#153.Sceptics, Further Discussion. Climate Religion #Perspectiva Mathematics of Climate Change and Climate Change Alarmism @JoanneNova #GrubStreetJournalPolitics,#GrubStreetScience #GrubStreetEnergy #GrubStreetGreenFascism #GrubStreetWrongKindOfGreen #DasFeel



#153. One for the sceptics


We need to be rather careful about the term “opinion is divided”.

via #153. One for the sceptics

This is an excellent Paper on the Mathematics of Climate Change and Climate Change Alarmism, Climatology as opposed to Climate Politics,


SCM SA Paper Climate absurdity.jpg



“The impact on the entire field of scientific research is particularly clear and especially
pernicious. No project can be launched, on any subject whatsoever, unless it makes direct
reference to global warming. You want to look at the geology of the Garonne Basin? It is,
after all, an entirely normal and socially useful subject in every respect. Well, your research
will be funded, approved and published only if it mentions the potential for geological
storage of CO2. It is appalling.”

1. This simple calculation clearly demonstrates that there are not enough stations to model
the surface temperature of the globe, and satellites cannot replace surface stations. The
reduction in the number of sensors being used is fundamentally unsound: temperature
varies from one place to another, from one hour to the next, and this natural variability can
be tracked only by a very dense network of sensors. p.16

2. Determining an average temperature for a system as complex as the Earth has no physical
meaning. Unfortunately, this question, fundamental though it is, has never been tackled by
organizations involved in meteorology. For them, the answer is simple: you take all the
sensors and calculate the average! p.23

3. According to the British Met Office, ‗The global average temperature is
the arithmetic mean of the northern hemisphere average and the southern hemisphere
This type of reasoning is being used by all the international bodies, and one might
legitimately question its validity. The thermodynamic mean, for its part, is too complicated
to apply and requires the use of models (with all their limitations and uncertainties).
We might, however, wonder why the arithmetic mean is also being used in areas that are
less well provided with sensors or have very high or very low temperatures. If we content
ourselves with an unweighted arithmetic mean, then areas with the highest density of
sensors are going to be over-represented!
Our conclusion here is very clear:

SCM SA White paper “Global Warming”, 2015/09
– to calculate the arithmetic mean for the entire planet makes no sense and can only
lead to errors;
– you can calculate the arithmetic mean for areas well provided with sensors (Europe
and the US), and compare the values from one year to another. This might provide
information on local climate variation. p.26/27

4. On CO2 Measurement and concentration,
Our conclusion is very clear: the entire methodology used to observe CO2 has to be
overhauled before we can even think about the results that have been obtained by these
observations. The first step is to correctly document the natural variability of CO2
concentrations (what affects them, and how do they manifest?). We must not forget that the
aim here is to make a global assessment of CO2 concentrations in the entire atmosphere.
Let us use a simple comparison to explain this. Let us imagine that we want to document
incidents of sins committed by human beings. Before concluding that ‗we can restrict our
investigations to the areas around cathedrals‘, which would at least have the merit of
simplicity, we would have to find out about the ‗natural‘ variability of sin. Perhaps, in fact,
more sins are committed far away from cathedrals? p.57

5. Cyclones.
3. Critical analysis
In this case, we have been able to obtain raw data and conduct our own analysis, which
clearly demonstrates, contrary to what we are all reading all the time, that there has been
no increase in the number of cyclones over the past 40 years. We have found a slight
increase in the number of Category 4 and 5 cyclones (the strongest), but the numbers are
very small each year, and the increase might simply be due to changes in ‗accounting
A common deception is as follows: you begin by looking at cyclones that reach the US
mainland (the ones that affect people and insurance companies) and you count them. Then
you change the perimeter and include all cyclones in the North Atlantic, including ones that
disperse at sea. Of course, the second group is bigger!
As we said earlier, the statistics presented here cover all cyclones in the North Atlantic. p.67

