by Nicola Scafetta
My new book is now published:
The Frontier of Climate Science: Solar Variability, Natural Cycles and Model Uncertainty
For more than twenty years, my research has explored the interplay between climate dynamics, solar variability, and complex systems. During this time, I have watched the climate debate become increasingly polarized, often reduced to a narrow narrative that leaves little room for uncertainty or alternative interpretations.
My new book, The Frontier of Climate Science, was written to address this gap. It is not intended as a counter‑dogma, nor as a political statement. It is a scientific journey — one that examines what we know, what we assume, and what remains unresolved about the climate system.
In this article, I share some of the motivations behind the book and highlight a few of its central themes.
Over the years, I have become increasingly convinced that the climate system cannot be fully understood through a single explanatory lens. The prevailing attribution framework is the one currently advocated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It assigns nearly all post‑1850 warming to anthropogenic forcings. However, this assessment rests on computer global climate models (GCMs) that, while sophisticated, still struggle with fundamental aspects of natural variability.
Book synopsis
Book Synopsis
How well do we truly understand Earth’s climate? What natural forces remain beyond our grasp? Is Net Zero the only viable path forward?
The Frontier of Climate Science explores climate dynamics through physics, complex systems, and astronomy, synthesizing several decades of peer-reviewed research.
The book critically reviews the scientific foundations of modern climate theory, the evolution of IPCC assessments, and the limits of global climate models (GCMs) when confronted with observations. It investigates natural variability across multiple timescales, including oceanic oscillations, solar variability, and astronomical cycles driving both solar and climate variability, integrating satellite data, paleoclimate reconstructions, and empirical modeling approaches.
From this evidence emerges a balanced view of climate risk, favoring pragmatic adaptation over narrowly defined policy pathways such as Net Zero. Rich in insights and analytical approaches, the book helps readers understand climate variability, assess risks, think critically, and explore key open questions in climate science.
Endorsed by the International Association for Gondwana Research (IAGR) and by the “Centro di Ricerca Previsione, Prevenzione e Controllo dei Rischi Geologici” (CERI), Sapienza University of Rome.
From the Foreword by Prof. M. Santosh:
“This book … offers an excellent window into the deep realms of climatology, complex systems physics, and astronomy in addressing three major aspects: (1) how well do we truly understand Earth’s climate? (2) what natural forces remain beyond our grasp? (3) is Net-Zero the only viable path forward?“
“From an authoritative analysis, the author formulates insightful perspectives that demystify the exclusive attribution of global warming in the last century to human activities, and places more importance on the dynamic interplay of terrestrial and cosmic forces.“
“This work is an excellent window into climatology as a dynamic science, and calls for adaptive strategies grounded in economic sustainability and social equity to address climate change issues.“
From the Foreword by Prof. Alberto Prestininzi:
“In The Frontier of Climate Science, Scafetta constructs a theoretical and didactic journey that guides the reader through the multiple dimensions of the climate system. The book is conceived as a critical dialogue in which the processes that govern Earth’s climate – many of which remain poorly understood or underestimated – are examined in depth.“
“The goal is to distinguish facts from rhetoric, restoring to science its role as a pluralistic, iterative, and non-dogmatic inquiry.“
“Scafetta’s work fits fully within this long trajectory of scientific inquiry, but with a theoretical and systemic perspective… The Frontier of Climate Science is thus a work that invites reflection, verification, and debate.“
From the Foreword by Prof. Judith Curry:
“The seminal contribution of The Frontier of Climate Science is a new scientific paradigm that provides a broader interpretive framework capable of resolving the inconsistencies of the current anthropogenic climate change model.“
“Solar variability and its role in climate change remain among the most profound and unresolved issues in contemporary climate science. Scafetta makes a compelling argument that it is time to bring the Sun back to the center of climate discourse.“
“A healthy scientific culture embraces pluralism, methodological rigor, and open dialogue. Only through this lens can climate science remain credible, adaptive, and truly informative… Scafetta’s framework offers a valuable opportunity for engagement.“
1. Why I wrote this book
My goal was to bring these threads together into a coherent, interdisciplinary perspective — one that reflects not only the breadth of the scientific debate, but also the many dimensions of the problem that I have personally explored in my own scientific publications over the past two decades, from solar variability to climate oscillations, from data biases to empirical modeling.
