Ventura Photonics Climate Post 002.1a Feb. 22, 2022

Roy Clark

Predictions of global warming based on fraudulent equilibrium climate models have become so lucrative that our so called ‘climate scientists’ have trapped themselves in a web of lies of their own making. They are no longer scientists. They are Prophets of the Cult of the Global Warming Apocalypse.


There is no ‘climate crisis’. Thermal engineering calculations show that the observed and projected increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration can have no measurable effect on the surface temperature of the earth. CO2 induced climate warming was created as a mathematical artifact of the simplifying assumptions used in the climate models, specifically the use of an ‘equilibrium average climate’. It was assumed that there was an exact flux balance at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) between an average absorbed solar flux and the average LWIR flux returned to space. At the surface, the average temperature was determined by the effects of the solar and the LWIR flux. Other surface energy transfer processes, including wind driven ocean evaporation and the coupling the LWIR flux to the evaporation were ignored. Physical reality was abandoned in favor of mathematical simplicity. The equilibrium climate models are fraudulent, by definition, before any computer code is even written. There is no ‘24 hour average sun’ shining in the sky at night. The 2 C (or 1.5 C) temperature limit established by the Paris Climate Accord is based on nothing more than the pseudoscience of radiative forcing, feedbacks and a contrived climate sensitivity to CO2 in a fictional ‘equilibrium average’ climate. Blind advocacy and belief in a need to ‘save the planet’ from an imaginary climate apocalypse created by fraudulent climate models has replaced scientific reason. Climate science has degenerated past dogma into a quasi-religious cult. The climate modelers are no longer scientists. They are prophets of the cult of the global warming apocalypse. They are trapped in a web of lies of their own making. Eisenhower’s warning about the corruption of science by government funding has come true. It is time to dismantle a multi-trillion dollar fraud.

Since the start of the industrial revolution in about 1800, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased by approximately 130 parts per million (ppm) from 280 to 410 ppm. Starting in the mid 1960s, simplified ‘radiative convective equilibrium’ computer models were developed that created climate warming as the CO2 concentration increased. In 1979, the Charney Report on climate provided a fraudulent climate model based estimate that a doubling of the CO2 concentration from 300 to 600 ppm would produce a temperature rise of 3 ±1.5 C in ‘average surface temperature’. Little has changed in 40 years. The latest ‘CO2 doubling’ predictions from the CMIP6 models are temperature increases from 1.8 to 5.6 K or 3.7 ±1.9 K. However, when the underlying assumptions used to develop the climate models are examined, a different picture emerges. The early predictions of a ‘global warming apocalypse’ became such a lucrative source of funding that the underlying equilibrium assumption errors were never corrected. Instead, equilibrium climate pseudoscience has degenerated beyond scientific dogma into a rather unpleasant quasi-religious cult.

The acceptance of the invalid assumption of an equilibrium average climate started with a misunderstanding of the so called ‘greenhouse effect’. The earth is an isolated planet that is heated by electromagnetic radiation from the sun and cooled by the emission of long wave IR (LWIR) radiation back to space. Simple conservation of energy considerations show that the earth’s ‘average’ surface temperature is higher than that calculated from the uniform heating of a rotating 'blackbody' sphere by the absorbed solar flux. This is attributed to some form of ‘greenhouse effect’ involving atmospheric ‘LWIR absorption and emission’. A fictional equilibrium average climate state was created by imposing an exact planetary energy balance between the average absorbed solar flux and the average LWIR flux returned to space. An increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration perturbs this equilibrium by reducing the LWIR flux emitted to space. The climate is then presumed to ‘adjust’ to a new ‘equilibrium state’ with a warmer surface temperature that restores the LIWR flux to space to its ‘equilibrium’ value.

In reality, there is no average solar flux and no equilibrium. The peak solar flux at the surface with the sun overhead is near 1000 W m-2. At night and during polar winter, the local solar flux is zero. The absorbed solar flux is stored as heat in the land and ocean surface thermal reservoirs and as gravitational potential energy in the troposphere. The surface temperature is not simply controlled by the LWIR flux. The downward LWIR flux from the lower troposphere interacts with the upward LWIR flux from the surface to establish a partial LWIR exchange energy. This reduces the net LWIR cooling flux that can be emitted by the surface. In order to dissipate the absorbed solar flux, the surface warms up until the excess heat is removed by moist convection. Heat is stored and released over a wide range of time scales. There is no exact short term flux balance. Climate stability only requires a long term planetary energy balance. The normal variations in surface temperature are much larger than any warming effects that can be produced by the small changes in LWIR flux from an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration. Most of the observed increase in surface temperature has come from natural variations in ocean surface temperature, mainly the warming phase of the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) that started in about 1975.

The surface temperature is determined at the surface-air interface by four main time dependent flux terms. These are the absorbed solar flux, the net LWIR cooling flux, the evapotranspiration or moist convection and the subsurface transport. They are coupled interactively to the surface thermal reservoir. A change in surface temperature has to be calculated from the change in heat content or enthalpy of this reservoir divided by the local heat capacity. An important parameter that has been conveniently overlooked is the time delay or phase shift between the peak solar flux and the temperature response. This is clear evidence of a non-equilibrium thermal response related to heat storage in the thermal reservoirs. In particular, at mid latitudes there is a seasonal time delay of 4 to 8 weeks. This is not new science. The subsurface phase shift was described by Fourier in 1824 and 1827.

The convection produced at the surface is a mass transport process that is coupled to both the gravitational potential and the rotation or angular momentum of the earth. These interactions produce our basic weather patterns including the Hadley, Ferell, polar convective cell structure, the trade winds and the ocean gyre circulation. The troposphere functions as an open cycle heat engine that transports part of the surface heat to higher altitudes by moist convection. From here it is radiated back to space, mainly by the water bands. The LWIR flux returned to space is simply a cumulative cooling flux emitted by many different levels in the atmosphere. The emission from each level is modified by the absorption and emission of the layers above. The spectral distribution of the LWIR flux at TOA is not that of a black body near 255 K.

The land-air and ocean-air interfaces have different energy transfer properties and have to be analyzed separately. Over land, almost all of the absorbed solar flux is dissipated within the same diurnal cycle. As the surface warms during the day, the excess heat is removed by moist convection. Some of the heat is conducted below the surface, stored and returned to the surface later in the day. In the evening, the surface cools and the convection essentially stops as the surface and air temperatures equalize. The surface then cools more slowly over night by net LWIR emission. The equalization or convection transition temperature is reset each day by the local weather system passing through. The day to day change in transition temperature is larger than that produced by an increase in CO2 concentration. The weather station temperature is not the surface temperature. Instead it is the meteorological surface air temperature (MSAT) measured in a ventilated enclosure located 1.5 to 2 m above the ground. Generally, the minimum MSAT is similar to the minimum surface temperature. However, the maximum MSAT is a measure of the turbulent mixing of the warmer rising from the surface with the cooler air at the MSAT thermometer height. This may easily be 20 C cooler than the maximum surface or skin temperature. The minimum MSAT is reset each day by the local weather system passing through.

Over the oceans, the water surface is almost transparent to the solar flux. Approximately 90% of the solar flux is absorbed within the first 10 m layer of the ocean. The diurnal temperature rise is small and the bulk ocean temperature increases until the excess solar heat is dissipated by wind driven evaporation. The cooler surface water sinks and is replaced by warmer water from below. This allows the evaporation to continue at night. Within the ocean gyre circulation, there is also significant wind driven thermal transport by ocean currents. The penetration depth of the long wave IR (LWIR) flux from CO2 into water is less than 100 micron. Here the net LWIR cooling flux is fully coupled to the wind driven ocean surface evaporation. Any small increase in LWIR flux from CO2 is overwhelmed by the much larger magnitude and variability of the latent heat flux from the evaporation. There can be no climate warming from CO2.

