New Video : Are Climate Models And The Surface Temperature Record Reliable?

If everyone saw this video, the global warming scam would disappear. Please pass it around.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to New Video : Are Climate Models And The Surface Temperature Record Reliable?

  1. Nicholas Schroeder says:

    Well, the most popular climate model is really dumb.

    Trenberth et al 2011jcli24 Figure 10

    This popular balance graphic and assorted variations are based on a power flux, W/m^2. A W is not energy, but energy over time, i.e. 3.4 Btu/eng h or 3.6 kJ/SI h. The 342 W/m^2 ISR is determined by spreading the average discular 1,368 W/m^2 solar irradiance/constant over the spherical ToA surface area. (1,368/4 =342) There is no consideration of the elliptical orbit (perihelion = 1,415 W/m^2 to aphelion = 1,323 W/m^2) or day or night or seasons or tropospheric thickness or energy diffusion due to oblique incidence, etc. This popular balance models the earth as a ball suspended in a hot fluid with heat/energy/power entering evenly over the entire ToA spherical surface. This is not even close to how the real earth energy balance works. Everybody uses it. Everybody should know better.

    An example of a real heat balance based on Btu/h is as follows. Basically (Incoming Solar Radiation spread over the earth’s cross sectional area, Btu/h) = (U*A*dT et. al. leaving the lit side perpendicular to the spherical surface ToA, Btu/h) + (U*A*dT et. al. leaving the dark side perpendicular to spherical surface area ToA, Btu/h) The atmosphere is just a simple HVAC/heat flow/balance/insulation problem.

    • “Everyone uses it” … hah!!

      Note: The “GreenHouse Effect”

      “Typically websites will show diagrams like the one below labelling this mechanism as a “theory” as if it were based on some fundamental law of nature. So let’s just recap this “theory”. … As a qualitative description of what happens, this illustrates many of the key energy flows. But it is clearly not quantitative. Such descriptions seldom if ever come with figures and none ever show any kind of equation, formulas or any other mechanism by which any of these flows can be calculated.”

    • Macha says:

      +++. Love your work.

  2. Psalmon says:

    Can you send the link for this to Ivanka before it’s too late?

  3. CheshireRed says:

    The Pause was absolutely killing AGW theory. Not with suspect decades-past hindsight or by speculative sceptical argument but by unchallengeable measured observations in real time in the here and now. Nothing unusual was happening to our climate exactly when ‘catastrophic climate change’ was supposed to be running out of control. Not even Tragedy Trenberth could find the missing warming. How could this be?

    Expert climate fire-fighters stepped up: HadCrut’s Phil Jones said ’15 years and we’re in trouble’. IPCC big wig Ben Santer then (arbitrarily) increased the ‘fatal’ Pause time limit to 17 years. Both deadlines came and went and the only catastrophe facing climate science was the impending collapse of their pet theory, as several data-sets approached the symbolically significant 20 year point. Imagine; twenty years with increasing CO2 levels, runaway media and industry hysteria but absolutely positively NO warming.

    True to activist form, the UK Met Office promptly stepped into the breach, heroically revising their own Pause deadline out to….50 years. Just long enough to ensure the pension’s OK, then.

    A normal human reaction to ‘The Greatest Threat To The Planet, Ever’ being falsified would’ve been relief and delight followed by reserved optimism, but that’s not how alarmists saw things. All they could foresee was loss of their grants, jobs and (almost the worst thing) their vaunted reputations. Something had to be done.

    What we now know was done was NASA/GISS, NOAA, NCAR and others have effectively co-ordinated their adjustments of global climate data to prolong what otherwise would by now be a completely busted flush.

    Cooling raw data was transformed into published warming data. State of the art buoy data was thrown overboard to promote a miniscule increase in ocean heat content to pretend the Pause never occurred. Inconvenient historical data was airbrushed from history. This is subterfuge of which Stalin would be proud! Debate was suppressed, sceptics were silenced, sacked or ostracised. You name it, every dirty trick in the book has been played here. Anything to keep the climate gravy train running.

