher in winter- than summer-grown plants. The anatomy associated with either C4 tropical or C3 temperate grass genera clearly contributes to difference in DMD between leaves, but variation in DMD associated with leaf age or environment was only in part attributable to differences in tissue proporxions.

        • Hell_Is_Like_Newark says:

          Per some of the studies cataloged at, corn does respond positively to increased CO2. Albeit not as dramatically as some C3 crops.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Hell_Is_Like_Newark says: ….Per some of the studies cataloged at, corn does respond positively to increased CO2. ….

          Agreed, however C3 plants will croak at higher levels of CO2 compared with C4 plants.

          If I understand (and remember) what I have read correctly, the C3 pathway is actually the less energy consuming pathway and therefore with abundant CO2 and decent amounts of water, C3 plants out compete C4 plants… you know C4 WEEDS. So more CO2 could not only cause C3 crops to grow better it could make them more competitive than the less desirable C4 plants.

          Another feather in the cap of CO2. {:>D

        • mjc says:

          Most plants respond well to CO2 levels up to somewhere between 1000 to 2000 ppm (above 2000 ppm they tend to flatten out the response), even C4 plants. It’s just that C3 plants have a much more dramatic response.

      • squid2112 says:

        Obviously humans have some effect on the climate due to CO2.

        Umm, no, that is not obvious at all … quite to the contrary … you cannot point to any effect what-so-ever. Show me. And to the contrary, physics and physical laws that are demonstrably observed and measured completely contradict your assertion that CO2 has any effect upon global temperature and thermodynamics other than to assist in a cooling mechanism. Your quote is incorrect.

        • Squid, the increase in CO2 cause a teeny tiny little increase in forcing as you can see here:

          Now, show us how CO2 has a cooling effect.

        • squid2112 says:

          Morgan, tell me what temperature do you see at 14.5u ? … And then explain to me how that will “increase” thermal energy.

          Hint: An cooler object cannot heat a warmer one.

          What have posted shows nothing about CO2 heating anything, nor does it demonstrate any such so-called “greenhouse effect”.

          Try again…

        • If you don’t understand the chart, which has a legend explaining everything on it, then there is nothing I can do to help you. Get a beer, enjoy life, and stop talking about science.

        • squid2112 says:

          You are incredibly stupid. Quit posting graphs that you can’t read. Quit posting shit you have absolutely no understanding of. If you can’t tell me what temperature 14.5u – 15u is, then just go away and quit posting you stupid twit. You’re making John Kerry look smarter all the time.

        • The temperatures are written right on the graph, you drooling imbecile.

      • philjourdan says:

        I agree – At a minimum we have UHI. But I think there is more than that, Just not a lot.

    • darrylb says:

      Without the so called greenhouse effect, we would not even have weather or life on earth as we know it.
      It causes a temperature gradient from warm at the surface to cool at higher altitudes.
      This gradient then causes high and low pressure areas which causes the movement of air. The hypothesis is the larger gradient will cause more air movement and thus more extreme weather, but that simply has not happened.
      However, it was known 100 years ago that CO2 was saturated with respect to the frequencies of IR radiation it could absorb. That was before we understood quantum mechanics and all that it involves.– too much to explain here.
      Dr. Gray was very specific when he writes that the hypothesis projects that there will be more evaporation causing more moisture in the lower atmosphere– the so called water vapor feedback.
      However, the upper atmosphere has by contrast has held less water therefore allowing more heat to escaped into space which counter acts against the more held by water vapor in lower atmosphere, the largest green house gas.
      As Dr. Gray writes, we do not know all the processes in condensation, evaporation, movement of air particular when vapor condenses to ice which because of lower temps at high altitudes is about 50% of precipitation.
      None of that is really accounted for in the models.
      This is a really short version of what is happening, but I have to say that Dr. Gray’s statements completely match that which I have understood to be happening.
      Incidentally, there is high speculation that we might be entering another ice age due to solar changes — and that is not recent news.,

      • squid2112 says:

        ROFLMAO … you haven’t a clue as to what sort of effect you are even trying to describe, “greenhouse” or otherwise. … hahaha … comical

        • Squid, I beg you to stop. You do this every time and you are always wrong and cannot learn. This is what, the 4th time you have asserted some fanciful “CO2 has a cooling effect” mechanism that you can’t explain? Please stop.

        • A C Osborn says:

          Morgan Wright says:
          You are the one who is wrong. Of course CO2 has a cooling affect, but it is in the Thermosphere, would you believe NASA instead of squid?

          Watch the VIdeo in this WUWT post about the 2013 AGU meeting, look from about 13.5 minutes in to the video.

          This offsets the slightly lower so called atmospheric cooling window of CO2, whereas the lower regions of the atmosphere the CO2 windows are swamped by Water vapour and droplets.

        • The thermosphere, where the ozone is? The ozone absorbs and radiates at 9.6 microns which is a part of the spectrum where CO2 does nothing, and neither does H2O.

          I submit, that all IR absorbed by upper level ozone is radiated by the ozone. Nothing else absorbs or radiates at 9.6 mikes because that is smack in the middle of the N-band where the atmosphere is 98% transparent

        • Robertv says:

          cooling effect

        • OK I watched the video. Interesting, it’s about solar cycles. It says increased CO2 increases cooling of incoming solar radiation in the thermosphere to space. I thought you were talking about earth’s emitted IR energy. I still don’t know what squid was talking about.

        • I refered to A. C. Osborne’s video

        • Gail Combs says:

          Morgan Wright says: @ September 16, 2014 at 5:50 pm

          The thermosphere, where the ozone is?…
          No the Thermosphere where NOx is.

          NASA: Solar Storm Dumps Gigawatts into Earth’s Upper Atmosphere
          “Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”

          That’s what happened on March 8th when a coronal mass ejection (CME) propelled in our direction by an X5-class solar flare hit Earth’s magnetic field. (On the “Richter Scale of Solar Flares,” X-class flares are the most powerful kind.) Energetic particles rained down on the upper atmosphere, depositing their energy where they hit. The action produced spectacular auroras around the poles and significant1 upper atmospheric heating all around the globe.

