1971 Stunner : NASA And NCAR Knew That Catastrophic Global Warming Was A Farce

In 1971, NASA and NCAR’s top climatologists knew that even a massive increase in atmospheric CO2 would produce less than 2 degrees warming. The entire basis of the catastrophic global warming scam has been known to be a fraud from day one.


http://vademecum.brandenberger.eu/pdf/klima/rasool_schneider_1971.pdf failed to load

This is consistent with what radiative transfer models and satellite temperatures show. Without NASA and NOAA data tampering, the entire scam would have collapsed a decade ago.

h/t to Marc Morano


About stevengoddard

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

35 Responses to 1971 Stunner : NASA And NCAR Knew That Catastrophic Global Warming Was A Farce

  1. Jason Calley says:

    Good find. They even reference Hansen in speaking of aerosol changes. Interesting also that they say the dreaded “tipping point” is unlikely without a thousand fold CO2 increase.

    • tomwys1 says:

      In fact, the perception dominating the paper is that Aerosols present a far greater danger of cooling than CO2’s influence on warming.

  2. menicholas says:

    I am going to shout this one out from the mountaintop of my FB page.
    i have friends on multiple continents who will share it from there, including ones in South America and Israel…where no one buys this crappola of CAGW.

    Thank you sir, you never disappoint!

  3. Canadian Climate Guy says:

    Reblogged this on Canadian Climate Guy.

  4. Centinel2012 says:

    Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:
    NASA uses a 3.0 degree Celsius sensitivity value which was required to make the anthropocentric theory work. Most current research has that value at under 1.0 degree Celsius and at those lower values there is no problem .

  5. AndyG55 says:

    A couple of cuts from the paper.

  6. Rosco says:

    This paper was first brought to sceptical notice by John Daly on his “Still Waiting For Greenhouse” website as “STEPHEN SCHNEIDER GREENHOUSE SUPERSTAR” more than a decade ago !

    As with all John Daly’s material he was critical of climate alarm and enjoyed ensuring absurdity which was in contravention of reality was roundly exposed.

    His untimely death aged 61 in 2004 was a loss for scepticism. But his expose of Schneider more than a decade ago highlights how in tune he was with the BS of climate alarm !

    Still there is a lot of readable material at his site even today.

    • markstoval says:

      At one time, I sort of thought I was the only skeptic in the whole world, or one of the darn few at least. Then I somehow stumbled on to the John Daly site. What a wonderful ally he was in those dark days, and his loss saddened me beyond words. Thanks for mentioning him.

      • Gail Combs says:

        I am very happy his site has been kept up even though we have lost his wisdom.

        We have lost several good men. For example Nigel Coulter (His site is still up link) Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, link and George Carlin link and most recently Alan Caruba link

  7. Rosco says:

    Meant to include the link – well worth a read


  8. It is starting to bother me – all these images of an article where they use the degree superscript followed by the K. Not right. Wrong. Now I’ll shut up.

    • darrylb says:

      Michael–you are absolutely correct.
      They are Kelvins, not degrees. Although the increment is the same as
      Celsius degrees.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Actually it depends on when the new convention was adopted by a country (or a Journal)

        In 1967/1968 Resolution 3 of the 13th CGPM renamed the unit increment of thermodynamic temperature “kelvin”, symbol K, replacing “degree Kelvin”, symbol °K. — WIKI

  9. Denis Ables says:

    Is this really surprising, given that a necessary condition for the GHG (when applied to the atmosphere) to be valid was the presence of a “hotspot”. In spite of a significant increase in co2 level, and millions of weather balloon temperature recordings around the globe for several years, no sign of it. Also, no empirical evidence that co2 level, even over geologic periods when it was several times higher than now, has EVER had any impact on the global temperature.

    Craig Idso points out that during the immediately earlier 4 interglacial periods (covering about 340,000 years) the temperature was 2 degrees higher than in this interglacial, but co2 level is now 40% higher, so temp not very sensitive to co2 level.

    • darrylb says:

      Assuming the author is the same Stephen (sp?) Schneider now deceased that was at Berkeley;.
      It was grad students of his, with his blessing, that did the infamous paper on who not to trust in Climate Science. (Anderlegg et al)
      That was a blackballing of 496 scientists, which in turn was published online by the (US) National Academy of Science. Freeman Dyson was third on the list. I think Roy Spencer was about 11th.
      Climate Science in its totality has a become a disgusting black mark on the entire science community, and scientists of integrity know it.