The upper limit to ocean surface temperatures is near 30 C. This is set by an approximate balance between the absorbed solar flux and the ocean cooling in the equatorial ocean warm pools. The cooling is dominated by the wind driven ocean evaporation. If the wind speed drops then the excess heat is removed by strong local thunderstorms. There is no requirement for an exact flux balance between the solar heating and the wind driven evaporative cooling. This leads to quasi-periodic ocean oscillations that have a major effect on the earth’s climate. There are short term oscillations with a 3 to 7 year period such as the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and longer period oscillations with a 60 to 70 year period. These include the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO). The climate impact of the ENSO is produced by a change in the area and location of the warm pool, not by an increase in the warm pool temperature above 30 C.

The CO2 induced climate warming created by the climate models is based on the correlation between the increase in CO2 concentration and the warming phase of the AMO that started in about 1980. This is hidden behind a facade of pseudoscientific radiative forcings and feedbacks and a contrived ‘climate sensitivity’ to CO2. In order to understand the technical aspects of the climate warming fraud it is necessary to redefine the greenhouse effect in terms of the time dependent surface exchange energy. The effects on an increase in CO2 concentration on the surface temperature can then be analyzed quantitatively using the time dependent flux terms coupled to the surface thermal reservoir. Any warming from CO2 has to be determined from the increase in enthalpy of the reservoir after a thermal cycle with increased CO2 concentration. Similarly, the effects of CO2 within the troposphere have to be evaluated as part of the tropospheric heat engine. The LWIR flux cannot be separated from the convection. The climate modeling fraud then becomes clear. The climate sensitivity is based on the influence of the AMO on the ‘global average temperature anomaly’. The weather systems that form over the ocean and move over land couple the variations in ocean temperatures to the weather station record through the daily changes to the convection transition temperature. The influence of the AMO extends over wide areas on Europe, N. Africa and N. America.

It is time to shut down the climate modeling fraud and repair the economic damage. Those responsible should be held accountable.

The issue that needs to be addressed is: how did an innocuous equilibrium climate assumption that was first proposed over 175 years ago develop into the multi-trillion dollar climate fraud of today? How did climate scientists become the willing prophets of the cult of the climate apocalypse, trapped in a web of lies of their own making? This is the subject of the rest of this post.


The short and simple answer is corruption. However, no one person created the created the climate fraud. It evolved over a long period of time. There are at least three different parts to this. First, melodramatic prophecies of the global warming apocalypse became such a good source of research funding that the scientific process of hypothesis and discovery stopped. Research also became more expensive. Isotope ratio studies required advanced mass spectrometers. The climate models needed the largest and fastest computers available, and the personnel to operate them. Second, there was institutional fraud related to ‘mission creep’ within various government agencies. NASA was established to put a man on the moon. There was no provision to shut it down after that mission was accomplished. Similarly, the Atomic Energy Commission was established to develop nuclear energy for military and commercial applications. As resources diminished, the government scientists looked for other jobs. Some created them using the climate apocalypse. Third, there was a deliberated decision by various outside interests, including environmentalists and politicians to exploit the climate apocalypse to further their own causes [Hecht, 2007]. Some environmentalists wanted to disrupt the energy supply to reduce human population. Various left wing political groups wanted to disrupt the energy supply to promote their revolutionary beliefs. More mainstream politicians then realized they could use the climate apocalypse to buy votes and increase taxes. Gradually a vast secondary industry of policy analysts, economists, geologists, geographers, ecologists, psychologists, sociologists and other assorted ‘experts’ was created and funded to study every aspect of this nonexistent global warming apocalypse problem. All of this is a massive pyramid or Ponzi scheme built on the invalid hypothesis of an equilibrium average climate. The peer review process in climate science has collapsed and been replaced by blatant cronyism. The climate modelers have retreated into a cocoon of lies where they discuss the pseudoscience of radiative forcings, feedbacks and climate sensitivities to a CO2 ‘doubling’. This is just climate theology. How does a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration change the number of angels that may dance on the head of a pin? Here they use their ‘advanced’ climate models to create the sacred spaghetti plots of global warming. This is GIGO: garbage in, gospel out. The model ‘predictions’ are fed directly to government agencies and the IPCC with minimal outside scrutiny. There is no climate science involved. Irrational belief in computer models has replaced the Laws of Physics. The cult of the global warming apocalypse has claimed the Divine Right to save the world from a non-existent problem.


As discussed above, the climate fraud developed over a long period of time. There is no single person or single event that can be identified as the source of the fraud. There is no ‘smoking gun’. One of issues that needs to be established is the date or dates of the transition from invalid hypothesis to downright fraud. This is a similar concept to that of ‘obviousness’ in Patent Law. How would a scientist verify that a climate model was giving a valid result? When does the fraud become obvious? A timeline of selected developments in climate science is presented in Figure 1 and the events indicated are listed in Table 1. The AMO, including the oscillation and the linear slope (blue), and the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration (Keeling curve, green) are also shown [NOAA, AMO, 2020 Keeling, 2020]. The transition from hypothesis to fraud is indicated. It took place over the 12 year period from the publication of the radiative convective equilibrium model by Manabe and Wetherald in 1967 to the publication of the Charney Report in 1979. The fraud certainly becomes obvious with the 1981 Science publication by Hansen et al. These events will now be considered in more detail.

Figure 1: Timeline of climate developments

Table 1: List of climate developments shown in Figure 1.


Fourier, in his ‘memoires’ of 1824 and 1827 was interested in the temperature of the earth. His theory of heat, published in 1822 was successful in explaining detailed observations including seasonal changes and the time delays or phase shifts in the subsurface temperature [Fourier, 1822, 1824, 1827]. The equilibrium hypothesis was first proposed by Pouillet in 1836. He was apparently unaware of the implications of Fourier’s work on the subsurface phase shift [Pouillet, 1836]. The time delay or phase shift between the peak solar flux and the temperature response provides irrefutable evidence of a non-equilibrium climate. Such seasonal and diurnal phase shifts have been ignored in climate science for almost 200 years. The most easily observed phase shift is the 4 to 8 week delay between the peak solar flux at solstice and the seasonal temperature response at mid and higher latitudes. This has been recorded part of normal weather station temperature data for well over 100 years.

Once the work of Agassiz [1840] on the existence of an Ice Age was accepted, after more than 20 years of rather acrimonious debate, the climate discussion changed [Imbrie and Inbrie, 1979]. It was no longer about the heating and cooling of the earth. Instead it was about a mechanism that could cause an Ice Age. This led Tyndall [1861, 1863] to speculate that changes in the atmospheric CO2 concentration could alter the earth’s climate and this in turn was the motivation for Arrhenius [1896] to try and calculate a possible change in temperature produced by CO2. He was interested in both long term heating and cooling. Arrhenius had no temperature measurements that he could use to validate his calculations. However, the idea that an increase in CO2 concentration could lead to an increase in surface temperature had been established. The first person to claim a measurable effect on surface temperature from an increase in CO2 concentration due to combustion was Callendar [1938]. He assumed that an increase in LWIR absorption and emission in the CO2 band near 650 cm-1 could cause a change in surface temperature. He found a slight increase in both CO2 concentration and meteorological temperatures, particularly in the N. hemisphere. He was probably the first person to find the AMO signal in the weather station data, since his period of record included the warming phase of the AMO from about 1915 to 1935. This is illustrated below in Figure 4.

In the mid 1950s, improved spectroscopic measurements and line by line computer calculations allowed Plass [1956a] to provide improved estimates of possible heating effects from CO2. He calculated a cooling rate for CO2 of 0.2 to 0.3 K per day in the troposphere. He was still using the equilibrium assumption, and estimated changes in surface temperature of +3.6 C and -3.8 C for a doubling and a halving of the CO2 concentration from 330 ppm. In a different paper, he discussed a ‘CO2 Theory of Climate Change’ [Plass, 1956b]. Here it is clear that he was interested mainly in changes in CO2 concentration as a cause of an Ice Age cycle, although fossil fuel combustion was also discussed. He speculated the when all of the known coal and oil reserves were used up in less than 1000 years, the equilibrium climate temperature rise could be 12 C with the CO2 concentration increasing to 3000 ppm.