          “The thermosphere lit up like a Christmas tree,” says Russell. “It began to glow intensely at infrared wavelengths as the thermostat effect kicked in.”

          For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy. Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space.

          Ozone is heating in the Stratosphere
          High energy solar radiation splits O2 into two atoms. these atoms glom on to an O2 molecule forming ozone.

          …Ozone affects climate, and climate affects ozone. Temperature, humidity, winds, and the presence of other chemicals in the atmosphere influence ozone formation, and the presence of ozone, in turn, affects those atmospheric constituents.

          Interactions between ozone and climate have been subjects of discussion ever since the early 1970s….

          Ozone’s impact on climate consists primarily of changes in temperature. The more ozone in a given parcel of air, the more heat it retains. Ozone generates heat in the stratosphere, both by absorbing the sun’s ultraviolet radiation and by absorbing upwelling infrared radiation from the lower atmosphere (troposphere). Consequently, decreased ozone in the stratosphere results in lower temperatures. Observations show that over recent decades, the mid to upper stratosphere (from 30 to 50 km above the Earth’s surface) has cooled by 1° to 6° C (2° to 11° F)….

        • I watched AC Osborne’s video all the way through, and starting around 31:15 the panelist says that what happens in the thermosphere is measures in milliwatts/m2 compared to hundreds of W/m2 at the surface so what happens in the thermosphere has no bearing on earth’s surface temps.

      • Rosco says:

        And there I was thinking the lapse rate was due to pressure, volume, temperature changes as you increase in altitude as has been taught in science since almost forever – long before the greenhouse effect was ever taught.

        And there I was thinking that these relationships are capable of being applied in the manufacture of things like refrigerators, air conditioners and heat pumps.

        Silly me. It must all be greenhouse effect technology.

        Has anyone actually seen the absorption spectra for CO2 ? The theory predicts at least one wavelength of strong absorption which doesn’t exist in reality.

        It is approximately 99% transparent to infra-red from ~ 5 to ~14 microns – that covers the peak infra-red emission of every ambient temperature found on Earth and absorbs none of it.

        CO2 does not absorb radiation in the wavelengths corresponding to the temperature of the vast majority of ambient temperatures found on Earth. Only Ozone seems to overlap the mostly transparent atmospheric window which allows significant transmission of IR.

        As Ozone is principally found some 20 – 30 kilometres above the Earth surface I think this hardly matters at all and human influence is claimed to decrease Ozone.

        • squid2112 says:

          Has anyone actually seen the absorption spectra for CO2 ? The theory predicts at least one wavelength of strong absorption which doesn’t exist in reality.

          It is approximately 99% transparent to infra-red from ~ 5 to ~14 microns – that covers the peak infra-red emission of every ambient temperature found on Earth and absorbs none of it.

          Thank you Rosco for pointing this out! … at least someone on this planet seems to get it. Sheeesh….

        • tom0mason says:


        • Gail Combs says:

          Dr Happer seems to have.

          David Burton put up on his website an audio and Dr Happer’s slides:

          See slides 16, 19, 24, 25, 44
          Also slides 12, 33, 34


          22, 42, 43 and 44 are the critical slides.

        • To answer to your question, CO2 absorbs heavily between 14 and 18 microns which is still within the fat part of the radiation curve for earth’s surface temperatures. Here is the chart again, that squid could not understand before. See the huge absorption band for CO2 around 15 mikes, not far from the peak?

        • squid2112 says:

          First of all, you are wrong. CO2 only has the capability of absorbing around 14.5u to 15u.

          Secondly, I understand the graph perfectly and have studied such graphs for several years. And I also understand that the temperature at 14.5u to 15u is only found on this planet at the most extreme locations of Antarctica at the height of winter there. No other place on this planet can you find such temperature.

          Now, again, you stupid twit. Quit posting shit that you have no clue about and pretending that it supports your stupid pet theories.

        • The temperature is a plank’s curve for blackbody radiation, it’s not a single point. And the curve is right on the graph. Several curves for several temperatures, actually. But you can’t see the curves for some reason.

    • gator69 says:

      Actually Squid, he says… “Even if CO2 is causing very small global temperature increases there is hardly anything we can do about it.”

      Sounds to me as if the good Dr is not convinced that CO2 causes warming. Nice to know that the three of us agree. 😉

      • squid2112 says:

        Hey Gator, yeah, you may be correct in that assumption, however, after I read his paper he sounded more and more like a lukewarmer to me. I find it very difficult to take anyone serious that will contend that CO2 can cause our planet to warm. There is just no credibility in that theory what-so-ever and I have lost all patience for those (like Morgan) who continue to utter that sort of stupid tripe as if it were so. I have no tolerance for it anymore.

        If the “good Dr.” is not convinced that CO2 causes warming, he should come right out and say it. The quote you highlight also has the flaw “..hardly anything we can do about it” … there is nothing we can do about it.

        I find it amazing that it takes such incredible effort, energy and cost to simply heat ourselves during the winter, with the vast majority of our populations living without heat (or energy). And yet, somehow, we are able to heat the entire globe? Including, don’t forget, the 72% that is covered by water, and, the 4kM average depth of our oceans (remember, the missing heat hiding in the deep oceans). And all, from a little bit of CO2 … you just can’t even make up stupid like that. It is utterly astonishing and I am no longer amused by it.

        Hope you are doing well Gator!!

  3. J’accuse …!

    Nobody should be fooled by the conciliatory signals and the calm tone of Dr. Gray’s letter. This is a powerful indictment of the corruption of large parts of the climate science establishment.

  4. kirkmyers says:

    Excellent article by Dr. Gray. The only statement I take issue with is the following:

    We should, of course, make all reasonable reductions in greenhouse gases to the extent that we do not pay too high an economic price.

