Misinformed Iowa Professors

University of Iowa professors Peter Thorne and Jerry Schnoor tell the world that Iowa will get a lot more 90 degree days in the future as a result of Iowa residents emitting CO2.

(67) Rob Hogg on Twitter: “Univ. of Iowa professors Peter Thorne and Jerry Schnoor 

All evidence shows the exact opposite.  The National Climate Assessment shows peak temperatures in Iowa much lower than prior to 60 years ago.

Temperature Changes in the United States – Climate Science Special Report

Average daily maximum temperatures in Iowa have plummeted over the past century.

The frequency of 90 degree days has plummeted in Iowa over the past century.

As CO2 levels have increased, the frequency of 90 degree days has plummeted.

Peak temperatures in Iowa have plummeted.

The number of 100 degree temperature readings in Iowa has plummeted.

 Iowa’s worst heatwave occurred in 1936, when Logan had 41 days over 100 degrees from June 16 to September 6.

14 Jul 1936, Page 1 – The Des Moines Register at Newspapers.com

08 Jul 1936, 10 – The Daily Times at Newspapers.com

13 Jul 1936, 9 – The Gazette at Newspapers.com

Why are public health and engineering professors pretending they are climate prophets? They obviously didn’t do any research.

Peter S. Thorne – University of Iowa College of Public Health

Jerald L. Schnoor | College of Engineering | The University of Iowa

Peter Thorne: Communicating the best available science – University of Iowa College of Public Health

Center for Global & Regional Environmental Research

Professors  Peter Thorne and Jerry Schnoor are simply making numbers up.  There is no evidence to back up their claims, and it is absurd to suggest that Iowans can control atmospheric CO2 levels – as China and India build hundreds of new coal fired power plants.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

54 Responses to Misinformed Iowa Professors

  1. T. Erickson says:

    I wonder if the Big Ten Academic Alliance https://www.btaa.org/ is at play here. That means that they are connected with Penn State and Michael Mann and all of his wacky ideas that pollute the climate field.

    These “professors”, or should I say vampires (since they can’t seem themselves in the mirror of reality) need to leave their heat islands and see what is really happening away from their “Towers or Babel”.

  2. Gator says:

    I will say it again.

    If it was important enough to pass a laws for truth in “advertising”, why in the Hell have we not passed laws for truth in science. “Climate experts” would make even the most dishonest 19th century snake oil salesmen blush, and green with envy.

    • Charles Higley says:

      I received my Biochemistry PhD from the University of Iowa but, fortunately that was long before these idiots arrived.

    • Disillusioned says:

      “Climate experts” would make even the most dishonest 19th century snake oil salesmen blush, and green with envy.

      Bingo! When I was young, people looked upon a priest/minister as righteous; he could be trusted and would dare not do evil. That imploded. We now see them as human with all the frailty and temptations as everyone else.

      ‘Scientist’ became the new untouchable. That too will implode.

    • Gerald Machnee says:

      The problem with that is who will decide?

      • Gator says:

        Who decides on false advertising now? We do, with the help of applicable laws.

        As stands now, “science” is handed down from on high, and there is no legal recourse for reigning in these demigods when they grossly misbehave. This needs to change.

      • Disillusioned says:

        When people shout “fire” in a crowded theater, they have broken the law and will be held to account. Scientists and people in positions of authority who spread false fears and promote baseless panic should be held to at least the same minimum standard. Whether ignorantly going along or willfully promoting these deceptive claims, they should be liable for their actions.

  3. Don B says:

    What Iowa or the entire United States does is pointless if the goal is to reduce emissions; fortunately, carbon dioxide is beneficial, not harmful.

    New York Times, 2017: “Over all, 1,600 coal plants are planned or under construction in 62 countries”

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/01/climate/china-energy-companies-coal-plants-climate-change.html

    • Don B says:

      By the way, those 62 countries signed the Paris Climate Accord, promising to someday start thinking about maybe reducing emissions.

    • Disillusioned says:

      What Iowa or the entire United States does is pointless if the goal is to reduce emissions; fortunately, carbon dioxide is beneficial, not harmful.

      Bingo. Unfortunately the religious zealotry of climate changeism doesn’t allow for heretical talk, no matter whether it is based in reality.

  4. Robertv says:

    I suppose they calculated it is more beneficial for their career to join the climate hoax gang. Sad that so many smart people have no backbone.

  5. Johansen says:

    They are ‘pretending to be climate prophets’ because they have no creativity and nothing to offer in engineering education, would be my guess. They’re nice guys, I’m sure….