Interest in the effects of CO2 from fossil fuel combustion on climate was revived in the late 1950s with the work of Burt Bolin and Roger Revelle on the distribution of CO2 between the atmosphere and the oceans [Bolin and Eriksson, 1959 Bolin, 1960 Revelle and Seuss, 1957]. They had a new technique that they could use. This was the measurement of the carbon isotope ratios 14C/12C and 13C/12C. However, this only provided information on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere that could be attributed to combustion. There was no new information on the relationship between CO2 and surface temperature. They also used exaggerated claims of climate warming to obtain research funds. They made no attempt to validate their claims using any engineering calculations of the surface temperature.

In order to develop a computer based climate model, it was necessary to develop suitable radiative transfer algorithms that could simulate the changes in energy transfer in the atmosphere as the concentration of such IR active species as H2O and CO2 changed. All of this work relied on the equilibrium assumption. Early efforts were described by Manabe and Moller [1961]. In a review of atmospheric optics Moller [1964] used the equilibrium assumption to derive an invalid ‘effective radiation temperature’ of 250 K, using 0.35 for the planetary albedo or reflectivity of the earth. He also described the troposphere as a heat engine, although he did not elaborate on this. The first generally accepted radiative transfer climate model, published by Manabe and Wetherald (M&W) [1967], was also based on the equilibrium climate assumption. It was really just a mathematical platform for the development and evaluation of radiative transfer and related algorithms. The simplifying assumptions used by M&W had to create climate warming before any computer code was written.


The assumptions used by M&W in the development of their 1967 model were clearly and honestly stated on the second page of their paper:

1) At the top of the atmosphere, the net incoming solar radiation should be equal to the net outgoing long wave radiation.

2) No temperature discontinuity should exist

3) Free and forced convection and mixing by the large scale eddies prevent the lapse rate from exceeding a critical lapse rate equal to 6.5 C km-1.

4) Whenever the lapse rate is subcritical, the condition of local radiative equilibrium is satisfied.

5) The heat capacity of the earth’s surface is zero.

6) The atmosphere maintains the given vertical distribution of relative humidity (new requirement).

These assumptions contain three fundamental scientific errors. There is no exact flux balance at TOA, the heat capacity and the effects of moist convection have to be included in the surface heating and relative humidity is not fixed. In addition, molecular line broadening in the lower troposphere means that the upward and downward LWIR flux are not equivalent. The use of such a simple model as a mathematical platform for the development of radiative transfer algorithms is entirely reasonable, provided that the limitations are understood and clearly stated. Any scientist who uses a climate model that incorporates the M&W assumptions should add the caveat ‘does not apply to planet earth’. Has anyone seen a ‘24 hour average sun’ shining in the sky at night? Unfortunately, the climate warming artifacts created by the M&W model soon became a lucrative source of research funds and the limitations of the M&W model were conveniently overlooked. This is still the case today. The original M&W model was recently re-evaluated using an updated code [Kluft, 2020]. All of the original M&W assumptions were accepted without question.

The M&W model created two ‘bandwagons’ that could be used to obtain research funding. First, the radiative transfer algorithms could be improved with better spectroscopic constants and more greenhouse gases. Second, the M&W model could be incorporated into a general circulation model (GCM) with well over a thousand M&W ‘units’ coupled together within a modified weather forecasting program to make ‘improved’ climate ‘predictions’. None of this required any change to the underlying M&W ‘model’ assumptions. Within a decade, an additional 11 ‘minor’ species had been added to the M&W model including CH4, NH3, N2O, HNO3, SO2 and six halogenated hydrocarbons [Ramanathan and Coakley (R&C), 1978]. All of the improvements in the IR spectroscopy were valid, until they were used to calculate the ‘equilibrium temperature’ in the M&W model. For example, melodramatic claims of “An appreciable increase in global surface temperature” were made for halogenated hydrocarbons without out any quantitative thermal analysis [Ramanathan, 1975]. All of this was still based on ‘radiative convective equilibrium models’. This was unambiguously stated by R&C on page 479 of their 1978 review paper.

“For radiative-convective equilibrium the net outgoing longwave radiative flux at the top of the atmosphere Fn0 must equal the net solar radiative flux Sn0. Likewise, because the stratosphere is in radiative equilibrium, Fn1 must equal the net solar radiative flux into the troposphere Sn1. For any perturbation, the stratosphere and atmosphere as a whole seek a new state of radiative equilibrium.”

In order to develop a so called general circulation model (GCM) for climate simulation, the M&W model had to be incorporated into the fluid dynamics equations used to describe atmospheric and ocean flow. These are a complex set of complex partial differential equations that have to be solved numerically. There is no analytical solution. Lorenz [1963] showed that the solutions for such equations were inherently unstable. In weather forecasting, this means that the GCM solutions can be accurate for projections up to about 10 days ahead. The accuracy of a weather forecast is easy to establish by comparison of prediction to measurement. There is no reason to expect a complex GCM climate model to have any predictive capability because of the inherent instability in the solution to the fluid dynamics equations. The equilibrium assumption was used to impose an invalid ‘solution’ to the large numbers of coupled non-linear equations in the GCMs. The climate models were run until a stable solution was obtained where the planetary average LWIR flux matched the planetary average absorbed solar flux. By 1975, a ‘highly simplified’ GCM had been developed by M&W [1975]. The 1967 ‘model’ was now described as a ‘global average climate model’. Although the M&W GCM did not contain any real climate effects such as ocean transport and the cloud cover was fixed, claims of global warming from a ‘CO2 doubling’ were still made.

The M&W approach was officially ‘sanctified’ by the Charney report [1979]. This was a review of CO2 induced warming effects derived from equilibrium climate models, including feedback effects. At the time of the review, the results from only five GCMs were available, 3 from Manabe’s group and 2 from Hansen’s group. The reviewers concluded that a warming of 3±1.5 C from a ‘doubling’ of the atmospheric CO2 concentration was likely. The mathematics used in the climate ‘models’ appeared reasonable based on the acceptance of the invalid equilibrium assumption, so no further investigation was needed. Lorenz’s work and the limitations of the weather forecasting models were ignored.

The reviewers involved in the Charney report also chose to ignore the history of CO2 induced climate change and its origin as the explanation as the cause of an Ice Age cycle. The real cause of an Ice Age, changes to the eccentricity of the earth’s orbit, had been established from an analysis of ocean sediment cores in 1976 [Hayes et al, 1976]. A more detailed description was given in the book ‘Ice Ages’ by Imbrie and Imbrie [1979]. Since changes in CO2 concentration did not cause an Ice Age, there was no reason to expect that such changes from fossil fuel combustion would cause climate change. Tyndall’s speculations from the 1860’s had been disproved. However, the bandwagons were rolling and the global warming apocalypse had been declared based on the mathematical artifacts created by the equilibrium climate models.


By 1979 sufficient evidence had accumulated to show that there was no reason to expect that changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration could cause any climate change. Detailed data showing the non-equilibrium response of land surface temperatures were available a decade before M&W with the publication of ‘Exploring the Atmosphere’s First Mile’ by Lettau and Davidson [1957]. Hubert Lamb’s work ‘Climate, Past Present and Future’ was published in 1972. Here he discussed the role of wind driven evaporation in causing long term weather anomalies [Lamb, 1972]. These involved much larger changes in ocean latent heat flux than any change in LWIR flux from CO2. Revised spectroscopic constants for water from 200 nm to 200 µm were published by Hale and Querry in 1973. These showed that the penetration depth of the LWIR radiation from CO2 into water was less than 100 µm [Hale and Querry, 1973]. By the early 1970’s, high quality satellite IR radiometer data were available from the Nimbus program that showed the variability in the LWIR emission to space [Hanel et al, 1971]. As discussed above, CO2 did not cause Ice Ages.