    There are valid reasons to believe that higher levels of the plant nutrient CO2 would be boon to agricultural production and crop yields, helping to feed the masses. In comparison to the geological past, the planet is currently CO2 starved. During the Ordovician period, when CO2 levels were at least times current levels, much of the planet was frozen in an ice age. There’s no evidence in Vostok or Greenland ice core data indicating that rising CO2 causes runaway warming. In fact, it is warmer temperatures that trigger increases in CO2.

  5. Edmonton Al says:

    This is a nicely written article that should help put an end to AGW. [except the Alarmists]
    I am sending this to Canada’s Environment Minister; the Energy Minister; The Science Minister; the Health Minister; The Finance Minister; and the Prime Minister.

  6. Steve Case says:

    kirkmyers said at 2:48 pm
    Excellent article by Dr. Gray. The only statement I take issue with is the following:
    We should, of course, make all reasonable reductions in greenhouse gases to the extent that we do not pay too high an economic price.

    I agree.
    CO2 is NOT a problem.

    • Gail Combs says:

      CO2 IS a PROBLEM, there is not enough of it.

      The earth is at dangerously low levels especially if/when the earth heads into another glacial phase and the oceans again start absorbing CO2 instead of releasing CO2.

      • Don’t worry Gail. I think we have already produced enough CO2 to greatly decrease future ice ages. Take a really good look at this:

        …and realize, we have raised CO2 levels to what they were during the Pliocene, (“Pli” on the chart), when ice ages were milder than now, and if we continue to make more CO2, which we will, we can bring them to Miocene levels when ice ages were tolerable.

        Drive your SUV, and drive it far.

        • A C Osborn says:

          Sorry, you are wrong again, plants like at least 1000ppm, so for the Earth to REALLY thrive that would be a good value.
          You said “I think we have already produced enough CO2 to greatly decrease future ice ages.” but CO2 has no affect on Ice Ages what so ever. An Ice Ageoccured when CO2 was at 4000ppm during the Paleozoic period.

          I thought it was established that CO2 follows temperature, not the other way around.

        • Gail Combs says:

          I think you missed my point Morgan.

          The Loutre and Berger’s 2003 astronomical model suggesting the Holocene would be a double precession like MIS 11 was soundly trounced by the Lisiecki and Raymo’s 2005 rebuttal. The rebuttal is based on an exhaustive analysis of 57 globally distributed deep ocean cores reaching back about 5 million years. Real data trounces models once again.

          Aside from the Ruddiman Hypothesis it looks like we are headed for glaciation as soon as everything in our chaotic climate system lines up right to kick the earth into a new climate regime. That could be any time now since we are about 200 years overdue. (The precession cycle = 23,000 years. the Holocene, based on the end of the Younger Dryas = 11,715 years)

          The Ruddiman Hypothesis depends on the Climastrologists over estimated effects of CO2. I really really do not think the few tenths of a degree from CO2 is going to mean diddly especially since the Climastrologists have been lying about the actual amount of CO2 in pre-industrial times.

          William Ruddiman argues that preindustrial agriculture dramatically altered the course of the Holocene, starting 8,000 years ago. The invention of rice agriculture in China, as well as the deforestation associated with it, increased levels of methane and carbon dioxide. This made the Holocene warmer and more stable than it otherwise would have been. These elevated greenhouse gases also contribute signficantly to modern global climate change…..

          If you go with the Ruddiman Hypothesis we need to keep on being CO2 and Methane polluting humans if we want to stay out of the next glaciation.

          It is not in this particular link but Jaworowski found that whether the whole sample was crushed and analyzed for CO2 or only the ‘Air Bubble’ was analyzed lead to greatly different results with the air bubble results being much lower.

          5. Setting the dogma baseline – CO2 measurements in ice cores

          …..We saw how Callendar was able to set a baseline of about 290 ppmv by rejecting values deviating more than 10% from his desired value.

          It was believed that snow accumulating on ice sheets would preserve the contemporaneous atmosphere trapped between snowflakes during snowfalls, so that the CO2 content of air inclusions in cores from ice sheets should reveal paleoatmospheric CO2 levels. Jaworowski et al. (1992 b) compiled all such CO2 data available, finding that CO2 levels ranged from 140 to 7,400 ppmv. However, such paleoatmospheric CO2 levels published after 1985 were never reported to be higher than 330 ppmv. Analyses reported in 1982 (Neftel at al., 1982) from the more than 2,000 m deep Byrd ice core (Antarctica), showing unsystematic values from about 190 to 420 ppmv, were falsely “filtered” when the alleged same data showed a rising trend from about 190 ppmv at 35,000 years ago to about 290 ppmv (Callendar’s pre-industrial baseline) at 4,000 years ago when re-reported in 1988 (Neftel et al., 1988); shown by Jaworowski et al. (1992 b) in their Fig. 5….

          The most famous ice core, the Vostok (Antarctica) core, with air inclusions allegedly representing the global paleoatmospheres over the last 160,000 years, show CO2 levels below 200 ppmv for many tens of thousands of years spanning 30,000 to 110,000 years BP (Barnola et al., 1987). “Most geochemists were convinced that changes such as these could not occur”, says Sarmiento (1991) about these low alleged paleoatmospheric CO2 levels. Such low atmospheric CO2 levels below approximately 250 ppmv (McKay et al., 1991) would have led to extinction of certain plant species. This has not been recorded by paleobotanists, showing clearly that the ice core CO2 results are not representative of paleoatmospheres (Jaworowski et al., 1992 b), hence the CO2-ice-core-method and its results must be rejected.

        • tom0mason says:

          @Morgan Wright
          “I think we have already produced enough CO2 to greatly decrease future ice ages. ”

          Your assumption is that through some mechanism the overall effect of CO2 is that it can heat the planet. Where is your science? The overall effect of CO2 IMO is neutral to cooling. Remember Professor Wood invalidated the so called ‘greenhouse effect’ decades ago. Water is our global climate thermostat.
          As shown here at ground level CO2 does
          nothing, in the upper atmosphere CO2 cools by IR radiation off to space.

        • squid2112 says:


          B I N G O !

          Thanks for that!

        • Look at the chart AC Osborne. The CO2 was around 800 ppm 50 million years ago, 280 ppm preindustrial, and 220 ppm during the last ice age. Eyeball the chart and see where 400 ppm would be, roughly. It’s where the ice ages switch from 100,000 years to 41,000 years and get milder. If we get up to 500 ppm they almost stop.

          To answer your question, all scientists agree that there is a thing called climate sensitivity, which is how much warmer the earth will get with each doubling of CO2. If you deny that there is any increase at all, you are beyond help and should have a pitcher of beer with squid and rosco, and call yourselves the climate boys. Get as drunk as you want, because it won’t make your climate discussion any more incoherent.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Morgan Wright says:

        Don’t worry Gail. I think we have already produced enough CO2 to greatly decrease future ice ages….
        OH, and I should have added I want 1500 ppm CO2 for the sake of the C3 PLANTS as we head into cooling/glaciation and not because I thought CO2 would do any real warming.

        It would be nice if we could grow more/faster and it would be nice if the C3 plants did not have to open their stomata as much to get CO2 and could therefore conserve water.
        SEE: Three types of photosynthesis and their relevance for desert adaptation
        The problems of cooling are well known:

        CIA report: “A Study of Climatological Research as it Pertains to Intelligence Problems”

        “… Since 1972 the grain crisis has intensified…. Since 1969 the storage of grain has decreased from 600 million metric tons to less than 100 million metric tons – a 30 day supply… many governments have gone to great lengths to hide their agricultural predicaments from other countries as well as from their own people…

        pg 9
        The archaeologists and climatotologists document a rather grim history… There is considerable evidence that these empires may not have been undone by barbarian invaders but by climatic change…. has tied several of these declines to specific global cool periods, major and minor, that affected global atmospheric circulation and brought wave upon wave of drought to formerly rich agricultural lands.

        Refugees from these collapsing civilizations were often able to migrate to better lands… This would be of little comfort however,… The world is too densely populated and politically divided to accommodate mass migration….

  7. Cronyism says:

    Bravo, Dr. Gray! As an operational meteorologist, I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment. I only wish politics could be left out of the scientific agenda.

  8. RMB says:

    You cannot heat water by convection through its surface. You can heat water by radiation, the sun does that every day and if you put a metal floating device on water it will heat by conduction but if you direct warm gas at the surface the heat will be blocked by surface tension. For this reason there is no such thing as AGW.

    • Good grief. Water is transparent to visible light, but IR only penetrates a few microns. You think air can’t heat water by conduction? Without a metal floating devise? Surface tension? What?

      Do me a favor. Go have a beer with Squid.

      • A C Osborn says:

        What, wrong again!
        I suggest you have a look at the Emperical real world Experiments carried ot by a poster called Konrad.

        The next thing you will be saying is that you can heat up objects at night using Down welling IR, when anyone who has looked at the subject knows it actually cools below ambient and makes a great night time fridge.

      • A C Osborn says:

        I think that is Strike 3 and out.

      • Rosco says:

        But the atmosphere is ~1000 times less dense than water.
        The specific heat of water is ~4 times that of air.

        Combined this must mean that any conductive effect of heat from the atmosphere to the oceans is insignificant !

        • Then why do raindrops warm as they fall through warmer air layers and hit the ground much warmer than they were in the clouds?

        • tom0mason says:

          Morgan Wright asks –
          “Then why do raindrops warm as they fall through warmer air layers and hit the ground much warmer than they were in the clouds?”

          That is because unlike the oceans which are large aggregated mass of water with only a relatively small top surface area; the rain droplets are disaggregated individual drops of small mass and large overall surface area. Added together this large surface area ensures rapid droplet warming.

          Overall shape and size of the water bodies matter.

        • squid2112 says:

          Ever try to heat a pot of water by blowing a hair dryer on the surface?

          Good luck with that… 🙂

        • Gail Combs says:


        • I never heated a pot of water with a blow drier, but I heated the water in your wife’s hair with it, and it all got hot and evaporated. That was not IR, it was not a floaty metal thingy, it was heat being conducted from air to water. Maybe the reason you can’t heat a pot of water with a blow drier is because evaporation cools it, and proof would be that you can EVAPORATE a pot of water with a blow drier a lot faster than without one, and a lot faster than just the wind itself. This proves that heat conducts from air to water….which I probably knew when I was 3 years old and you cannot understand, being as dumb as a very large box full of really dumb rocks.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Morgan Wright says: Water is transparent to visible light….
        I was trying to correct that incorrect statement. The ocean absorbs visible light and it is dark beyond about 30 to 100 ft depending on the wavelength. Therefore it is not ‘transparent’ to visible light as far as the physics is concerned.

        The atmosphere on the other hand IS ‘transparent’ to certain wavelengths — the ‘Atmospheric window’ that allows IR to escape directly to space.

        • Incorrect statement? If light penetrates 30 to 100 feet through something then it’s transparent. Good grief. It actually penetrates over 1000 feet. Is that transparent? Of course it’s all eventually absorbed but everybody knew that in the 3rd grade. I was correcting the idiot who said water can’t be heated by conduction because of surface tension unless you had a metal floaty device thingy on it, so it can only be heated by IR and IR at I assume he’s talking about ambient room temperature, IR doesn’t penetrate water at those waqvelengths. So obviously, water can be heated by conduction by warm air, and I can’t believe I’m even discussing this. Next I’ll be telling squid for the 10000th time why cold objects can slow the cooling of warm objects. Oh please not again.

        • Gail Combs says:

          I live with a physicist. He slaps my hand for statements like that. Worse he is a technical writer…

        • squid2112 says:

          Gail, I would suggest you give up on Morgan, you can’t fix stupid like that…

        • As spoken by squid “you can’t heat a warm object with a cold object, therefore all cold objects are absolute zero and don’t emit any IR at all” 2112.