2. Climate as a multi‑scale, oscillatory system
One of the most striking features of Earth’s climate history is its rhythmic natural structure. Throughout the Holocene, we observe:
- multidecadal oscillations (~60 years),
- centennial fluctuations,
- millennial‑scale cycles such as the Eddy cycle,
- and the Hallstatt–Bray cycle.
These patterns appear in ice cores, marine sediments, tree rings, and historical documents. They also correlate with solar and astronomical proxies. These cycles are not speculative; they are among the most robust features of paleoclimate research.
Yet current GCMs do not reproduce these oscillations with the correct amplitude or timing.
This is not a minor detail. If models cannot capture the natural background variability of the climate system, then attribution regarding the global warming from 1850–1900 to the present becomes inherently uncertain, because any unmodeled natural contribution to the warming (for example due to solar activity increase during the same period) necessarily reduces the fraction of warming that can be confidently assigned to anthropogenic forcings. And if the anthropogenic contribution to past warming is smaller than assumed, then its contribution to future warming — and therefore the associated climate risk — must also be proportionally reduced.
3. Observational datasets: essential but imperfect
Another motivation for writing the book was the growing divergence between different observational datasets.
Surface temperature records are indispensable, but they are also affected by:
- urbanization and land‑use changes,
- station relocations,
- instrumentation shifts,
- homogenization algorithms that may introduce artificial convergence.
Satellite datasets, by contrast, show 20–30% less warming since 1980, particularly over Northern Hemisphere land areas. Rural‑only station reconstructions also reveal weaker secular warming.
These discrepancies do not undermine the reality of global warming, but they do expand the uncertainty range. A mature scientific field should acknowledge this openly.
4. The Sun: a more complex actor than often assumed
My work on solar variability began more than two decades ago, partly through my involvement with NASA–JPL’s ACRIM experiment, which was designed to measure total solar irradiance from space. Over time, it became increasingly clear to me that the Sun’s influence on climate is significant, but that a proper assessment requires addressing the long‑standing controversies surrounding solar variability on timescales longer than the 11‑year solar cycle — controversies that remain central to understanding the natural contribution to modern climate change.
The book reviews:
- the ACRIM–PMOD controversy,
- spectral solar variability,
- magnetic modulation of cosmic rays,
- cloud‑related mechanisms,
- and the possible role of planetary harmonics.
The point is not that “the Sun explains everything.” Rather, it is that current models incorporate an overly simplified representation of solar variability, which may help explain why they attribute essentially zero post‑1850 warming to solar changes.
This assumption deserves reexamination.
Contemporary hypotheses that secular and multimillennial solar activity has changed only minimally inevitably fail to account for the strong correlations observed throughout the Holocene between solar variability and documented climatic shifts. If long‑term solar variability is assumed to be negligible, these empirical relationships become scientifically inexplicable, underscoring the need to revisit the underlying assumptions.
5. The “hot model” problem and climate sensitivity
A recurring theme in recent literature is the tendency of many CMIP6 models to run too hot. They often:
- overestimate warming since 1980,
- fail to reproduce the 2000–2014 pause,
- miss the quasi‑60‑year oscillation,
- and predict a tropical tropospheric hot spot that remains elusive.
These issues directly affect estimates of equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS).
My empirical analyses suggest:
- ECS ≈ 2.2 ± 0.5 °C,
- or ≈ 1.1 ± 0.4 °C if long‑term solar variability is larger and additional mechanisms are active.
A lower ECS implies more moderate future warming and reduces the need for extreme mitigation pathways.