    Think about that: the very custodians of global climate temperature data have cooked the books to keep themselves relevant and enriched. It’s like the police running a drugs cartel or the fire service being on call for a spot of arson. All the way through senior politicians from around the world have looked the other way. Seriously, if that’s not RICO-worthy, what is?

    Note how NONE of these organisations have issued legal summons’ against our host, not even when residing in the single most litigious nation on earth. Strange, eh? (Any normal professional organisation so publicly (and repeatedly) maligned would take action instantly to protect their reputation. Not climate science) The reason is simple; they’d have to defend their case in open court and unlike opinion-based slander/libel this case is solidly evidence-based. It’s clear to anyone who looks that past data-sets have been erased, adjusted and manipulated to suit a pre-determined agenda, namely fitting model projections to ‘confirm’ AGW theory.

    The real killer evidence here is news / media coverage going back decades, including quotes from senior (and therefore credible) scientists of the day. Those cannot be faked or removed, nor could those people have been biased or motivated in any way back when ‘global warming’ theory didn’t even exist. It’s a stroke of genius by Tony to refer to them, as they’re independent ‘Sentinels of Justice’ pointing to the truth that not even corrupt scientists or occupants of the White House can erase.

    So they don’t sue because they’d lose and they know they’d lose, and if they did then necessarily the entire AGW House of Cards would come crashing down. How could it not if the single most important component of AGW theory – observed climate data, is shown to have been manipulated to the point of being worthless?

    I’ve said repeatedly it needs new politicians to use a new broom to sweep away old policy because existing politicians who’ve voted for climate change policies are compromised. Trump has a chance but needs the courage to seize the moment, and even then the financial figures have to make it all justifiable. If he doesn’t then we’re stuck with the lies for decades to come. On one thing we can be sure though: we’re on the right side of this argument. Always have been and always will be.

    • sunsettommy says:

      It doesn’t even have to be a real pause,CheshireRed, since even the warmist warming claims fails anyway, since the IPCC reports projected MUCH greater per decade warming than there is.

      The Satellite data from 1979 shows a .12C per decade rate,while a statistically insignificant warming rate from 1998 on ward of around .05C per decade,which is well below the IPCC .30C per decade rate from their 1990 report:

      “Based on current model results, we predict:
      under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0 3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of
      0 2°C to 0 5°C per decade), this is greater than that seen over the past 10,000 years This will result in a likely increase in global mean temperature of about 1°C above the present value by 2025…”

      The 2007 IPCC still says .30C per decade:

      “For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected.”

      Warmists now ignore this inconvenient evidence as they are deeply committed to being a climate moron.

      • CheshireRed says:

        You’re absolutely right but a message of it’s ‘not warming as fast as predicted’ is easy to manipulate to be ‘increasing warming’ and so on.
        A flat-out pause on the other hand – despite increased CO2, well that’s the antithesis of warming theory and completely disastrous. That’s why they HAD to kill the pause and why so many agencies have co-ordinated their message.

        • sunsettommy says:


          they have NOTHING either way, that is why we bring it up.They are warmist bigots who will ignore the official IPCC projections and the obviously superior Satellite data. They ignore it because they are into pseudoscience environmentalism.

          Surface temperature has data little value when AGW is on the table, because it is an ATMOSPHERE effect. That is why Dr. Karl’s misleading paper was dead on arrival,since it left out the atmosphere in their dishonest paper.

          Basically you have to be stupid AND ignorant to be a AGW supporter.

          • Advocatus Diaboli says:

            I had a discussion about satellite vs. surface temps with a warmist the other day. She told me, “But it’s the SURFACE temperatures that matter — plants and the oceans are on the surface! Satellite data is irrelevant, plants and glaciers don’t care what the temperature is up in the sky.”

            This argument has a surface plausibility, so to speak. I will be running across this person again in the future. Beyond pointing out the spotty and selective nature of the surface station record, what’s the best way to show it’s sat temps that matter most in AGW theory?