        • philjourdan says:

          When you “quote” someone you are supposed to write EXACTLY what is said. What you just did was not taking a quote out of context, it was not paraphrasing. it is an outright lie.

          You sir are a liar.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics (Colorado University) graph:

    • Gail Combs says:

      Solar Energy penetration in water by Wavelength:

      • That’s right. IR does not penetrate more than a few microns into water. This chart shows IR as long as 2.5 microns which is extremely short wave IR not relevant to this discussion, and even then, 0.01 m is 10 mm. But at longer wavelengths, which are relevant to this discussion, penetration into water drops to microns.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Absorption Coefficient (and penetration depth) vs Wavelength

  9. omanuel says:

    The Climategate mystery that surfaced five years (2014 – 2009 = 5 yr) ago, actually began sixty-four years (2009 – 1945 = 64 yr) earlier.

    Information in the autobiographies of two great scientists – Fred Hoyle (British astronomer, astrophysicist and cosmologist) and Paul Kazuo Kuroda (Japanese/American nuclear geochemist) – revealed a united worldwide effort to forbid public knowledge of the source of energy that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki after the UN was formed at the end of the Second World War.

    The evidence is summarized here: “Solar energy,” Advances in Astronomy(submitted 1 Sept 2014)

    Click to access Solar_Energy.pdf

  10. Thank you, Doctor Gray, for throwing your hat in the ring. I think many of us had an idea that your views were along these lines, but actually putting it all down in a guest post is very helpful.

    As someone who followed your work on and off starting in the 1980s, I am heartened to see this post appear on the Real Science blog.


  11. Fred from Canuckistan . . . says:

    The media needs hysteria and crisis to get eyeballs on pages and screens. That is how they sell their real product, advertising. Understanding journalism (1min mark)

    Governments need a crisis to justify their role in life beyond managing sewers, garbage and snow removal

    Scientists need money, money comes from Big Government, so symbiotically scientists create the hysteria governments need and media screams.

    Really quite a lovely relationship. They win, everyone else loses.

    • Thanks, Fred, this is great:

      “It’s finding the center of your story, the beating heart of it, that’s what makes a reporter.”

      “Have a look. Tell me the headline.”

      “Horizon Fills With Dark Clouds?”

      “Imminent Storm Threatens Village”

      “But, what if no storm comes?”

      “Village Spared From Deadly Storm”

      Climate science adopted the technique as an alternative to the scientific method.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Don’t forget the Bankers who loan the funny money to the government and own the MSM.

      They have a very large stake in Gore Bull Warbling.

      World Bank Carbon Finance Report for 2007
      The carbon economy is the fastest growing industry globally with US$84 billion of carbon trading conducted in 2007, doubling to $116 billion in 2008, and expected to reach over $200 billion by 2012 and over $2,000 billion by 2020.

      This is an ‘Industry’ based on stealing wealth from every person on earth and transferring it to the financial traders in return for the financial traders will destroy our economies – Sucha Deal!

      • Jason Calley says:

        Any time you hear about some new “Greatest Idea” that is being pushed (whether it is carbon tax, nationalized healthcare, or whatever) you really only need to look for one thing. Is it something that ordinary peaceful people can be persuaded to do, or is it something that ordinary, peaceful people must be forced (with a nightstick or a gun) to do? You can bet that if peaceful people need to be forced to do it, it is probably not really such a great idea.

  12. eliza says:

    We won’t be hearing from Zeke or Mosh me thinks LOL

  13. Eric Simpson says:

    And we got to pound home the point about the Antarctic, about the fear mongers trying to use record ice as proof of record heat. Or cold as proof of heat. Insane. Next thing you know they will claim that the drop in extreme weather proves that the weather is more extreme. Yeah, insane.

    An excerpt from a comment at this article:

    “Tony Worby, said the warming atmosphere is leading to greater sea ice coverage by changing wind patterns.”

    OK, let me get this straight. The Global Warming alarmists have been raising a hue and cry regarding the melting of polar [Arctic] sea ice. Here we have increased Antarctic sea ice and the same people assert that that is also because of Global Warming.

    A scientific hypothesis (Global Warming) that cannot be disproven by any data, or, conversely, is proven by all data is not scientific.

  14. tom0mason says:

    There is no global warming outside of normal natural variation – period.
    There is NO anthroprogenic fingerprint for warming – as there is no unnatural warming.

    We must stop villifying CO2 it is NOT causing any substantial warming, does not endanger anything, and humans do not control it, or its level in the atmosphere.

    • geran says:

      100% agreement.

      (Those pesky photons never lie.)

      • tom0mason says:

        I like the way that photon’s wave.
        em, em, em!

      • Gail Combs says:


        Take a good look at Morgan Wright post at September 16, 2014 at 5:25 pm

        Do you see any warming? I don’t see any warming. All I see is the the Pleistocene Ice Age.

        • tom0mason says:

          Right on the money.
          Apart from the opening statement of “Don’t worry Gail. I think we have already produced enough CO2 to greatly decrease future ice ages.” that you correctly pointed out is in error, there is no warming shown.

        • Good God. The Pleistocene ice ages were caused by a lack of CO2 compared to the Pliocene, which had milder ice ages, and the Pliocene had less CO2 than the Miocene, which had almost no ice ages at all. Therefore you have WARMING if you go back in time, cooling from lack of CO2 is known as warming from increased CO2. And hush up tomomason, you can go drinking with the other 3 but you don’t need to drink because you were born intoxicated.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Morgan Wright says: ….
          Good God. The Pleistocene ice ages were caused by a lack of CO2 compared to the Pliocene….
          Good grief, haven’t you had any training in geology???

          Is everything you know just Warmist clap trap?

          Go look up the Isthmus of Panama and Drake Passage.

        • tom0mason says:

          Morgan Wright says –
          “Good God. The Pleistocene ice ages were caused by a lack of CO2 compared to the Pliocene, which had milder ice ages, and the Pliocene had less CO2 than the Miocene, which had almost no ice ages at all. Therefore you have WARMING if you go back in time, cooling from lack of CO2 is known as warming from increased CO2. And hush up tomomason, you can go drinking with the other 3 but you don’t need to drink because you were born intoxicated.

          Just 2 things
          1. You understand nothing about ice ages – period.
          You’re only hypothesizing about mere correlations that are not proof of anything.
          2. I stopped drinking decades ago.

          So overall that’s a Morgan Wright dual fail.
          Keep drinking the KoolAid Morgan.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Oh, for cry out loud. This ‘review’ takes the cake.

      There is only one truth you need to know – from this book, from this review: Denying climate change is profitable, and as long as it remains profitable, the environment degrades. It will get to a point of no return. Do you want to do something now voluntarily or be forced to do something later, when it’s probably too late? “In the face of an absolutely unprecedented emergency, society has no choice but to take dramatic action to avert a collapse of civilization. Either we will change our ways and build an entirely new kind of global society, or they will be changed for us.”

      Fossil fuel companies are among the most profitable and they are destroying the planet on the fast track enabled by lobbyists and politicians, because it’s more economical (and profitable) for them to do so than to change what they are doing…..

      I bet I could easily sell this dude my BRAND NEW Super duper GREEN PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE! Guaranteed to reduce your carbon foot print to ZERO! image (for use on him not us)

      • tom0mason says:

        And I could sell the CO2 IR back-radiating oven.
        Harnessing the all powerful CO2 molecule for you culinary needs…

        • Gail Combs says:

          You are nicer than I am Tom.

        • KevinK says:

          Tom, there is actually a somewhat uncommon optical device; the integrating sphere. An integrating sphere (hollow sphere with one or more light sources inside) does exactly what the “free energy oven” does. Well, except for the part about making things warmer with no power required.

          An optical integrating sphere exhibits what a climate “scientist” (wink, wink) would call “nearly 100 percent radiative forcing”. Nearly every photon that departs the light source will “back radiate” from the interior of the sphere back towards the light source (some, about 1-5% exits from a hole (port) in the sphere). But this does not make the light source “brighter”. I fact we routinely use multiple light bulbs (powered in different combinations) to make a variable broadband light source (simulating the Sun). The radiation from each bulb adds linearly (empirical experimental evidence) out to the third or forth digit across the whole spectrum. No “net energy gains” present.

          There is a tertiary effect known as “self absorption” whereby the light bulb (light source) does in fact absorb some of the reflected light and become warmer. This is observable out in the forth or fifth digit of precision. However, this warming simply changes the efficiency (light output per unit of electrical input) of the light bulb. And then the POWER SUPPLY (constant current) provides the energy for slightly more optical radiation to be emitted.

          Interesting thing about an integrating sphere, if you input a “square wave” (instantly ON then instantly OFF) pulse of light you get out a “stretched” pulse of light out. The “instant ON” shape of the light pulse input becomes a “ramp” of light out. This is because some of the photons make many bounces inside the sphere while others make a “quick getaway”. This is the “temporal response” of an integrating sphere, since most integrating sphere are used in a “steady state” mode (constant, or very slowly changing light input) this effect is rarely observed and of little consequence for most applications.

          The big difference between a light bulb and the surface of the Earth is that there is a steady stream of electrons (from the power supply) ready to be converted to photons in a light bulb. However, once a photon is emitted by the surface of the Earth the surface cools and that unit of energy is “gone”. From an energy budget perspective (considering that the Sun is the only source of energy) the surface of the Earth is merely an absorber/re-emitter of optical energy (with a wavelength shift; visible to IR), NOT A LIGHT SOURCE.

          The “greenhouse effect” is an optical mirage, at best it changes the response time of the gases in the atmosphere (all the gases) and increasing “GHGs” in the atmosphere will cause the gases to warm up more quickly after sunrise. This effect is so miniscule we probably cannot afford to measure it. Ironically the climate “scientists” have been looking at the wrong time scale for decades now. The effect they base their predictions on is over in a few milliseconds, what a tree ring did hundreds of years ago provides no useful information.

          Cheers, Kevin.

      • philjourdan says:

        That is one of the new memes I have been seeing going around. That Oil companies are “soooo profitable”. When I pointed out to one of them that Climate change gets $350b per year for producing NOTHING, they deny the numbers.

  15. stpaulchuck says:

    ” in a way even non-scientists will be able to understand.”
    if that were true there’d be a tarring and feathering of Mann, et al by now

    • Gail Combs says:

      They do not want to understand. They want a life that is nasty brutal and short for their children and they and their children are perfectly OK with it. I kid you not. I had that discussion with a college prof really into the green who is a friend.

      • mjc says:

        The thing that most of the academics who support all this enviro-BS don’t realize is that they are NOT automatically part of the small fraction of humanity that does not need to be removed to save the planet. In fact, they’d be some of the first to go…

        The uneducated, poverty stricken masses in Third World countries will have a much longer time should the ultimate goals of the ‘movement’ be realized. The reduced population of a few hundred million (max) will be made up mostly of those uneducated masses enslaved to a few hundred ‘elites’ with another few hundred thousand being semi-educated ‘skilled workers’ and soldiers to keep those elites in comfort and serfs suppressed.

        And all those highly educated morons, that think they are ‘worthy’ will be compost…

        • Gail Combs says:

          That is exactly how I see it.

          Puts a whole new spin on all that third world immigration into first world countries doesn’t it?

  16. Gail Combs says:

    Morgan Wright says:
    “Look at the chart AC Osborne. The CO2 was around 800 ppm 50 million years ago, 280 ppm preindustrial, and 220 ppm during the last ice age…..”
    You are making two very bad ASSumptions.

    #1. Co2 is a well mixed gas in the atmosphere. It is not. As usual I could write a short book but instead I will point you to a Rocket Scientist. Dr. Jeff Glassman.