  6. Disillusioned says:

    In those photos, I see two clowns on a gravy train who haven’t a care in the world – who know they will be believed, no matter what nonsense they promote. They are scientists, and therefore they deserve your respect – and your belief in their [funded] cause.

  7. Jl says:

    Just messaged both of them to come look at this blog. Should be funny…

  8. gregole says:

    Those smiley faced professor idiots can’t even do some simple research. But they all ready to tell everyone (else) how to live.

  9. KevinPaul says:

    They probably accept the administration’s data in good faith, not realising it has been bastardised to hell.
    If they only did what Tony has done and analysed the raw data and investigated what the algorerythums actually do they would have a rude awakening epithany.

  10. mddwave says:

    From “JERALD L. SCHNOOR – BRIEF C.V.”
    My favorite is “The simple model by Kwon and Schnoor of global carbon dioxide concentrations in the biosphere, oceans, and atmosphere (Kwon and Schnoor, Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 1994) has been used as a workshop tool by EPA.” I wonder how simple it is?

    “• Climate Change and Sustainability. Schnoor participated in the 1992 Rio Earth Summit as a delegate of the United Nations Association, Iowa Division. Following the Earth Summit, he published his viewpoint in

    Environmental Science and Technology and lectured widely on global poverty and the importance of controlling greenhouse gases (Sigma Xi Distinguished Lectures, Association of Environmental Engineering Professors Distinguished Lectures). The simple model by Kwon and Schnoor of global carbon dioxide concentrations in the biosphere, oceans, and atmosphere (Kwon and Schnoor, Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 1994) has been used as a workshop tool by EPA. For his research and teaching, he was elected to the National Academy of Engineering in 1999 for “model development and contributions to global environmental decision making.” Ten years after the Earth Summit, Jerry Schnoor and students attended the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, South Africa, and reported that while some progress has been made, there is still much to be done (“Examining the World Summit on Sustainable Development,” Environ. Sci. Technol. 36: 429A–430A, 2002). The students have gone on to start green companies, inspire a core course 53:107 Sustainable Systems, and create a major initiative for sustainability on campus. Schnoor was Chair of the first Energy Advisory Council at UI, 2003-2007, a predecessor of the Office of Sustainability. At the upcoming COP21 Paris climate talks, Jerry is an official media representing Chemical & Engineering News of the American Chemical Society. He and his students will be reporting daily on their impressions of the climate summit.

    • Johansen says:

      Sounds like a typical academic echo chamber of praise. A lot of these guys live in a bubble…. I’m sure in person he’s a great guy, though

  11. gofer says:

    This is the other 16 year old girl with Thunberg in Congress. It’s really disturbing that untold numbers of these young people who are totally ignorant of the subject and are being controlled by green groups and large donations from elites like Gates and wealthy Foundations. They are pawns, little brainwashed “zombies.”

    From Teen Vogue….. Janet Margolin

    “Life as we know it is coming to an end, thanks to rapid environmental destruction,” the 16-year-old says. As executive director of the group, which is made up of high school students and led entirely by women of color, Jamie believes the fix “isn’t simply about slapping a solar panel on the climate crisis,” but about dismantling systems of oppression that caused it in the first place: colonialism, consumerism, racism, and patriarchy. “We tackle climate change from an intersectional lens,” she says. “And we believe that the people who feel the worst effects of an issue are the experts and must be at the forefront of that issue’s solutions.”

    Focusing on those most impacted is the crux of her passion, and the organization has followed suit because “climate justice is the key to all justice,” she says. “Twenty thousand people die from air pollution alone each year in the United States, and the majority of those people are people of color. That’s not a coincidence.”

    https://www.teenvogue.com/story/jamie-margolin-21-under-21-2018

  12. gofer says:

    Head of Key Meteorological Organization Slams Climate Extremists, in Unprecedented Move:

    The head of the world’s foremost weather science organization issued a surprise rebuke to climate alarmists in remarks published on Sept. 6, marking what may be, according to some experts, one of the most significant developments in the climate debate in decades.

    Petteri Taalas, the secretary-general of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), told the Talouselämä magazine in Finland that he disagrees with doomsday climate extremists who call for radical action to prevent a purported apocalypse……….

    Taalas said that establishment meteorological scientists are under increasing assault from radical climate alarmists, who are attempting to move the mainstream scientific community in a radical direction. He expressed specific concern with some of the solutions promoted by climate alarmists, including calls for couples to have no more children.