          • CheshireRed says:

            Advocatus Diaboli says:
            May 2, 2017 at 6:01 pm

            See Tony’s video from 5:20. He tells you AGW theory is predicated upon atmospheric warming / temps not surface temps.

          • CheshireRed says:

            Advocatus Diaboli says:
            May 2, 2017 at 6:01 pm

            Further to above I should say it’s the troposphere part of the atmosphere which technically is where warming should be. Satellites show nothing unusual is going on in exactly the place AGW theory suggests catastrophe should be occurring.

          • sunsettommy says:


            Her statement is actually ignorant,

            ” She told me, “But it’s the SURFACE temperatures that matter — plants and the oceans are on the surface! Satellite data is irrelevant, plants and glaciers don’t care what the temperature is up in the sky.”

            she is being ignorant because the postulated CO2 greenhouse effect only can work in the Atmosphere. It is where IR can be absorbed in the three narrow bands,which is 100% DONE IN THE ATMOSPHERE.

            Here is the basic AGW hypothesis:

            “The UK Met Office describes the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) hypothesis as follows: “It is now clear that man-made greenhouse gases are causing climate change. The rate of change began as significant, has become alarming and is simply unsustainable in the long term” and the greenhouse effect is depicted on their website thus:


            Solar rays hit the earth and heat up the surface (as shown on the left). The earth’s surface emits infrared radiation back in to space thereby cooling the planet (depicted by two of the red arrows in the right hand picture). Greenhouse gases in the troposphere trap some of the infrared rays reflecting heat back down to the surface. The AGW theory suggests that increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, caused by humans, is raising global temperatures.”


            But as shown in the link, the postulated tropospheric “hot spot” doesn’t exist.

          • Advocatus Diaboli says:

            CheshireRed and sunsettommy: Thanks a bunch for the explanations and for the references (see below; there was no “reply” link to your posts). This is great, I understand the theory much better now. And Tony’s video was fantastic as usual.

          • Advocatus Diaboli says:

            Oh, and my reply did show up at the end where I would have wanted it. Feared it would appear near the top of the subthread.

          • sunsettommy says:

            Advocatus, here is a deeper but still easy to follow essay,I wrote about the missing “hotspot” 6 years ago:

            Tropospheric Hot Spot report


            Again it shows that the IPCC says it is an Atmosphere effect too.

            I posted the information from the IPCC, HadAT2 radiosonde data and Satellite data.

  4. noman says:

    Climate Models are Not Climate Reality.
    The Elliptical Orbit around the Sun Rules.
    Lack of spots has an effect as well.
    Unless you live on a dough nut shaped planet inhabited by goreites
    using a flame thrower as the only truth you need.
    Me nope, I look at cycles. And how they roll.
    I know for a fact that the 1960’s were much colder. How?
    I lived it. Now thats “TRUTH”.
    And, we are colder now and thats more truth.
    I have lived in the desert for 37 years and its greener now. More truth.
    What more do I need than Reality based Truth.


  5. Susan Corwin says:

    The “map” is not the “territory”.
    The models for my thesis were useful to “tune” the h/w but they weren’t the h/w.

    Wheat prices surging due to snow in the western great plains is very “interesting”.
    That is a reality that I hope the “religiously believe” folk will not use to
    ……. “decrease the surplus population, unseen, in 3rd world countries”

  6. AndyG55 says:

    Further on what I alluded to last night

    EPICA CO2 v GRIP Temperature

    CO2 Low: Temperature HIGH

    CO2 High: Temperature LOW.. like it is currently, barely a small bump above the COLDEST period in 10,000 years.

    And that small spike in CO2, from whatever cause… …great for the planets plant and other life, more please.

    No use at all for warming anything, unfortunately.

    No warming from CO2 over oceans

    No warming in our convective gravity/density controlled atmosphere.

    We are destined to remain at the less-warm part of the current interglacial.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *