Net Zero? ULEZ Cameras?

Blame the Hadley Climate Centre!

Ventura Photonics Climate Post 31, VPCP 031.1

November 12, 2023

Roy Clark PhD

Download .pdf File

The evidence for CO2 induced climate change (aka global warming) is based on nothing more than the results from fraudulent ‘equilibrium’ climate models that rely on the pseudoscience of radiative forcings, feedbacks and a climate sensitivity to CO2. It is claimed that small changes in the energy flow at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) called radiative forcings can change the energy balance of the earth. Specifically, a doubling of the CO2 concentration from 300 to 600 parts per million (ppm) produces a small decrease in the energy flow at TOA. The surface temperature is then supposed to magically warm up and restore the energy balance at TOA. Various feedbacks can change this temperature response. In particular, the CO2 warming somehow creates a water vapor feedback that amplifies the temperature increase. This hypothetical warming from a CO2 doubling is called the climate sensitivity.

In the real world, such CO2 induced temperature changes are too small to measure. The warming observed in the global mean temperature record is produced by a combination of natural ocean oscillations, dominated by the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), urban heat island effects, and a lot of other ‘adjustments’. The number and rural/urban mix of the weather stations has changed and the raw temperatures are altered using a process called ‘homogenization’.

There are three parts to the climate modeling fraud. The technical fraud started in the nineteenth century when the climate energy transfer processes were oversimplified using the equilibrium assumption. Second, there was ‘mission creep’. As funding was reduced for NASA space exploration and US Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear programs, climate modeling became an alternative source of revenue. The simplified climate models were accepted without question. Third, various outside interests, including environmentalists and politicians decided to exploit the fictional climate apocalypse to further their own causes.

The Hadley Climate Centre in the UK was established in 1990 to feed climate propaganda to Margaret Thatcher [Folland et al, 2004, Courtney, 1999]. The foundation of Net Zero was established in the Third Climate Assessment Report (TAR) published by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001. The radiative forcings were divided into ‘natural’ and ‘anthropogenic’ and the warming in the global mean temperature record was attributed to ‘human causes’. This was used to blame a contrived rise in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events on increases in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. The original work was performed by the Hadley Centre and associated groups [Stott, Tett, Jones, Allen, Mitchell and Jenkins, 2000, Tett, Jones, Stott, Hill, Mitchell, Allen, Ingram, G. S. Jones, Johnson, A. Jones, Roberts, Sexton and Woodage, 2000]. However, the basic climate fraud was established earlier in the US by a small cadre of mathematicians and computer programmers between 1967 and 1981 working at NOAA and NASA. The UK Met Office started work on climate models in the 1970s, [Rowntree and Walker, 1978].

The first steady state air column climate model was published by Arrhenius [1896]. The daily and seasonal changes in temperature were reduced to a single average value produced by an average solar flux. When the CO2 concentration was increased, his model created climate warming as a mathematical artifact of the oversimplified calculation. Arrhenius was motivated by the speculation that changes in CO2 concentration could cause the earth to cycle through an Ice Age. This gradually morphed into the scientific dogma that fossil fuel combustion could cause global warming. Starting in the early 1960s, Manabe’s group at the US Weather Bureau (later part of NOAA) decided to adapt an early weather forecasting computer model to predict ‘climate’. To start, they copied the Arrhenius model and added a 9 or 18 layer radiative transfer model with a fixed relative humidity distribution [Manabe and Wetherald (M&W), 1967]. This added a ‘water vapor feedback’ amplification to the initial warming artifact. When they doubled the CO2 concentration in their one dimensional radiative convective (1-D RC) model they created a fictional 2.9 °C warming. To start, they used their radiative transfer calculation to determine a cooling rate for each air layer. For a ‘CO2 doubling’ the maximum change in this cooling rate in the troposphere at low to mid latitudes is +0.08 °C per day. Then they used a ‘time marching procedure’ to calculate the temperature change in each model layer using 8 hour steps. The cooling rate was recalculated at each step and the miniscule temperature changes were added to the result from the previous step. It took a year of model time (number of steps multiplied by the step interval) to reach a steady state where the temperatures stabilized and the energy flow was balanced. In the real atmosphere, the horse never gets out of the starting gate. The step change temperature is overwhelmed by the diurnal temperature cycle. M&W spent the next 8 years incorporating their 1967 model artifacts into every unit cell of a ‘highly simplified’ global circulation model [M&W, 1975].