6. Sea Level Rises.

a. Two kinds of instruments are used:
• Marigraphs, which have been around for 200 years;
• Altimetry satellites, which measure the height of the satellite above the ocean; they
have been around for 20 years, namely Topex/Poseidon (1992), Jason 1 (2001), Jason
2 (2008).
The water level varies naturally:
• Due to the tides (lunar attraction)
• Due to wind and storms
• Due to sea currents
This being so, the estimates provided by marigraphs and satellites can be no more than
averages, if possible over one year or several years, as phenomena such as El Niño affect
the sea level for a year or more. p.68
b. E. Be careful! On Models. ( https://www.bitchute.com/video/dv8avoovsHqr/)
As this issue has taken on a major political dimension, all kinds of statements are made by
absolutely anyone at all. Great care is therefore called for when accepting information.
1. Models
Conclusions based on any kind of model should be disregarded. As the SCM specializes in
building mathematical models, we should also be recognized as competent to criticize them.
Models are useful when attempting to review our knowledge, but they should not be used as
SCM SA White paper “Global Warming”, 2015/09


Critical analysis
The rising sea level is a basic thesis for journalists, to support the doctrine of global
warming. They say, ―Look, the sea is rising, and so we are in danger‖.
It is perfectly true that the sea level is rising, but essentially this is due to the cooling down
of the core of the terrestrial globe which has been taking place gradually for five billion
years. As a result of this contraction, the lighter areas (the oceans) tend to rise up in
relation to the heavier areas (the mountains). This is simply a consequence of buoyancy,
and human beings have nothing to do with it. p.77

That’s Chapter 1 summarised and is sufficient for responding to the Pariah Status proffered upon me by Ron.

I would close only by Pointing interested and critical thinkers at the work of Clive Spash and his Paper The Brave New World of Carbon Trading.





The States Guide to Trolling the Web. Forum Sliding (NB)





4 thoughts on “#153.Sceptics, Further Discussion. Climate Religion #Perspectiva Mathematics of Climate Change and Climate Change Alarmism @JoanneNova #GrubStreetJournalPolitics,#GrubStreetScience #GrubStreetEnergy #GrubStreetGreenFascism #GrubStreetWrongKindOfGreen #DasFeel

  1. Don Stewart on July 20, 2019 at 9:33 pm said:
    Since this has become an issue…


    Briefly, the two equation model accounts for some of the ‘Gaian’ behavior, such as the photosynthesis cycle. The ‘leakage’, which prevents the ocean from taking carbon out of the surface water and depositing it on the ocean floor, is because the increased acidification (which we are observing today) prevents shell fish from accumulating carbon and sinking to the bottom when they die. As a consequence, carbon stays at the surface, where wind and waves mix atmospheric carbon with shallow water carbon over relatively short periods of time. That is why over 90 percent of the carbon emitted into the air is now in the shallow waters of the ocean.

    Please note that if humans tried to take the carbon out of the atmosphere only, the ocean would give carbon up from the shallow waters into the atmosphere. So our burden is much heavier than simply removing carbon from the atmosphere.

    When the professor ran the numbers, he found that the remaining carbon budget is about 300 gigatons, which is the lowest projection in the IPCC report. If humans restrict net additional carbon burning to the lowest amount in the IPCC projections, then by 2100 we may still be on a trajectory to the Sixth Mass Extinction, since there is so little wiggle room.

    In terms of Surplus Energy Economics, it seems clear to me that the economic system which is currently burning carbon at a furious rate probably won’t survive until 2100. So my base assumption is that we would see a series of ‘downward bumps’ as financial systems founder and production processes move toward the medieval. But a fatalistic attitude would say that, so long as carbon remains to be burned, clever humans will figure out a way to do it…probably using dirtier and dirtier technologies.

    I would also speculate that as carbon energy becomes scarcer, then the diversion of some of that energy into energy sinks such as ethanol and private ICE automobiles and our hugely wasteful agriculture will collapse. But we will still burn all the carbon fuels we can get our hands on.

    I’m not well enough informed about the question of plastic and chemical pollution and their effect on the shellfish. I don’t think the plastic and chemicals would do them any good…so another threat that probably needs to be dealt with.