    • darrylb says:

      Denis, The hot spot which should be at latitudes around the equator because of more surface water, which would cause a feedback of water vapor, does not exist, but also a cold spot above that at higher altitudes does not exist as predicted.
      Only in climate science do models trump observations.
      The trouble is for the scientific derelicts, time is increasingly gnawing at their lies
      Love It!!!

  10. 4TimesAYear says:

    Reblogged this on 4timesayear's Blog.

  11. Kozlowsky says:

    It is in fact the same Stephen H Schneider. He was at NASA in 1971 along with James Hansen.


    This is rather hilarious, from the abstract for the paper this article cites:

    “An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5°K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.”

    But wait, there’s more! From the Wikipedia page for Stephen H Schneider, citations at the bottom of the page:

    “6. ^ Pearce, Fred, The Climate Files: The Battle for the Truth about Global Warming, (2010) Guardian Books, ISBN 978-0-85265-229-9, pp. 24–27. “When he redid the maths, the balance between warming and cooling now tipped strongly towards warming.”

    From his Wikipedia page:

    “The story made headlines in the New York Times. Shortly afterwards, Schneider became aware that he had overestimated the cooling effect of aerosols, and underestimated the warming effect of CO2 by a factor of about three. He had mistakenly assumed that measurements of air particles he had taken near the source of pollution applied worldwide. He also found that much of the effect was due to natural aerosols which would not be affected by human activities, so the cooling effect of changes in industrial pollution would be much less than he had calculated. Having found that recalculation showed that global warming was the more likely outcome, he published a retraction of his earlier findings in 1974.[6]”

    The Wikipedia article claims after Schneider redid the math in 1974, he published a “retraction.” However the only 1974 paper I could find was this one, which does not at all sound like a retraction:


    Schneider, like Ehrlich, has been wrong so many times, so often, it’s amazing anyone ever listened to them.

    • markstoval says:

      “Schneider, like Ehrlich, has been wrong so many times, so often, it’s amazing anyone ever listened to them.”

      They are not doing “truth” you see. They are spinning sci-fi stories. Like ghost stories told around the camp fire, they are giving us tales of horror and doom. Humans love such stories for some reason. With modern technology they can dress up their tall tales in “science” sounding phrases and put it out on the internet or in the mass media. The old witch doctors could only dream of such power over the foolish masses.

      They are so good that even the so-called skeptics use their language and believe most of what the alarmist propagandists do. So-called skeptics use the phrase “climate change” rather than the promised catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. So-called skeptics also believe the CO2 warms the surface of the planet by 33 degrees over “what it would be if there was no CO2”. Bull on both counts.

      • Rosco says:

        John Cook’s SkepticalScience website spreads bullshit thicker than most.

        One of their arguments that convinces the non curious is their argument about the Moon:-

        “We only have to look to our moon for evidence of what the Earth might be like without an
        atmosphere that sustained the greenhouse effect. While the moon’s surface reaches 130
        degrees C in direct sunlight at the equator (266 degrees F), when the sun ‘goes down’ on
        the moon, the temperature drops almost immediately, and plunges in several hours down
        to minus 110 degrees C (-166F).
        Since the moon is virtually the same distance from the sun as we are, it is reasonable to ask why at night the Earth doesn’t get as cold as the moon. The answer is that, unlike the Earth, the moon has no water vapour or other greenhouse gases, because of course it has no atmosphere at all. Without our protective atmosphere and the greenhouse effect, the Earth would be as barren as our lifeless moon; without the heat trapped overnight in the
        atmosphere (and in the ground and oceans) our nights would be so cold that few plants or
        animals could survive even a single one.”

        Of course that is absolute bullshit as the Diviner data prove.

        The obfuscation is their quoting a lunar “hour” (without qualifying such) which is of course approximately 29.5 Earth hours.

        The temperature does NOT drop almost immediately – it has a rate of decrease similar to many parts of the Earth’s atmosphere at ambient temperatures. The maximum rate seems to be of the order of 1.5 – 2 degrees C per EARTH hour which is easily achieved at many locations on Earth even with an atmosphere and GHGs – unless the weather reports are lying.