    # 2. That Climastrologists are not LYING about the actual CO2 measurements. I already addressed that but here is a simpler version:

    • mjc says:

      I’m in the middle of researching information for a book I’m writing and that research is pointing to the fact that CO2 levels can’t be what the generally accepted past levels (since at least the end of the last glaciation) were (220-250 ppm). At those levels there is very little build up of organic matter in the soil…so little, it takes hundreds to thousands of years to build an inch of topsoil. Basically, my research is pointing to the fact that the known historic depths of the topsoil in many areas of the Northern Hemisphere could not have been achieved in the time period since the retreat of the ice sheets.

      I’m not going to get into all the details, it would make a book length post, but I’ve basically found that the ice core CO2 record is about as reliable an indicator of actual events as Mann’s tree-rings.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Another piece of evidence the Climastrolgists are lying through their collective teeth!
        (Stomata data already said they were as well as Dr. Jaworowski.)

        As a chemist I worked with batches of chemicals. You would not believe what a headache it is to get a bunch of different molecules to mix. Add in polar molecules and it really gets nasty. This was a big clue that the CO2 is a well mixed gas is a complete myth.

        The web page (now missing in action) said the nadir resolution was 90km X 90km and even with that large a sample size the map shows CO2 is not uniform.

        • tom0mason says:

          I would expect to see a strong seasonal variation and differing mixing at different altitudes. Hence some explaination of the North/South pattern shown.
          Larger atmospheric weather patterns probably have a substantial influence in absolute mixing at any particular location, with rain washing some CO2 from the atmosphere.

          Ah, the answer my friend is blow’n’ in the wind, the answer is blow’n’ in the wind…

        • That chart shows it’s really well mixed. Much more than I thought. 396 as minimum and 404 as a maximum? That only varies by 2% across the whole world.

          I never noticed that with my CO2 meter. I get anything from 325 ppm on a sunny day in the woods in the summer when plants are inhaling, to 1000 ppm indoors when the windows are closed and people were breathing all night, to 5000 ppm in a bagel shop/bakery when the dough is rising and there were 100 customers breathing. I have yet to measure it in a place that people were complaining of the air being stuffy. I think it has to be 10,000 ppm before that happens. Maybe in a crowded nightclub when everybody is dancing. My CO2 meter maxes out at 10,000 ppm and I can easily max it out with one breath because human exhale is 40,000 ppm. so one long exhale on the thing makes it beep. I would have thought the CO2 around the world would vary way more than 2%

          By the way, who cares if the CO2 is well mixed?

        • Gail Combs says:

          Morgan Wright says:

          “That chart shows it’s really well mixed. Much more than I thought. 396 as minimum and 404 as a maximum? That only varies by 2% across the whole world.”
          Here is a better illustration from AIRS:
          [video src="" /]

          It does not show it is well mixed. Remember the number is the AVERAGE for 90km X 90km of air or 56 MILES by 56 MILES and with a sample size that large they STILL see variation. They talk of middle troposphere for their results. Not column averaged as the Japanese data I linked to. Balloon sampling of smaller samples shows much more variation but I do not have time to dig out the data.

          Note the very high values in the arctic.
          The Russian researchers assume with confidence that ice formation and growth in winter may be the reason for increase in the CO2 seasonal fluctuations in high latitudes, and the Arctic may basin be the source of carbon dioxide on average during a year. The more ice freezes on in winter, the higher the CO2.concentration will be.
          Genryh Alekseyev, Doctor of Science (Geography), Head of the department of the ocean and atmosphere interaction , St. Petersburg , Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences

          Here is what AIRS itself said:

          Significant Findings from AIRS Data
          1. ‘Carbon dioxide is not homogeneous in the mid-troposphere; previously it was thought to be well-mixed.
          2. ‘The distribution of carbon dioxide in the mid-troposphere is strongly influenced by large-scale circulations such as the mid-latitude jet streams and by synoptic weather systems, most notably in the summer hemisphere
          3. ‘There are significant differences between simulated and observed CO2 abundance outside of the tropics, raising questions about the transport pathways between the lower and upper troposphere in current models
          4. ‘Zonal transport in the southern hemisphere shows the complexity of its carbon cycle and needs further study

 (The link is old so you may need the wayback machine to find the link)

          Of course since the annual flow of carbon into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels is less than 0.02% of the carbon flowing around the carbon cycle, mankind’s ‘Carbon Footprint’ is way too small to measure anyway. — According to NASA estimates, the carbon in the air is less than 2% of the carbon flowing between parts of the carbon cycle.

      • tom0mason says:

        Good luck with publishing the book.

      • Gail Combs says:

        The Japanese Satellite shows the same non-uniform mixing:

  17. Bill says:

    PhD U of Chicago 1964 is an impressive achievement in its own right.

  18. Willis Eschenbach says:

    All I have to say is that Bill Gray is certainly one of my heroes as well. It was my great pleasure to have lunch with him recently, always something to learn when I’m around him.


  19. KevinK says:

    Also, Dr. Gray’s comments are “spot on”. In particular; we (nobody, deniers, believers, etc.) can currently “model” the climate. And it is very likely that nobody will ever be able to. And it is not a limitation of computing power, the problem is too multidimensional and non-linear with too many interactions to account for completely. Virtually every physical characteristic of real materials (density, thermal capacity, thermal conductance, thermal diffusivity, latent heat, etc. etc. etc.) is dependent on temperature. If you attempt to include all these dependencies you quickly come up with a problem with infinite “degrees of freedom”. Only if you can characterize all of these “degrees of freedom” out to ten digits or so could you even begin to build a model that MIGHT be good to 5 digits of accuracy. Talk of hundredths of degrees accuracy from a climate model are along the lines of “Whatever they are smoking; I surely want some”.

    Many of these variations are only empirically modeled to a few digits of accuracy (at best). For example, the thermal conductivity (with respect to temperature) of most materials is non-linear and empirical models can “guess” at the conductivity at any given temperature by interpolating between the conductivity measured at a few sparse temperature points.

    The problem is vast, really really vast, and only folks that have never had to reconcile model “projections” with actual observations would believe that they; “have a handle on it”.