    “While climate skepticism has become less of an issue, we are being challenged from the other side. Climate experts have been attacked by these people and they claim that we should be much more radical. They are doomsters and extremists. They make threats,” Taalas said.

    “The latest idea is that children are a negative thing. I am worried for young mothers, who are already under much pressure. This will only add to their burden.”

    According to Myron Ebell, the chair of the Cooler Heads Coalition—an organization that challenges climate alarmism—Taalas’s remarks are significant because he heads the WMO. The WMO is one of the two organizations that founded the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988. Since being formed, the IPCC has become the leading institution worldwide to promote the theory that human activity contributes to global warming.”

    https://www.theepochtimes.com/in-unprecedented-move-head-of-key-meteorological-organization-slams-climate-extremists_3076409.html/amp?__twitter_impression=true

    • Gator says:

      My buddy Bjorn is doing God’s work…

      Economist Lomborg: Climate Fear “Result Of 3 Decades Of Alarmist Rhetoric Based On Exaggerations And Lies”

      Greta, the Swedish teenage activist is calling for radical cuts in CO2 emissions – on a scale that would have profound impacts on the world’s market system. Moreover, Lomborg calls the demands immoral. Lomborg says it would be far wiser to invest money in bringing the world’s poor out of grinding poverty rather than to try to mitigate climate change.

      Fear based on 30 years of lies and exaggerations

      “Rich countries that tell poor countries not to use fossil energy for the benefit of the environment are acting immorally,” Lomborg told the BZ.

      Lomborg also sharply criticized Thunberg, telling BILD news daily: “Greta Thunberg fears the end of the world due to climate change. This fear is the result of three decades of alarmist rhetoric based on exaggerations and lies.”

      €43 billion for 0.00001°C of temperature reduction yearly

      Lomborg also called Germany’s “Energiewende” – transition to green energies – “the best example of a failed climate policy” which has proven to be “incredibly costly and ineffective.”

      “Global warming will be reduced by 0.001 degrees at most by 2100 for 43 billion euros a year,” he told the BZ. Lomborg blames the adults for panicking Ms Thunberg and using her “to push through an agenda that costs trillions but brings almost no benefits.”

      https://notrickszone.com/2019/09/18/economist-lomborg-climate-fear-result-of-3-decades-of-alarmist-rhetoric-based-on-exaggerations-and-lies/

  13. James says:

    They are liars.

    All liberals lie, cheat and steal

    • Gator says:

      Correction: All leftists lie, cheat and steal.

      Leftist call themselves “liberals”, and that is just one of their myriad, and largest lies.

  14. Jack Hilgen says:

    This site is called “realclimatescience”. But there is not actual science being done here. No actual data is being collected, and then reviewed by qualified experts. Just bantering about with random, cherry-picked data without any realtime scrutiny, then back-slapping about how you pulled one over on people who are experts in their fields.

    If all these experts are so wrong, why is it just climate science? Why don’t you pick on particle physics? Perhaps they’re faking it too.

    Do you really think there is a cabal of climate scientists coordinating a political agenda? From tens of countries? Faking data that gets published? Really?

    I notice that none of you attack the actual science: the published studies that investigate what is going on with our planet. You attack news stories and use anecdotes. If you want a serious discussion, publish a paper that is peer-reviewed. Scientists have an incentive to prove others wrong, but they need facts to do it. That’s why it isn’t done very often. Because other smart people have already beat them to the punch and put out real data. There *are* real debates about science by the scientists. They just need to use data to support their arguments, so it’s hard work.

    If you’re serious about having an intellectual argument about the facts (not a slamfest about liberals), read some of the scientific papers and talk with the scientists.

    Climate change is real, manmade and a serious issue. It will still be true if you don’t believe it.

    • tonyheller says:

      The entire temperature record back to 1893 is “cherry-picked” but climate models are real? You are quite a clown.

      • Jack Hilgen says:

        Yes. This is exactly what I’m talking about. Deny, don’t answer my questions, then call names.

        What climate models? All of them are fake? All of them over decades and decades of research? That’s a lot of work for them.

        Tony . . . you can call me a clown. Criticize instead of understand. Whatever you’d like to do. It seems like you get a real sense of identity with it.

        But climate change is real, it’s manmade, and a major problem, independent of your beliefs or insults.

        • Gator says:

          Climate change is real. The only constant in climate is change. Expecting our climate not to change is lunacy and extreme ignorance.