Mission creep began at NASA in the early 1970s. The planetary atmospheres group started out by using radiative transfer and aerosol scattering analysis to study Venus and Mars. As funding was reduced at the end of the Apollo (moon landing) program in 1972, the group was directed to start ‘earth studies’ [Hansen, 2000]. In 1976, Hansen’s group blindly copied the M&W 1967 model and added the warming artifacts from 10 ‘minor greenhouse species’ [Wang et al, 1976]. Later, in 1981 Hansen’s group completed the basic climate model fraud by adding a slab ocean model, the CO2 doubling ritual and the calculation of the global temperature record using a contrived set of ‘radiative forcings’ to the 1967 M&W model [Hansen et al, 1981 (H81)]. They ignored the obvious 1940 AMO peak in the temperature record (H81 fig.3) and claimed that they could simulate this temperature record using a combination of three pseudoscientific ‘forcings’ - increased CO2, changes in solar flux and ‘aerosols’ (H81 fig. 5).

As computer technology improved, more radiative forcings were added. Starting with the third IPCC assessment in 2001, the radiative forcings used in the CMIP3 model ensemble were split into ‘human caused’ and ‘natural’ forcings. The models were run for three separate cases with ‘natural’, ‘human caused’ and ‘human + natural’ forcings. A vague statistical argument was used to blame increases in ‘extreme weather’ on human caused radiative forcings. The original work was done by the UK Hadley Centre and associated groups. This is illustrated in Figure 1. All three of the later IPCC Climate Assessments have used this approach. It has also been copied without question by the US Global Change Research Program in their National Climate Assessments.

Figure 1: The source of ‘Net Zero’ - the fraudulent ‘attribution’ of warming in the global mean temperature record to ‘anthropogenic’ causes. The contrived set of pseudoscientific forcings created by the climate models to simulate the global mean temperature record shown in a) are separated into natural and anthropogenic sources. The climate models are rerun using the natural forcings to create a fraudulent ‘natural’ baseline b) and the anthropogenic forcings c) to show the ‘human caused’ warming. A vague statistical argument e) is used to claim that the anthropogenic warming caused an increase in the frequency and intensity of ‘extreme weather events’.

The Hadley Centre has played a significant role in promoting this climate fraud. The division of the radiative forcings into natural and human causes used in IPCC AR5 was described by Jones et al [2013]. Similarly, the creation of a contrived climate sensitivity to CO2 using measured data and the CMIP5 radiative forcings was described by Otto et al [2013]. Starting in 2012, the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society has published an annual supplement ‘Explaining extreme climate events of [Year] from a climate perspective’. Most of the papers published in this series claim that the ‘anthropogenic’ radiative forcings used in the climate models have led to an increase of an ‘extreme weather event’ of one kind or another [Herring et al, 2022 and prior publications in this series]. Peter Stott was one of the editors of this series.

All of the climate modeling work performed at the Hadley Centre that is based on radiative forcings, feedbacks and climate sensitivity is fraudulent. Long wave IR radiative forcings produced by increases in greenhouse gas concentration do not change the energy balance of the earth nor can they produce a measurable increase in surface temperature. It is time to put an end to this massive fraud and shut down all climate modeling activities at Hadley and other climate modeling centers. There is no cost or technical justification for net zero policies including the use of cameras to enforce ULE zones. There is no need to save the world from a non-existent problem.

Blame the Hadley Centre for those ridiculously high energy bills.

Blame the Hadley Centre for those ULEZ cameras.