    At this point in time the climate modellers don’t even know “The unknown unknowns” yet, once they tackle that insurmountable (probably, IMHO) obstacle they might be ready to “burn down” the gaps in their knowledge. But so far they can’t even get over their own hubris to accept the “We just don’t know” part of any problem solving exercise.

    Thanks Again Dr. Gray for your very wise comments, Cheers, Kevin.

  20. Bob Tisdale says:

    Thanks, Bill, for the post, and thanks, Steve, for posting it.

  21. Gail Combs says:

    Morgan Wright says:
    “By the way, who cares if the CO2 is well mixed?”
    If the CO2 is not well mixed than there is no such thing as a
    “background level.”

    If the “ background level” is mythical that has practical importance.

    The sequestration rates of CO2 are dependent on partial pressure. High local atmospheric concentrations induce high local sequestration. And consideration of seasonal variations in atmospheric CO2 at a variety of locations indicates that most locally released CO2 (from any source, natural or anthropogenic) is sequestered locally
    (ref. Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005) ).
    So, the mythical “background” concentration of atmospheric CO2 concentration has no relevance to flows of CO2 in and out of the atmosphere at any location.
    Then, the radiative greenhouse effect of CO2 has a logarithmic relation to atmospheric CO2 concentration. And this is true at every location.
    So, using the mythical “background” concentration of atmospheric CO2 concentration provides incorrect estimation of global radiative forcing from atmospheric CO2.
    If the CO2 is not well mixed then there is absolutely no excuse for tossing out the historical measurements made by Nobel Prize winning scientists.
    For example – 266 samples from 1883 had an average of 335 ppm.
    What is really really interesting is the Barrow reading for the 1947-1948 data average 420 ppm! (average of 330 samples) link

    You see more than 80 ppm variation in Harvard forest. From 320 ppm to around 420 ppm with a set of outliers to 500 ppm.

    There is also no excuse for tossing out the high levels (up to 7,400 ppm) from the Ice Cores pre-1985.

    There is no excuse for Manua Loa Obs for tossing out a lot of data.

    The annual mean CO2 level as reported from Mauna Loa

    At the Mauna Loa Observatory the measurements were taken with a new infra-red (IR) absorbing instrumental method, never validated versus the accurate wet chemical techniques. Critique has also been directed to the analytical methodology and sampling error problems (Jaworowski et al., 1992 a; and Segalstad, 1996, for further references), and the fact that the results of the measurements were “edited” (Bacastow et al., 1985); large portions of raw data were rejected, leaving just a small fraction of the raw data subjected to averaging techniques (Pales & Keeling, 1965).

    The acknowledgement in the paper by Pales & Keeling (1965) describes how the Mauna Loa CO2 monitoring program started: “The Scripps program to monitor CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans was conceived and initiated by Dr. Roger Revelle who was director of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography while the present work was in progress. Revelle foresaw the geochemical implications of the rise in atmospheric CO2 resulting from fossil fuel combustion, and he sought means to ensure that this ‘large scale geophysical experiment’, as he termed it, would be adequately documented as it occurred. During all stages of the present work Revelle was mentor, consultant, antagonist. He shared with us his broad knowledge of earth science and appreciation for the oceans and atmosphere as they really exist, and he inspired us to keep in sight the objectives which he had originally persuaded us to accept.

    4. In keeping with the requirement that CO2 in background air should be steady, we apply a general “outlier rejection” step, in which we fit a curve to the preliminary daily means for each day calculated from the hours surviving step 1 and 2, and not including times with upslope winds. All hourly averages that are further than two standard deviations, calculated for every day, away from the fitted curve (“outliers”) are rejected. This step is iterated until no more rejections occur.

    CO2 is released by the Mauna Loa and the adjacent Kilauea volcanoes. This volcanic CO2 is
    (a) driven aloft by the sea breeze by day, and
    (b) driven back down by the land breeze at night.
    Hence, it is a gross and improbable assumption that these volcanic emissions do not significantly affect the measurement results

    Is this the description of true, unbiased research?
    The assumption is made that there is NO VARIABLITY and the data is adjusted to reflect that!

    As Dr. J. A. Glassman so aptly put it in one of his replies,

    “So why are the graphs so unscientifically pat? One reason is provided by the IPCC:
    The longitudinal variations in CO2 concentration reflecting net surface sources and sinks are on annual average typically calibration procedures within and between monitoring networks (Keeling et al., 1989; Conway et al., 1994). Bold added, TAR, p. 211.

    So what the Consensus has done is to “calibrate” the various records into agreement. And there can be no other meaning for “calibration procedures … between monitoring networks”. It accounts for coincidence in simultaneous records and it accounts for continuity between adjacent records. The most interesting information in this procedure would be the exact amount of calibration necessary to achieve the objective of nearly flawless measuring with the modern record dominating. The IPCC’s method is unacceptable in science. It is akin to the IPCC practice of making “flux adjustments” to make its various models agree. See TAR for 87 references to “flux adjustment”, and see 4AR for its excuse, condemnation, and abandonment. 4AR p. 117. ”

    In a Nutshell if the ‘Well Mixed’ ASSumption is false, as AIRS said it was, then the Barrow readings for the 1947-1948 data averaging 420 ppm are valid. This means the current readings of ~400 ppm are lower than historic measurement and there is no increase in CO2 from Mankind. This means we can pack the liars and scoundrels and thieves off to the nearest jail and all go home. The crisis has been called off.

    • That’s not going to happen. The air on Mauna Loa is sampled 5 miles upwind from the nearest vent, and the wind is Hawaii is NE wind 99% of the time. The bit about:

      (a) driven aloft by the sea breeze by day, and
      (b) driven back down by the land breeze at night.

      applies to people on the beach or lower elevations, and doesn’t apply at all to the summit of a 13,000 foot volcano, or the 9000 foot elevation sampling site. On the rare occasion when volcanic gas gets to the sampling site, they just toss out the sample and go take one at Mauna Kea where there are no vents within 40 miles

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s