Instead of correcting the underlying errors related to the equilibrium assumption, Hansen et al added three more invalid assumptions [Hansen et al, 1981]. First, a ‘slab’ ocean model was added to the M&W model. However, there was no consideration of surface energy transfer effects. In particular, wind driven evaporation was ignored and the LWIR flux was assumed to heat the ocean even though the penetration depth of the LWIR flux was only 100 micron. The ‘ocean’ basically added heat capacity and a time delay to the model. This provided the pseudoscientific foundation for ‘climate sensitivity’. Second, a prescribed mathematical ritual of ‘radiative forcing’ was introduced. This was based on the perturbation of an equilibrium climate state by a ‘doubling’ of the CO2 concentration followed by the transition to a new equilibrium state with a higher surface temperature. Small changes in equilibrium LWIR flux were assumed to be capable of changing the surface temperature including the oceans. No thermal engineering calculation of the change in surface temperature was performed to validate the model. The changes in ‘equilibrium flux’ are shown in Figure 2 and calculated changes in ‘equilibrium temperature’ are shown in Figure 3.

Figure 2: Discussion of the effects of a hypothetical ‘CO2 doubling’ from 300 to 600 ppm on an equilibrium average climate from Hansen et al, 1981.

Figure 3: Effects of various ‘forcing agents’ on surface temperature calculated using an equilibrium average climate model artificially constrained by an exact flux balance at TOA.

Third, there was a ‘bait and switch’ change from ‘equilibrium’ surface and air temperatures to the weather station temperature record. The various flux terms interact with the surface, not the weather station thermometer located in a ventilated enclosure at eye level above the ground [Oke, 2006]. There was no change to the model, the output was just renamed. The weather station record that was presented by Hansen et al also included the well-defined AMO peak near 1940. They chose to ignore this and called it ‘noise’. Since 1981, the only change to the basic equilibrium climate model was the addition of ‘efficacies’ to the radiative forcings by Hansen et al [2005].

The fraud in Hansen et al should be obvious to a scientist or engineer with a basic understanding of surface energy transfer. The ocean surface energy transfer was ignored, especially the wind driven evaporation. The normal diurnal and seasonal changes in surface flux and temperature are sufficiently large that the small changes in flux from CO2 are too small to have any effect. At present, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is increasing by approximately 2.4 ppm per year. This produces an increase in LWIR flux of 0.034 W m-2 per year. The step doubling by 280 ppm is a hypothetical modeling construct.


The Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) is the quasi-periodic, 60 to 70 year variation in the surface temperature of the N. Atlantic Basin from the equator to 60° N. This variation is superimposed on an approximately linear warming trend that is attributed to the temperature recovery from the Little Ice Age or Maunder Minimum [Akasofu, 2010]. The AMO is a major component of the global average temperature anomaly used in the evaluation of the climate models. Figure 4a shows the annual average temperature anomaly of the N. Atlantic Ocean, including the slope (no detrend) [NOAA, AMO, 2020]. This is overlapped with HadCRUT4 global temperature anomaly [HadCRUT4, 2020]. Both the longer term 60 year maxima and minima and the shorter term ‘fingerprint’ detail of the AMO can clearly be seen in both plots. The correlation coefficient between the two data sets is 0.8. From 1970 onwards, the HadCRUT4 series is offset approximately 0.3 C higher than the AMO. This requires further investigation and is probably related to adjustments made to the HadCRUT4 data, urban heat island effects (UHI), and station changes [Andrews, 2017a 2017b 2017c D’Aleo, 2010]. The linear slope of the AMO and a least squares sine wave fit to the oscillation are also shown. The oscillation period is 61 years and the amplitude is ±0.2 C. Earlier temperature records were published by Callendar [1938], Hansen et al [1981] and Jones et al [1986]. These are shown in Figure 4b, 4d and 4e. During the 1970’s, the cooling produced by the AMO was used to generate a ‘climate cooling’ scare, although this was minimized over 30 years later by Peterson et al [McFarlane, 2018 Peterson et al, 2008 Douglas, 1975 Bryson and Dittberner, 1976]. This is shown in Figure 4c [Douglas, 1975]. The periods of record are indicated on Figure 4a. The atmospheric CO2 concentration (Keeling curve) is also plotted in Figures 4d and 4e [Keeling, 2020].

The period of record for Callendar included the warm phase of the AMO from about 1910 to 1935. The periods of record for Hansen et al and Jones et al include the full AMO cycle from 1910 to 1970. The warming that could be detected after 1970 was used by Jones et al to ramp up the CO2 climate warming scam. Comparison of the 1940 peak in the AMO to the CO2 concentration in Figures 4c and 4d should make it clear to a scientist or engineer that there is no relationship between the two.

Figure 4: a) AMO anomaly and HadCRUT4 global temperature anomaly, aligned from 1860 to 1970, b) temperature anomaly for N. temperate stations from Callendar [1938], c) global cooling from Douglas [1975], d) global temperature anomaly from Hansen et al, [1981] and e) global temperature anomaly from Jones et al, [1986]. The changes in CO2 concentration (Keeling Curve) are also shown in c and d. The periods of record for the weather station data are also indicated.


When the Charney report was written in 1979, results from global circulation models (GCMs) were only available from two groups. One was associated with Manabe at NOAA and the other with Hansen at NASA Goddard. A total of five rather primitive models had been developed. Much of the data had not been published and was communicated privately. By 1995, 18 coupled climate models were available from seven different countries [Meehl et al, 1997]. The modeling effort for the IPCC is now coordinated through the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP). In 2019 there were 49 modeling groups with approximately 100 different models involved in CMIP6 generating the fraudulent data to be incorporated into the next IPCC climate assessment (AR6) [Hausfather, 2019]. All of these models used the same basic approach established by M&W and Hansen. The invalid assumption of an equilibrium average climate is still the foundation of the CO2 induced warming generated by these models. The ‘equilibrium climate sensitivity’ for various CMIP5 and CMIP6 climate models are shown below in Figure 6. As computer technology has improved, the models have become much more complex. A lot of effort has been expended on ‘tuning’ these models to match observational data, but the fundamental instabilities related to the solution of the coupled non-linear equations have been ignored. As new groups have joined the CMIP modeling effort, the underlying assumptions have been accepted without question. There has been no ‘due diligence’ to investigate the validity of the models. The climate modelers have withdrawn into their own fictional modeling world. They are no longer scientists. They remain inside a cocoon of lies and discuss the pseudoscientific climate theology of ‘forcings’, ‘feedbacks’ and ‘climate sensitivities’ among themselves. The peer review process has collapsed and been replaced by blatant cronyism. Their primary mission is to perpetuate the climate pyramid scheme by providing the climate lies that the governments and special interest groups want to hear.


The concept of radiative forcing evolved gradually from the radiative transfer ‘bandwagon’ [Ramaswamy et al, 2019]. The change in LWIR flux at TOA from each IR species could be added together and various aerosol ‘tuning knobs’ could be added. All of this is based on the invalid assumption of the perturbation of an equilibrium average climate. As soon as the equilibrium climate assumption is made, physical reality is abandoned and one enters the realm of computerized climate fiction. The basic logic of cause and effect is ignored and replaced by correlation. The starting point is an irrational belief in the a-priori assumption that an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration must cause any increase in ‘surface temperature’. This is taken to mean the mean global weather station record, after it has been averaged, homogenized and generally adjusted upward to match at least part of the warming created by the climate models [Andrews, 2017a 2017b 2017c D’Aleo, 2010].