Blame the Hadley Centre for those windmills.

Blame the Hadley Centre for those solar panels.

Blame the Hadley Centre for those electric vehicles.

Blame the Hadley Centre for Net Zero.

Further Reading

Climate Energy Transfer

Finding Simplicity in a Complex World – The Role of the Diurnal Cycle in climate energy Transfer and climate Change, Roy Clark and Arthur Rorsch 2023.

Radiative Forcing of the Dynamic Equilibrium State, Roy Clark.

Time Dependent Climate Energy Transfer: The Forgotten Legacy of Joseph Fourier, Roy Clark. Early Climate Fraud

A Review of the 1967 Paper by Manabe and Wetherald, Roy Clark.

A Review of the 1981 Paper by Hansen et al, Roy Clark.


Arrhenius, S. (1896), “On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground” The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 41 pp. 237-276. [] Arrhenius

Courtney, R. (1999) “Global Warming: How it all began” John.Daly.Waiting for greenhouse Post 1999. [] Courtney

Folland, C. K., D. J. Griggs and J. T. Houghton (2004), “History of the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research” Weather 59(11) pp. 317-323. [] Folland

available at: [] Folland.2

Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind and G. Russell (1981), “Climate impact of increasing carbon dioxide” Science 213 pp. 957-956. [] Hansen.81

Hansen, J. R. Ruedy, A. Lacis, M. Sato, L. Nazarenko, N. Tausnev, I. Tegen and D. Koch (2000) “Climate modeling in the global warming debate” in Randall, D. A. (Ed.), General Circulation Model Development, International Geophysics Series, volume 70, Chapter 4, Academic Press, San Diego, [] Hansen.2000

Herring, S. C., N. Christidis, A. Hoell and P. A. Stott (2022), “Explaining Extreme Events of 2020 from a Climate Perspective” Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc. 101 (1), pp. S1–S128. [] (and prior years in this series) Herring

Jones, G. S., P. A. Stott and N. Christidis (2013), “Attribution of observed historical near surface temperature variations to anthropogenic and natural causes using CMIP5 simulations” J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 118(10) pp. 4001-4024. [] Jones

Manabe, S. and R. T. Wetherald (1975) “The effects of doubling the CO2 concentration in the climate of a general circulation model” J. Atmos. Sci. 32(1) pp. 3-15. [] Manabe.75

Manabe, S. and R. T. Wetherald (1967) “Thermal equilibrium of the atmosphere with a given distribution of relative humidity” J. Atmos. Sci. 24 pp. 241-249. [] Manabe.67

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 (2013), “Energy budget constraints on climate response” Nature Geoscience, 6 (6). 415 - 416 (2013). [] Otto

also available at:

[] Otto.1

Rowntree, P. R., and J. Walker (1978), “The effects of doubling the CO2, concentration on radiative-convective equilibrium” Carbon Dioxide, Climate and Society (J. Williams, ed.), pp. 18l-19l. Pergamon, Oxford. [] Rowntree

Stott, P.A., S.F.B. Tett, G.S. Jones, M.R. Allen, J.F.B.Mitchell and G.J. Jenkins (2000), “External control of twentieth century temperature variations by natural and anthropogenic forcings” Science 290, pp. 2133-2137. [] Stott

Tett, S.F.B., G.S. Jones, P.A. Stott, D.C. Hill, J.F.B. Mitchell, M.R. Allen, W.J. Ingram, T.C. Johns, C.E. Johnson, A. Jones, D.L. Roberts, D.M.H. Sexton and M.J. Woodage (2000), Estimation of natural and anthropogenic contributions to 20th century temperature change, Hadley Centre Tech Note 19, pp 52, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Response, Meteorological Office, RG12 2SY, UK., [] Tett

Wang, W. C., Y. L. Yung, A. A. Lacis, T. Mo and J. E. Hansen (1976), “Greenhouse effects due to man-made perturbations of trace gases” Science 194 pp. 685-690. [] Wang