        So whilst the wild swings on the Moon occur in 6 lunar hours this equates to more than a week of night time in Earth hours.

        Climate “scientists” ignore the period of the Earth in favour of their 1/4 insolation model.

        My opinion is that the Earth’s surfaces may well be warmer over a 24 hour period without an atmosphere and certainly not cold. The extra 30% insolation would more than cover 12 hours of cooling with no GHG heat trapping – studies of the Moon confirm this.

        I know how quickly the sun’s radiation can heat the surfaces around my house and I know it has far more heating potential than any down welling back radiation – it is capable of starting fires if focused by even small objects. Down welling long wave radiation has none of these capabilities – to equate watts per square metre values from different sources of radiation ignores reality.

        It is possible to have solar radiation values of similar magnitude to down welling long wave radiation but the characteristics and capabilities are entirely different. We all know this and should remember the SB equation is only a number NOT a description of radiation and perhaps fluxes do not simply sum up based solely on a SB equation number.

        Does a GHG free atmosphere mean a cold atmosphere ?

        I am not convinced because the majority of heat obtained by the atmosphere is through contact of non IR active gases with the heated surfaces and convection spreading the heat around.

        Ignoring the real evidence that all atmospheric gases heat up during the day and all cool down at night in favour of a radiation dominated model is denying reality.

        Every machine which we use generates heat and requires cooling and every machine uses convection cooling – radiation cooling alone always results in catastrophic failure.

        Professor Wood was spot on when he said the low radiating power of gases explains why our atmosphere retains heat – surely more GHGs means higher radiation levels.

        Using the absorption of surface emitted radiation as a scare tactic is obfuscation when ~99% of the atmosphere is at equilibrium with the trace gases, absorbs “heat” no matter what and has a lower capacity to radiate it away.

        Surely replacing “non radiating” Oxygen with “powerfully radiating” CO2 logically equates with higher emission to space not less ?

        • Rosco says:

          “Since the moon is virtually the same distance from the sun as we are, it is reasonable to ask why at night the Earth doesn’t get as cold as the moon”

          Surely it is equally appropriate to ask why the Earth doesn’t get as hot as the Moon ?

        • Gail Combs says:

          Graph of sand and air temperature during a solar eclipse in Libya desert.

        • markstoval says:

          Thanks Rosco. Good points all. As with you, I think the moon is evidence against cAGW.

          Thanks for taking the time to make that comment.

  12. Richard Keen says:

    FYI, there’s a full copy of Schneider’s paper for free at:

    Click to access Rasool_Schneider_Science.pdf

    When Schneider was at NCAR he gave me some useful informal advice as I was working on my thesis (ca. 1975-79), and I referenced this paper in the thesis. I also used it in classes I taught at the U of Colorado in the 1990s and early 2000s, not because it showed AGW to be a krok, but because it used a simple and level-headed derivation to come up with a reasonable assessment of the ultimate, and minimal, effect of CO2. His “climate sensitivity” to a doubling of CO2 was 0.8C, which by my estimation is the closest any modeled value is to the observed value over the past 35 years of satellite MSU data of 0.6C. So Schneider was right on correct about CO2 back in 1971.
    Sadly, he went to the dark side a decade later, and actually renounced his 1971 paper so he would maintain his street creds while predicting catastrophic global warning scenarios. Perhaps he saw his dismissal of a possible runaway greenhouse effect as damaging to future funding for studies of catastrophic warming. ‘Tis a pity that this bright, articulate, and very knowledgeable scientist who was correct 45 years ago would change his mind to embrace error.
    Oh, and I’d also reference this paper to show that Climate Scientists™ of the time did indeed think there was an ice age coming on, despite the contrary claims from the Real Climate™ crowd.

  13. Scarface says:

    Time for some politicians to start quoting your finds and call out the frauds at these agencies!

    Thank you so much for you continuous efforts to expose the scam and the perpetrators.

  14. Gail Combs says:

    That was a blackballing of 496 scientists, which in turn was published online by the (US) National Academy of Science. Freeman Dyson was third on the list. I think Roy Spencer was about 11th.
    Climate Science in its totality has a become a disgusting black mark on the entire science community, and scientists of integrity know it.

    So they drag in the Doran/Zimmerman faked 97% survey to give this paper credibility. That and determining ‘expertise’ by # of papers written in a field with gatekeepers to keep out any new or contrary ideas would be really laughable if not so sad. Also please note the US National Academy of Science is the group who awards grants so a ‘Denier’ would not get money for a study in the first place. Dr Zbigniew Jaworowski was even fired for publishing a ‘denier paper’ even though it was scientifically sound!

    People like Freeman Dyson who can think circles around these also ran mediocre ClimAstrologists could be easily downgraded as an expert because his primary work was not in what they consider ‘Climate Science’.

    The publishing of this paper is all an honest scientist needs to see to have major questions about Climate Science. Where the heck else do you see muck racking yellow journalism masquerading as peer-reviewed science?

    WUWT had a discussion on that paper:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/22/the-blacklist-of-climate-science/“>The Blacklist of Climate Science

    Expert credibility in climate change
    (3 pages)

    William R. L. Anderegga,1, James W. Prallb, Jacob Haroldc, and Stephen H. Schneidera,d,1
    Department of Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305; bElectrical and Computer Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada M5S
    3G4; cWilliam and Flora Hewlett Foundation, Palo Alto, CA 94025; dWoods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305

    Contributed by Stephen H. Schneider, April 9, 2010 (sent for review December 22, 2009)

    Preliminary reviews of scientific literature and surveys of climate scientists indicate striking agreement with the primary conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for “most” of the “unequivocal” warming of the Earth’s average global temperature over the second half of the 20th century (1–3). Nonetheless, substantial and growing public doubt remains about the anthropogenic cause and scientific agreement about the role of anthropogenic greenhouse gases in climate change (4, 5). A vocal minority of researchers and other critics contest the conclusions of the mainstream scientific assessment, frequently citing large numbers of scientists whom they believe support their claims (6–8). This group, often termed climate change skeptics, contrarians, or deniers, has received large amounts of media attention and wields significant influence in the societal debate about climate change impacts and policy (7, 9–14).

    An extensive literature examines what constitutes expertise or credibility in technical and policy-relevant scientific research (15). Though our aim is not to expand upon that literature here, we wish to draw upon several important observations from this literature in examining expert credibility in climate change. First, though the degree of contextual, political, epistemological, and cultural influences in determining who counts as an expert and who is credible remains debated, many scholars acknowledge the need to identify credible experts and account for expert opinion in technical (e.g., science-based) decision-making

    We provide a broad assessment of the relative credibility of researchers convinced by the evidence (CE) of ACC and those unconvinced by the evidence (UE) of ACC. Our consideration of UE researchers differs from previous work on climate change skeptics and contrarians in that we primarily focus on researchers that have published extensively in the climate field,…

    We ranked researchers based on the total number of climate publications authored. Though our compiled researcher list is not comprehensive nor designed to be representative of the entire climate science community, we have drawn researchers from the most high-profile reports and public statements about ACC. Therefore, we have likely compiled the strongest and most credentialed researchers in CE and UE groups.

    The UE group comprises only 2% of the top 50 climate researchers as ranked by expertise (number of climate publications), 3% of researchers of the top 100, and 2.5% of the top 200, excluding researchers present in both groups (Materials and Methods). This result closely agrees with expert surveys, indicating that ≈97% of self-identified actively publishing climate scientists agree with the tenets of ACC (2)….In addition to the striking difference in number of expert researchers between CE and UE groups, the distribution of expertise of the UE group is far below that of the CE group (Fig. 1). Mean expertise of the UE group was around half (60 publications) that of the CE group (119 publications; Mann–Whitney U test: W = 57,020; P < 10−14), as was median expertise (UE = 34 publications; CE = 84 publications).

    My lord that paper is stomach turning….

  15. gofer says:

    Some years ago, there was an article from UK with a headline of “Warming Caused by Cleaning up the Air?” It went on to talk about aerosols. If they can cool, then logic says a lack of them, can warm by allowing more sunlight.

  16. Hifast says:

    I remember reading this paper in college–we were more concerned about aerosols, nuclear winter and triggering an ice age. Interestingly, this Rasool and Schneider paper is available on the GISS site:

  17. Hifast says:

    Reblogged this on Climate Collections and commented:
    Here’s the paper via GISS: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ra00600k.html

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s