          Jack, do me a favor…

          1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

          2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

          There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

        • Gerald Machnee says:

          Jack said:
          **But climate change is real, it’s manmade, and a major problem, independent of your beliefs or insults.**
          You claim there is no science done here. Show us your science – prove that climate change is “manmade”
          Waiting………….
          While you are at it, show me any MEASUREMENTS of warming by CO2. If you cannot do so, do not critique what you cannot prove.

        • tonyheller says:

          You didn’t address anything in the blog post. You are simply citing your religious dogma.

    • Gator says:

      One should never speak out of ignorance Jack. A lesson you clearly have not learned. If you would care to shed your ignorance, and join the real scientific discussion, you will need to spend years reading before commenting again.

      This site is one of the few sites you will find that actually studies data. Your comment to the contrary illustrates your extreme ignorance.

      Attacking skeptics as “cherry pickers” is what mental health professionals call “psychological projection”. Back slapping is what pal review is, so again, projection. What we do is actual peer review, we are critical of the studies, instead of rubber stamping them. Many of the regulars here have related degrees, I have a Remote Sensing degree that I earned after spending many years studying geology, geography, cartography and climatology.

      We have read the papers, and that is what makes us skeptics. I have no issue with what the science says, because the science tells us that there is nothing unusual happening. Only the grantologists and far left activists say there is a problem.

      Bjorn Lomborg, who is a believer, just had this to say…

      In a recent interview with the online Berliner Zeitung (BZ) here, economist Björn Lomborg said that 16-year old Greta Thunberg’s demands “will put people in danger”.

      Greta, the Swedish teenage activist is calling for radical cuts in CO2 emissions – on a scale that would have profound impacts on the world’s market system. Moreover, Lomborg calls the demands immoral. Lomborg says it would be far wiser to invest money in bringing the world’s poor out of grinding poverty rather than to try to mitigate climate change.

      Fear based on 30 years of lies and exaggerations

      “Rich countries that tell poor countries not to use fossil energy for the benefit of the environment are acting immorally,” Lomborg told the BZ.
      Lomborg also sharply criticized Thunberg, telling BILD news daily: “Greta Thunberg fears the end of the world due to climate change. This fear is the result of three decades of alarmist rhetoric based on exaggerations and lies.”

      €43 billion for 0.00001°C of temperature reduction yearly

      Lomborg also called Germany’s “Energiewende” – transition to green energies – “the best example of a failed climate policy” which has proven to be “incredibly costly and ineffective.”

      “Global warming will be reduced by 0.001 degrees at most by 2100 for 43 billion euros a year,” he told the BZ. Lomborg blames the adults for panicking Ms Thunberg and using her “to push through an agenda that costs trillions but brings almost no benefits.”

      Then there are the over 31,000 working scientists who agree with me…

      http://www.petitionproject.org/

      Jack, you need to read the actual science, and stop supporting this immoral genocide.

    • Gerald Machnee says:

      Jack:
      **But there is not actual science being done here. No actual data is being collected, and then reviewed by qualified experts. Just bantering about with random, cherry-picked data without any realtime scrutiny, then back-slapping about how you pulled one over on people who are experts in their fields.**
      You are too full of it and yourself.
      Tony has written high quality computer programs (using computer science) and has analyzed the data used by NASA and NOAA and clearly demonstrated the faults and the MANIPULATION used into fooling the public.
      You, however, are INCAPABLE of showing any problems with the analysis. Drive by attacks like yours do not count.

    • neal s says:

      You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time. You’ve been fooled Jack. It is up to you whether or not you will stay fooled.

      You think the alarmists are backed up by real science. But all that ‘real science’ is based on a false premise that the earth is warming. Tony shows over and over again how this is a false premise.

      What you think is peer review, is actually pal-review. There are many papers that disprove CAGW that never get accepted to be published because they fail pal-review.

      Just recently Tim Ball has prevailed in Canadian court over mann, because mann failed to share his data and code although he had previously agreed to do so. It is clear that mann knew his ‘work’ would not hold up to the disinfecting power of sunlight such that he would rather lose his court case, than to let everyone know what a fraud he really is. It seems you would prefer to be influenced by someone who should be in the state pen for his fraud, rather than at penn state where he still is.

      You can continue to accept the conclusions of those who profit from the whole CAGW meme, or you could maybe think for yourself. It is so much easier to remain smugly convinced in the lies of CAGW than it is to think for yourself.

      There are none so blind as those who will not see. Unthinking support of CAGW impresses no one except possibly others who also remain fooled.

      https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/09/sorry_greta_even_your_fellow_swedes_arent_buying_the_climate_change_claptrap_anymore.html

      Everyone makes at least one mistake. You can’t change the fact that you were fooled. But you don’t have to stay fooled.