There are two pseudoscientific ‘climate sensitivities’. The first is an ‘equilibrium climate sensitivity’ (ECS) and the second is a ‘transient climate response’ (TCR). The ECS is the equilibrium climate temperature response to a radiative forcing after the model oceans have adjusted to a new equilibrium state and the TCR is the response to a gradual increase in the radiative forcing, usually from a 1% per year increase in CO2 concentration before equilibrium is reached [IPCC 2013 Chapter 9].

Otto et al [2013] define these as:

The change in temperature is taken from the HadCRUT4 global temperature anomaly [HadCRUT4, 2019] and the radiative forcings are taken from the CMIP5 /RCP4.5 model ensemble. The change in heat content is dominated by ocean heat uptake. More recent estimates of ECS and TCR are provided by Lewis and Curry [2018]. The decadal temperature and forcing estimates from data given by Otto et al [2013] are shown in Figures 5a and 5b. The 1910 AMO cycle minimum and the 1970 maximum are indicated. The increase in the downward LWIR flux related to the ‘radiative forcing’ shown in Figure 5b cannot couple below the ocean surface and cause any measurable change in ocean temperature. To show the relationship to the AMO more clearly, the HadCRUT4 data used by Otto et al is overlapped with the AMO data from Figure 4 and plotted in Figure 5c. The influence of the AMO extends over large areas of North America, Europe and parts of Africa through the propagation of the ocean surface temperature by weather systems that are formed over the Atlantic Ocean. The ocean surface temperature is coupled to the weather stations through the convection transition temperature. Using tree ring analysis, the AMO has been reconstructed back to 1567 [Gray et al, 2004 Gray.NOAA, 2021]. This is shown in Figure 5d. None of the observed temperature changes associated with the AMO can be attributed to an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.

Figure 5: a) Decadal mean temperature estimates derived from the HadCRUT4 global mean temperature series b) decadal mean forcing with standard errors from the CMIP5 /RCP4.5 ensemble. Data from Otto et al [2013], c) Figure a) with the AMO plot overlay and d) AMO reconstruction from 1567.

Using the radiative forcing approach it is claimed that the ECS is in the range from 2.1 to 4.7 C based on the CMIP5 model ‘ensemble’. In the US, this modeling effort is coordinated by the climate group at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories (LLNL). They also maintain the ‘library’ of climate model results [Stauffer et al, 2017 Taylor et al, 2012]. The CMIP5 model results were used by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in their fifth Climate Assessment Report (AR5) [IPCC 2013, Chap. 9]. For the upcoming AR6 IPCC report, the ECS of the CMIP6 climate model ‘ensemble’ is given as 1.8 to 5.6 K [Hausfather, 2019, Zelinka et al, 2020]. These climate sensitivities are shown in Figure 6. The median ECS of 3.8 C/280 ppm translates into a temperature sensitivity of about 74 ppm C-1. A 2 C temperature rise corresponds to a CO2 concentration of approximately 430 ppm. This is the pseudoscientific basis of the 2 C temperature limit incorporated into the Paris Climate Accord [Luning and Vahrenholt, 2017].

Figure 6: Pseudoscientific equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) for a doubling of the CO2 concentration from 280 to 560 ppm for selected CMIP5 and CMIP6 climate models.

Comparison of the radiative forcings in Figure 5b to the AMO overlay in Figure 5c and the extended reconstruction of the AMO in Figure 5d should make it clear to a scientist or engineer that there is no connection between the radiative forcings and the temperature response. This is further confirmed when the ocean surface energy transfer is examined. The small increase in downward LWIR flux to the surface produced by LWIR component of the forcing is fully coupled to the wind driven evaporation. Within the ±30° latitude bands the 2 W m-2 radiative forcing from CO2 is removed by an increase in wind speed of approximately 13 cm s-1. The range of the ECS, from 1.8 to 5.6 K in the CMIP6 ensemble shows that the models have no real predictive capabilities. Where are the independent engineering estimates of the ECS and the associated error analysis? The real value of the ECS is ‘too small to measure’. Where are the predictions of the ocean oscillations?


The political exploitation of the climate modeling fraud started in the 1970s over exaggerated concerns related to population growth. Paul Ehrlich published his book ‘The Population Bomb’ in 1968 and Meadows et al published ‘Limits to Growth’ in 1972 [Meadows, 1972]. An important event was the 1975 conference ‘The Atmosphere Endangered and Endangering’ organized by anthropologist Margaret Mead [Hecht, 2007, Mead and Kellogg, 1976]. Her objective was to exploit atmospheric pollution –real or imagined - for population control. Attendees included Stephen Schneider and John Holdren. Both were strongly influenced by Ehrlich. Schneider became a leading advocate of the CO2 climate scare at Stanford University. Holdren became science and technology advisor to President Obama.

Efforts also started to exploit global warming within the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP). Bert Bolin conducted climate research for both agencies. Maurice Strong was the first head of UNEP in 1972 and from the start it was involved in blatant environmental advocacy [McClean, 2009]. In 1980, a conference in Villach, Austria, was hosted by the WMO, UNEP and the International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU), with the aim of providing a "carefully prepared scientific assessment of the CO2 question to provide them with guidance in their future activities and advice to nations". This conference concluded that the scientific uncertainties were so significant that no CO2 management plan could be proposed. The same three organizations tried again in Villach in1985, using essentially the same data, but this time the 100 attendees participated as individuals rather than representatives of their countries, and they were selected by the three sponsoring agencies because of their support for global warming. This conference included the presentation of several papers, which were both commissioned and peer-reviewed by the conference organizers [Boehmer-Christiansen and Kellow, 2002]. Bert Bolin wrote the report for this conference and created a consensus on the need to take action on global warming. Bolin was also instrumental in preparing the SCOPE 29 report on ‘The greenhouse effect, climate change and ecosystems’ [Bolin et al, 1986]. This created the necessary political pressure for the WMO to establish the IPCC in 1988. Hansen also presented his fraudulent climate warming data to a congressional hearing in June 1988 [Hamlin, 2021].

When the IPCC was created in 1988, Bolin was the first chairman and another global warming believer, John Houghton, Director General of the UK Met Office led Working Group 1 for the technical assessment of global warming. The UK Hadley Center for Climate Prediction was established at the Met. Office in 1989. In conjunction with the Climate Research Center at the University of E. Anglia, the Hadley Center provided major support to the IPCC. The first IPCC assessment report was published in 1990. It was based largely on the SCOPE 29 report.

It must be emphasized that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a political body, not a scientific one [McLean, 2010, 2009, Bolin, 2007]. Its mission is to assess “the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change.” This is based on the a-priori assumption that human activities are causing CO2 induced global warming. There never was an attempt to objectively evaluate the scientific evidence of the cause of climate change. The IPCC was established to exploit global warming as a way of inducing economic disruption based on the population control and sustainability concerns raised by the Club of Rome [Darwall, 2017, Zubrin, 2013, Klaus, 2007, Dewar, 1995]. The IPCC has published five major assessment reports: the first, second and third - FAR (1990), SAR (1995), TAR (2001) and AR4 (2007), and AR5 (2013). While the reports may contain a useful compendium of scientific references, material that does not conform to global warming dogma has usually been omitted. Authors and editors were selected based on their willingness to find CO2 induced global warming whether it existed or not. The primary focus of these reports has been on the use of modeling ‘scenarios’ to predict future global warming using invalid computer models. These reports should not be cited as scientific references. Any scientific caution about the attribution of temperature increases to global warming was abandoned with the second IPCC Assessment Report in 1995. This was altered at the last minute at the request of the US State Department [FM, 2012]. The science had to agree with the ‘Summary for Policymakers’ written for the politicians. Similarly, the notorious ‘Hockey Stick’ temperature series based on fraudulent tree ring data was featured prominently in the 2001 Assessment Report [Mann et al, 1998, 1999, Montford, 2010, Steyn, 2015 Wedgman et al, 2010]. This was an attempt to eliminate the Medieval Warm Period and the Maunder Minimum from the climate record. The fraud here was the deliberate manipulation of the measured data to create the desired outcome.