    Can anything be done about it? The most promising avenue seems to me to be Eco-Ag…putting long lived carbon molecules back into the soils and to a lesser extent into forest biomass. If we intend to do that, we need to get started post-haste. The sorts of industrial forests used to produce electricity in Europe are not good in terms of long term sequestration of carbon. And turning industrial agriculture and food preparation and storage and distribution from a 10 units in to 1 unit out, into a 10 units in to 15 units out will require a complete revamping of society.

    It is also possible that the building of wind and solar operating on, most likely, an intermittent basis may give us a ‘better medieval’ system than the windmills and solar which actually operated in the medieval period…surely we are better engineers now?

    Is 2100 so far away as to be irrelevant, using a 6 percent per year discount factor? Economists and cornucopians may think so, but I look at it in terms of what my presently existing grandchildren need to be doing during their prime working years…and that is a tall order. Combining the realities of Surplus Energy Economics with the realities of being on a track to the Sixth Mass Extinction is a real reality check.

    Don Stewart

    Reply ↓

    on July 22, 2019 at 8:49 am said:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Here is the link to the full Paper.
    “This observation may help explain the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum’s modest biotic impact. The Frasnian-Famennian extinction provides another exception. Supposing that it is indeed a mass extinction, its presence well below the critical line illustrates an important point: Mass extinctions need not be caused by disruptions of the carbon cycle (2).

    Modern investigations of mass extinctions often emphasize a plurality of causes. Erwin’s “complex web of causality” (8, 37) addresses how a combination of volcanism, climate change, marine anoxia, methane release, and other environmental stressors may have contributed to the end-Permian extinction. Recent studies of the end-Cretaceous extinction consider massive volcanism (38) in addition to a bolide impact (39). Flood basalt eruptions are also clearly associated with the end-Triassic (40) and end-Permian (15) extinctions, but their contribution to CO2 levels is ostensibly modest (41). Evidently, the carbon cycle both indicates and excites Earth system change. These dual roles merge, however, if external perturbations cause the cycle to respond by magnifying the initial disturbance. System-wide instability may then follow. Because the critical rate rc bounds qualitatively different dynamical regimes, perturbations that exceed rc (at time scales much greater than τx) suggest such unstable evolution. The carbon cycle thus becomes one of many environmental stressors, and an array of causes is naturally implicated.”

    The Discussion part of the Paper is interesting in that it concedes, “Mass extinctions need not be caused by disruptions of the carbon cycle” (2).

    I would add to that last quote “If at all”

    And point those interested in the Ocean Chemistry of Carbon Sequestration to Prof. Glassmans Acquittal of CO2 particularly Ocean Solubility of CO2 and Henry’s Law.


    Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the product of oceanic respiration due to the well‑known but under‑appreciated solubility pump. Carbon dioxide rises out of warm ocean waters where it is added to the atmosphere. There it is mixed with residual and accidental CO2, and circulated, to be absorbed into the sink of the cold ocean waters. Next the thermohaline circulation carries the CO2‑rich sea water deep into the ocean. A millennium later it appears at the surface in warm waters, saturated by lower pressure and higher temperature, to be exhausted back into the atmosphere.

    Throughout the past 420 millennia, comprising four interglacial periods, the Vostok record of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is imprinted with, and fully characterized by, the physics of the solubility of CO2 in water, along with the lag in the deep ocean circulation. Notwithstanding that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, atmospheric carbon dioxide has neither caused nor amplified global temperature increases. Increased carbon dioxide has been an effect of global warming, not a cause. Technically, carbon dioxide is a lagging proxy for ocean temperatures. When global temperature, and along with it, ocean temperature rises, the physics of solubility causes atmospheric CO2 to increase. If increases in carbon dioxide, or any other greenhouse gas, could have in turn raised global temperatures, the positive feedback would have been catastrophic. While the conditions for such a catastrophe were present in the Vostok record from natural causes, the runaway event did not occur. Carbon dioxide does not accumulate in the atmosphere.


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 )

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