    • pmc47025 says:

      Jack asks:
      “Do you really think there is a cabal of climate scientists coordinating a political agenda?”

      I do think there is a political agenda pushing climate crisis propaganda.
      OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL:
      “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore”
      “we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy”

      However, for the issue under discussion, my “beliefs” are irrelevant. The Iowa professors claim dangerous heat will be more frequent and severe due to burning fossil fuels, but, temperature records over the last 100 years of burning fossil fuels show the opposite. The predictions are propaganda, not science.

    • Rhys Read says:

      I guess you haven’t read the Climategate emails. That is exactly what is happening.
      Look at the Peter Ridd case. Look what happened to Judith Curry. There are a few people controlling the narrative.
      Most of the “climate scientists” actually have degrees in climate communications and environmental justice. Not really scientists.
      Please cite a scientific study that proves carbon dioxide causes catastrophic warming empirically, not on models. The burden of proof is on your side

    • Joel says:

      Mr. Hilgen’s statements read like another gentleman just itching for a debate on climate. I wonder if he’s genuinely interested…

    • Jason Calley says:

      Jack says: “This site is called “realclimatescience”. But there is not actual science being done here. No actual data is being collected, and then reviewed by qualified experts.”

      That has to be one of the most clueless statements I have read in a long time. The only comparable thing I can think of is the flat-earther who thinks the International Space Station is just “a 3D hologram being projected from the North Pole”.

    • Disillusioned says:

      Jack,
      Tony DID cite facts – real facts. All you did was merely make claims. It is too bad you cannot discern the difference.

      REAL science is about trying to disprove hypotheses to see if they hold up. It is absolutely not about religious Apologetics (protection of a belief). You, Sir, are an Apologist. That is not name-calling. It is exactly what you did. It is what you ARE.

    • Disillusioned says:

      Jack said, “If all these experts are so wrong, why is it just climate science? Why don’t you pick on particle physics?”

      Jack, Which logical fallacy did you commit there? Was that a straw man or a red herring?

    • Robert Austin says:

      Jack,
      You say “Scientists have an incentive to prove others wrong”. This statement shows your complete naivety on the workings of institutional science. Ask Peter Ridd and other scientists viciously attacked for questioning the orthodoxy and threatening the academic gravy train. Come back when you have facts to dispute Tony’s facts. Appeals to authority will result in nothing but derision here.

  15. Al Shelton says:

    @Jack Hilgen…….
    Here is your test.. please tell us your score.

    https://www.thegwpf.com/the-big-climate-change-quiz/

  16. Chuck says:

    Keep up the great work!! We need it!

  17. establ says:

    8 / 12
    You’ve done well. Are you really a student?

  18. scott allen says:

    So we have two university of IOWA professors claim that CO2 will warm the planet.
    But they have some how forgot that IOWA is home to over 50 MILLION pigs and 4 MILLION cows. One of the by-products of pigs and cows is methane, which is about 40-60 times more powerful then CO2 as a green house gas (depending on your source). Cows produce 140-374 pounds of methane per year (about 80 million pounds in Iowa) and a pig produces 64 pounds per year (about 320 million pounds in Iowa). Now factor in the methane as a green house gas.
    According to the State of Iowa tax site (for 2018), fuel stations (bio/diesel/ethanol) sold about 209 million gallons of fuel (at 18 pounds of CO2 per gallon of fuel).
    Doing a quick glance at the math wouldn’t it make more sense to get rid of the pigs and cows in Iowa, to stop green house gases? But it is Iowa and the pig and cattle farmers pay these two guys wages so I guess they picked the political thing to do.

    • establ says:

      “wouldn’t it make more sense to get rid of the pigs and cows in Iowa, to stop green house gases?”

      Get rid of them how and for what reason? To stop the “climate crisis” lol

      I would be happy to get rid of them. I’ll take a suckling pig and a side of black Angus.

  19. Buck Turgidson says:

    Iowa just had one of its coldest snowiest winters on record. Reality means nothing to alarmists like these characters, who ill bet drove a co2 emitting car(s) from iowa city to cedar rapids. Looks like they also do a lot of co2 emitting air travel.

  20. ok
    all i really wanted was to see a 10-20-30 year chart from a single weather station
    preferably near cedar rapids
    any links?

    • Gator says:

      The profs were discussing Iowa as a whole, not just the library in Cedar Rapids. All the graphs you need are located above.

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.