Close ties developed between political leaders and various leading climate researchers. In the UK this included John Houghton (UK Met Office), the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at UEA and Margaret Thatcher (UK Prime Minister) [Courtney, 2012]. In the US one of leading political advocates of climate change was Al Gore. He first heard of global warming as a student when he took a course from Roger Revelle. Gore was elected to Congress in 1976 and was US Vice president from 1992 to 2000. He was later responsible for ‘An Inconvenient Truth’. This was a largely fraudulent book on global warming that was also made into a film of the same name. International efforts led to the Kyoto protocol which was established in 1997 and ratified in 2005. Some of the Kyoto provisions ended in 2012. The US never ratified the Kyoto Protocol. The Paris ‘accord’ is latest ‘voluntary’ attempt at some kind of agreement. One of the reasons for the failure is because the ‘developed’ countries have refused to pay the large sums of money ($100 billion per year) requested by the ‘underdeveloped’ countries for ‘damage’ caused by ‘global warming’. In addition, a large number of coal fired electrical power plants are either under construction or being planned notably by China and India. US policy towards global warming has also changed significantly with the last three US presidents.

In November of 2009, and again in November 2011, a large archive of e-mails and other files from the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia was released on the Internet. A third round was released in March 2013. This archive has revealed to many people outside of the close knit climate community that there had been an ongoing fraud for many years to promote the global warming agenda and prevent the publication of material that did not support the prevailing global warming dogma. The peer review process in climate science had collapsed and been replaced by blatant cronyism. Climate science had become detached from its foundation in physical science and degenerated into a quasi-religious cult. Belief in global warming was a prerequisite for funding in climate science. The release of this climate archive became known as ‘Climategate’. The information provided has been analyzed in detail by several authors [Monckton, 2009, Montford 2010, Mosher & Fuller, 2010].


Another part of the climate fraud is the attempt to ‘attribute’ a rise in various ‘extreme weather events’ to the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration. The fraudulent claims related to increased hurricane intensity after hurricane Katrina have been discussed by Gray [2012, 2011]. So called ‘hurricane Sandy’ in 2012 was simply a normal, predictable ‘100 year’ storm. Such storms have been documented since the US was first settled by Europeans in the seventeenth century. Two such storms occurred in 1635 and 1638 [Donnelley et al, 2001]. The modern urban infrastructure was simply not designed to withstand such a storm. Coral bleaching in the Great Barrier Reef has been linked to local decreases in sea level caused by ocean oscillation effects, [Steele, 2017]. Floods, heatwaves and droughts have followed normal patterns and have not increased because of CO2 [Khandekar, 2013]. There was nothing unusual about the 2003 European heat wave [Black et al, 2004]. The weather patterns that lead to increased fire danger in parts of California and Australia are related to downslope winds and ‘blocking’ high pressure systems. The downward flow of dry air can produce increases in temperature of 10 C over a period of a few days or less [Fox-Hughes, 2012 Math, 1934]. This is considered in more detail in the ‘Surface Temperature’ post.

Since 2012, the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (BAMS) has published an annual supplement on ‘Explaining Extreme Events of [Year] From a Climate Perspective’. [Herring et al, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2015, Peterson et al, 2013, 2012]. Unfortunately, these supplements have implied that there is an underlying climate warming produced by CO2 that is somehow contributing to at least some of these events. This again is nothing more than an artifact of the use of fraudulent radiative forcing techniques in the equilibrium climate models such as the CMIP5/6 ensembles and the HadGEM model series [Andrews et al, 2019, 2012]. The current increase in downward LWIR flux to the surface from the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is approximately 0.034 W m-2 per year. When a proper thermal engineering analysis of the surface temperature is performed using a dynamic flux balance coupled to the surface reservoirs, there can be no measurable warming effect from CO2. Instead, the natural warming from the AMO has been incorrectly attributed to ‘CO2 forcing’.


This work was performed as independent research by the author. It was not supported by any grant awards and none of the work was conducted as a part of employment duties for any employer. The views expressed are those of the author.


Normally, the references given in an article of this nature would be almost exclusively to the peer reviewed literature, with limited references to websites that provide access to climate data. Unfortunately, climate science has been thoroughly corrupted by the global warming fraud. The peer review process has collapsed and been replaced by blatant cronyism. Many of the publications in ‘prestigious’ journals such as Nature, Science, PNAS and others that relate to climate modeling predictions of global warming are fraudulent and should never have been published. Consequently many of the important references given here are to website publications. This should not detract from the integrity of the information provided. Many of these website publications have received a more thorough review than they might have received through the traditional peer review process.

Agassiz, L., Etudes sur les Glaciers, Neuchatel, 1840

Akasofu, S-I, Natural Science 2(11) 1211-1224 (2010), ‘On the recovery from the Little Ice Age’ Akasofu

Andrews, R., 2017a, Energy Matters Sept 14, 2017, ‘Adjusting Measurements to Match the Models – Part 3: Lower Troposphere Satellite Temperatures’. Andrews_a
Andrews, R., 2017b, Energy Matters Aug 2, 2017, ‘Making the Measurements Match the Models – Part 2: Sea Surface Temperatures’. Andrews_b

Andrews, R., 2017c, Energy Matters July 27, 2017, ‘Adjusting Measurements to Match the Models – Part 1: Surface Air Temperatures’. Andrews_c

Andrews, T. M. B. Andrews, A. Bodas-Salcedo, G. S. Jones, T. Kuhlbrodt, J. Manners, M. B. Menary, J. Ridley, M. A. Ringer, A. A. Sellar, C. A. Senior and Y. Tang, Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, 11,4377–4394 (2019) ‘Forcings, Feedbacks, and Climate Sensitivity in HadGEM3-GC3.1 and UKESM1’. Andrews_2019

Andrews, T. J. M. Gregory, M. J. Webb and K. E. Taylor, Geophys. Res. Letts. 39, L09712, pp1-7, (2012), ‘Forcing, feedbacks and climate sensitivity in CMIP5 coupled atmosphere-ocean climate models’. Andrews_2012

Arrhenius, S., Philos. Trans. 41 237-276 (1896), ‘On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground’. Arrhenius

Black, E., M. Blackburn, G. Harrison, B. Hoskins and J. Methven, Weather 59(8), pp. 217-223 (2004), ‘Factors contributing to the summer 2003 European heatwave’. Black

Boehmer-Christiansen, S. and A.J. Kellow , ‘International environmental policy: interests and the failure of the Kyoto process’, Northampton, MA, Edward Elgar Pub., 2002.

Bolin, B., ‘A History of the Science and Politics of Climate Change. The Role of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2007

Bolin, B., Tellus 12 274-281 (1960), ‘On the Exchange of Carbon Dioxide between the Atmosphere and the Sea’, Bolin_1960

Bolin, B., B, Döös, J. Jäger and R.A Warwick, The Greenhouse Effect, Climate Change and Ecosystems, SCOPE 29, John Wiley and Sons, 1986,

Bolin, B. and E. Eriksson, ‘Changes in the Carbon Dioxide Content of the Atmosphere and Sea Due to Fossil Fuel Combustion’, in ‘The Atmosphere and the Sea in Motion’, edited by Bert Bolin, pp. 130-42. New York: Rockefeller Institute Press, 1959,

Bryson, R. A. and G. J. Dittberner, J. Atmos. Sci. 33(11) 2094-2106 (1976), ‘A non-equilibrium model of hemispheric mean surface temperature’. Bryson

Callendar, G. S., J. Roy. Met. Soc. 64 223-240 (1938), ‘The artificial production of carbon dioxide and its influence on temperature’, Callendar_a

availabe at: Callendar_b

Charney, J. G. et al, Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment, Report of an ad hoc study group on carbon dioxide and climate, Woods Hole, MA July 23-27 (1979), Charney

Courtney, R. 2012, ‘The History of the Global Warming Scare’ Courtney

D’Aleo, J. ‘Progressive Enhancement of Global Temperature Trends’, Science and Public Policy Institute, July 2010. D'Aleo

Darwall, R., ‘Green Tyranny’ Encounter Books, NY, NY, 2017

Dewar, E., Cloak of Green: The Links between Key Environmental Groups, Government and Big Business, Lorimer Press, 1995

Donnelly J. P. S. S. Bryant, J. Butler, J. Dowling, L. Fan, N. Hausmann, P. Newby, B. Shuman, J. Stern, K. Westover and T. Webb III, GSA Bulletin 113(6) 714 –727 (2001), ‘700 yr Sedimentary Record of Intense Hurricane Landfalls in Southern New England’, Donnelly

Douglas, J. H., Science News 107 138-140 March 1, (1975), ‘Climate change: chilling possibilities’, Douglas

FM, 2012, FM_2012

Fourier, B. J. B. Mem. R. Sci. Inst., 7 527-604 (1827), ‘Memoire sur les temperatures du globe terrestre et des espaces planetaires’. Fourier_1827a

English translation: Fourier_1827b

Fourier, B. J. B., Annales de Chimie et de Physique, 27, pp. 136–167 (1824), ‘Remarques générales sur les températures du globe terrestre et des espaces planétaires’. Fourier_1824a

English translation: Fourier_1824b

Fourier, B. J. B., Theorie analytique de la chaleur, Didot, Paris, 1822 Fourier_1822

Fox-Hughes, P., A Meteorological Investigation of the 'SpringtimeBump' An Early Season Peak in the Fire Danger Experienced in Tasmania, PhD Thesis University of Tasmania 2014, Fox_Hughes

Gray, S. T., L. J. Graumlich, J. L. Betancourt and G. T. Pederson, Geophys. Res. Letts, 31 L12205, pp1-4 (2004) doi:10.1029/2004GL019932, ‘A tree-ring based reconstruction of the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation since 1567 A.D.’. Gray

Gray.NOAA, 2021, Gray, S. T., et al. 2004, Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) Index Reconstruction, IGBP PAGES/World Data, Center for Paleoclimatology, Data Contribution Series #2004-062, NOAA/NGDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA. Gray_NOAA

Gray, W. M., 2012, 7th International Conference on Climate Change, Chicago, May 21-23, 2012, ‘The physical flaw of the global warming theory and deep ocean circulation changes as the primary climate driver

Gray, W. M., 2011, ‘Gross errors in the IPCC-AR4 report regarding past and future changes in global tropical cyclone activity - (A Nobel disgrace)’

HadCRUT4, 2019, HadCRUT4

Hale, G. M. and Querry, M. R., Applied Optics, 12(3) 555-563 (1973), ‘Optical constants of water in the 200 nm to 200 µm region’. Hale

Hamlin, L., WUWT Post 4/22/21, ‘History Confirms Democrat’s 1988 Senate Global Warming Hearing Got Everything Wrong from Start to Finish’, Hamlin

Hanel, R. A. B. Schlachman, D. Rogers and D. Vanous, Applied Optics 10(6) 1376-1382 (1971), ‘Nimbus 4 Michelson Interferometer’, Hanel

Hansen, J. et al., (45 authors), J. Geophys Research 110 D18104 pp1-45 (2005), ‘Efficacy of climate forcings’. Hansen_2005

Hansen, J. D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind and G. Russell Science 213 957-956 (1981), ‘Climate impact of increasing carbon dioxide’. Hansen_1981

Hausfather, Z., ‘CMIP6: The next generation of climate models explained’ Carbon Brief, 2019, Hausfather

Hays, J. D. J. Imbrie, N. J. Shackleton, Science, 194 Dec. 10, pp 1121-1132 (1976), ‘Variations in the Earth's Orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages’, Hays

Herring, S. C. N. Christidis, A. Hoell, M. P. Hoerling and P. A. Stott, Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 101 (1), S1–S128 (2020), ‘Explaining Extreme Events of 2018 from a Climate Perspective’. Herring_2020

Herring, S. C. N. Christidis, M. P. Hoerling and P. A. Stott, Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 100 (1), S1–S117 (2019), 'Explaining Extreme Events of 2017 from a Climate Perspective'. Herring_2019

Herring, S. C. N. Christidis, A. Hoell, J. P. Kossin, Carl J. Schreck III, and P. A. Stott, Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 99 (1), S1–S157 (2018), ‘Explaining Extreme Events of 2016 from a Climate Perspective’. Herring_2018

Herring, S. C. A. Hoell, M. P. Hoerling, J. P. Kossin, C. J. Schreck III, and P. A. Stott, Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 97 (12), S1–S145 (2016), ‘Explaining Extreme Events of 2015 from a Climate Perspective’. Herring_2016

Herring, S. C. M. P. Hoerling, J. P. Kossin, T. C. Peterson and P. A. Stott, Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc. 96 (12): S1–S172 (2015), ‘Explaining Extreme Events of 2014 from a Climate Perspective’. Herring_2015

Herring, S. C. M. P. Hoerling, T. C. Peterson and P. A. Stott, Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 95 (9), S1–S96 (2014), ‘Explaining Extreme Events of 2013 from a Climate Perspective’. Herring_2014

Hecht, M. M., 21st Century Science and Technology, pp.64-68, Fall 2007, ‘Where the global warming hoax was born’

Imbrie, J. and K. P. Imbrie, ‘Ice Ages: Solving the Mystery’, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass, 1979

IPCC, 2013: Myhre, G., D. Shindell, F.-M. Bréon, W. Collins, J. Fuglestvedt, J. Huang, D. Koch, J.-F. Lamarque, D. Lee, B. Mendoza, T. Nakajima, A. Robock, G. Stephens, T. Takemura and H. Zhang, ‘Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing’. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, Chapter 8, Radiative Forcing 1535 pp, doi:10.1017/CBO9781107415324. IPCC_AR5_WG1

Jones, P. D. T. M. Wigley and P. B Wright, Nature 323 (31) 430-434 (1986), ‘Global temperature variations between 1861 and 1984’. Jones_a

Available at: Jones_b

Keeling, 2020, Keeling

Khandekar, M. L. Energy and Environment 24(3, 4) 537-550 (2013) ‘Are extreme weather events on the rise?’ Khandekar

Klaus, V., Blue Planet in Green Shackles. What Is Endangered: Climate or Freedom? Competitive Enterprise Institute, 2007

Kluft, L., Reports on Earth System Science / Max Planck Institute for Meteorology 239 (2020), ‘Benchmark Calculations of the Climate Sensitivity of Radiative-Convective Equilibrium’. Kluft

Lamb, H. H., ‘Climate, Past, Present and Future’, V1, Routledge, Abingdon, UK. 1972 Lettau, H.H., and B. Davidson , ‘Exploring the atmosphere’s first mile’, Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1957, Lettau

Lewis, N. and J. Curry, J. Climate 31 6051-6070 (2018), ‘The Impact of Recent Forcing and Ocean Heat Uptake Data on Estimates of Climate Sensitivity’. Lewis

Lorenz, E.N., Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 20, pp. 130-41 (1963), ‘Deterministic non-periodic flow.’ Lorenz

Luning, S. and F. Vahrenholt, Frontiers in Earth Science 5:104 pp 1-7 (Dec. 2017) ‘Paleoclimatological context and reference level of the 2 C and 1.5 C Paris agreement long-term temperature limits’, Luning

Manabe S. and F. Moller, Monthly Weather Review 89(12) 503-532 (Dec. 1961), ‘On the radiative equilibrium and heat balance of the atmosphere’, Manabe_1961

Manabe, S. and R. T. Wetherald, J. Atmos. Sci. 32(1) 3-15 (1975), ‘The effects of doubling the CO2 concentration in the climate of a general circulation model’. Manabe_1975

Manabe, S. and R. T. Wetherald, J. Atmos. Sci., 24 241-249 (1967), ‘Thermal equilibrium of the atmosphere with a given distribution of relative humidity’. Manabe_1967

Mann M. E. R S. Bradley and M. K. Hughes, Geophys Res Lett 26:759–762 (1999), ‘Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: Inferences, uncertainties, and limitations’. Mann_1999

Mann, M. E.: R. E. Bradley and M. K. Hughes, Nature 392, 779-787 (1998) ‘Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries’ Mann_1998

Math, F. A., Monthly Weather Review, Feb. 1934 pp 54-57, ‘Battle of the chinook wind at Havre, Mont.’. Math

McLean, J., 2010, ‘We have been conned – an independent review of the IPCC’, SPPI 2010 Mclean_2010

McLean, J., 2009, ‘Climate Science Corrupted’, SSPI 2009, McClean 2009

McFarlane, F., Watts Up with That, 11.19.2018, ‘The 1970s Global Cooling Consensus was not a Myth’, McFarlane

Mead, M. and W. W. Kellogg eds, The Atmosphere: Endangered and Endangering, Fogarty International Center Proceedings No. 39, 1976 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government PrintingOffice, DHEW Publication No. [NIH] 77-1065). (Google Digital Book)

Meadows, D. H. D. L. Meadows, J. Randers and W. W. Behrens, ‘Limits to Growth’, Universe Books, NY, 1972,

Meehl, G. A. G. J. Boer, C. Covey, M. Latif and R. J. Stouffer, Eos, 78(41) pp445-451 October 14 (1997), ‘Intercomparison Makes for a Better Climate Model’ Meehl

Meinshausen, M S. J. Smith, K. Calvin, J. S. Daniel, M. L. T. Kainuma, J-F. Lamarque, K. Matsumoto, S. A. Montzka, S. C. B. Raper, K. Riahi, A. Thomson, G. J. M. Velders and D.P. P. van Vuuren, Climatic Change 109:213–241 (2011) DOI 10.1007/s10584-011-0156-z, ‘The RCP greenhouse gas concentrations and their extensions from 1765 to 2300’. Meinshausen

Moller, F., Applied Optics 3(2) 157-166 (1964), ‘Optics of the lower atmosphere’, Moller

Monckton, C., SPPI, 2009: ‘Climategate: caught green-handed’, Monckton

Montford, A. W., ‘The Hockey Stick Illusion’, Stacey International, 2010

Mosher, S. and T. W. Fuller, Climategate: The Crutape Letters, Create Space, 2010. NOAA, AMO, 2020 AMO

Oke T. R., WMO/TD-No. 1250, World Meteorological Association, 2006, ‘Initial guidance to obtain representative meteorological observations at urban sites’.

urban_sites Oke

Otto, A., F. E. L. Otto, O. Boucher, J. Church, G. Hegerl, P. M. Forster, N. P. Gillett, J. Gregory, G. C. Johnson, R Knutti, N. Lewis, U. Lohmann, J. Marotzke, G. Myhre, D. Shindell, B. Stevens and M. R. Allen, Nature Geoscience, 6 (6). 415 - 416 (2013). ISSN 1752-0894, ‘Energy budget constraints on climate response’. Otto

Otto, A., F. E. L. Otto, O. Boucher, J. Church, G. Hegerl, P. M. Forster, N. P. Gillett, J. Gregory, G. C. Johnson, R Knutti, N. Lewis, U. Lohmann, J. Marotzke, G. Myhre, D. Shindell, B. Stevens and M. R. Allen, Nature Geoscience, 6 (6). 415 - 416 (2013). ISSN 1752-0894, ‘Energy budget constraints on climate response’, Supplementary Material. Otto_Suppl

Peterson, T. C., W. M. Connolley and J. Fleck, Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 86 1325-1337 (2008), ‘The myth of the 1970’s global cooling consensus’ Peterson

Peterson, T. C., M. P. Hoerling P. A. Stott and S. C. Herring, Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 94 (9), S1–S74 (2013), ‘Explaining Extreme Events of 2012 from a Climate Perspective’, Peterson_2013

Peterson, T. C., P. A. Stott and S. C. Herring, Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc. 93 (7): 1041–1067 (2012), ‘Explaining Extreme Events of 2011 from a Climate Perspective’. Peterson_2012

Pouillet, M., in: Scientific Memoirs selected from the Transactions of Foreign Academies of Science and Learned Societies, edited by Richard Taylor, 4 (1837), pp. 44-90. ‘Memoir on the solar heat, on the radiating and absorbing powers of the atmospheric air and on the temperature of space’ Pouillet_a

Original publication:

Comptes Rendus des Séances de l'Académie des Sciences. Paris. 7, 24-65 (1836). ‘Mémoire sur la chaleur solaire : sur les pouvoirs rayonnants et absorbants de l'air atmosphérique et sur la température de l'espace’. Pouillet_b

Plass, G.N., Tellus 8(2) 140-154 (1956), ‘The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change’, Plass_a

Plass, G.N. , Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 82: 310-324 (1956), ‘The influence of the 15-micron carbon dioxide band on the atmospheric infrared cooling rate’, Plass_b

available at Plass_c

Ramanathan, V., Science, 190, 50–52, (1975), ‘Greenhouse effect due to chlorofluorocarbons: Climatic implications’, Ramanathan_1975

Ramanathan, V. and J. A. Coakley, Rev. Geophysics and Space Physics 16(4)465-489 (1978), ‘Climate modeling through radiative convective models’. Ramanathan_1978a

available at: Ramanathan_1978b

Ramaswamy, V. W. Collins, J. Haywood, J. Lean, N. Mahowald, G. Myhre, V. Naik, K. P. Shine, B. Soden, G. Stenchikov and T. Storelvmo, Meteorological Monographs Volume 59 Chapter 14 (2019), ‘Radiative Forcing of Climate: The Historical Evolution of the Radiative Forcing Concept, the Forcing Agents and their Quantification, and Applications’. Ramaswamy

Revelle, R. and H. E. Suess, Tellus 9 18-27 (1957), ‘Carbon Dioxide Exchange between Atmosphere and Ocean and the Question of an Increase of Atmospheric CO2 During the Past Decades’, Revelle

Steele, J., 2017, ‘Falling Sea Level: The Critical Factor in 2016 Great Barrier Reef Bleaching’ Steele

Steyn, M., “A Disgrace to the Profession”, Amazon, 2015

Stouffer, R. J., V. Eyring, G. A. Meehl, S. Bony, C. Senior, B. Steven, S, and K. E. Taylor, Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc. 98(1) 95-105 (2017), ‘CMIP5 scientific gaps and recommendations for CMIP6’ Stouffer

Taylor, K. E., R. J. Stauffer and G. A. Meehl, Bull. Amer. Met. Soc. 93(4) 485-498 (2012), ‘An overview of the CMIP5 and the experimental design’ Taylor

Tyndall, J., Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 151 pp. 1-36, (1861), ‘On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours, and on the Physical Connexion of Radiation, Absorption, and Conduction’. Tyndall

Tyndall, J., Proc. Roy Inst. Jan 23 pp 200-206 (1863), ‘On radiation through the Earth's atmosphere’.

Wegman, E. J. D. W. Scott & Y. H. Said, 2010, ‘Ad hoc committee report on the 'hockey stick' global climate reconstruction’ Wegman

Zelinka, M. D., T. A. Myers, D. T. McCoy, S. Po-Chedley, P. M. Caldwell, P. Ceppi, S. A. Klein and K. E. Taylor, Geophysical Research Letters 47, e2019GL085782 pp1-12 (2020), ‘Causes of Higher Climate Sensitivity in CMIP6 Models’.

Zubrin, R., ‘Merchants of Despair’, Encounter Books, NY, NY, 2013