6. Policy implications: a call for realism, not complacency
The book is not a political treatise. But scientific conclusions inevitably have policy implications.
If natural variability plays a larger role than currently assumed, if observational datasets contain unresolved biases, and if ECS is lower, then the justification for the most aggressive net‑zero strategies becomes less clear. Moderate mitigation combined with adaptive resilience may be more effective and economically sustainable.
This is one of the central messages of the book, where I conclude that the overall body of empirical evidence suggests that implementing the aggressive SSP1 net‑zero mitigation policies may ultimately not be necessary to meet the Paris Agreement target of keeping global temperatures below 2 °C by 2100, since this same target could also be achieved under the more moderate and affordable SSP2 pathway, which emphasizes adaptation combined with moderate mitigation.
This is not a call for inaction. It is a call for evidence‑based realism.
7. Planetary harmonics: a possible origin of the observed climate cycles
A further theme explored in the final part of the book concerns the physical origin of the climatic harmonics observed in both modern and paleoclimate records. Over the years, I have shown that many of these oscillations — including the ~20‑year, ~60‑year, ~115‑year, and longer millennial and multimillennial cycles — closely match the harmonic structure produced by the gravitational and electromagnetic interactions among the planets, particularly Jupiter and Saturn.
This does not imply a simplistic deterministic mechanism. Rather, it suggests that the solar system behaves as a coupled dynamical system in which planetary motions can modulate solar activity and, through it, Earth’s climate. The coherence between planetary harmonics, solar variability, and climatic oscillations across the Holocene is striking, and it is difficult to interpret these correlations as mere coincidences.
In the book’s sixth and final section, I examine these models and mechanisms in detail, reviewing the astronomical foundations, the empirical evidence, and the potential physical pathways — from solar modulation to tidal forcing — that could link planetary dynamics to long‑term climate variability. While this line of research remains open and complex, it offers a promising framework for understanding the origin of the quasi‑periodic structures observed both in solar activity and climate change that current GCMs fail to reproduce.
8. What I hope this book contributes
My intention is not to close the debate, but to broaden it. Climate science is a dynamic field, and its strength lies in its capacity for self‑correction.
I hope the book encourages:
- a more pluralistic scientific dialogue,
- a deeper appreciation of natural variability,
- a renewed focus on empirical evidence,
- and a more cautious interpretation of model projections.
Above all, I hope it reminds readers that science advances not through consensus, but through continuous questioning.
9. Acknowledgments: the value of scientific dialogue
I am deeply grateful to the distinguished scholars who contributed the forewords to this book — Prof. M. Santosh, Prof. Alberto Prestininzi, and Prof. Judith Curry. Their perspectives reflect decades of experience across geology, geophysics, and climate science, and their willingness to engage with the themes of the book is both an honor and a testament to the importance of open scientific dialogue.
I also wish to thank the International Association for Gondwana Research (IAGR) and the Centro di Ricerca Previsione, Prevenzione e Controllo dei Rischi Geologici (CERI) at Sapienza University of Rome. Their support and scientific environments have played a meaningful role in fostering the interdisciplinary approach that underpins this work.
10. Closing thoughts
The climate system is complex, fascinating, and still not fully understood. My book is an attempt to explore this complexity with intellectual honesty and scientific curiosity. I look forward to the discussions it may inspire.
The book can be purchased at:
An excerpt of the book with the contents, forewords, and introduction can be downloaded from here:
Congratulations, Nicola!
Your new book is a welcome addition to the climate debate.
Merci pour vos informations !
Drum roll please. Cue in the ad homs from the usual suspects, devoid of any scientific value.
Thank you for the book. I look forward to reading it.
I was cleaning out my bookmarks the other day and noticed a compilation of hundreds of studies on solar from just one year. This wasn’t a list of nutjob authors. Regardless of the IPCC perspective, I think there is too much evidence to dismiss solar so blithely as the consensus seems to have done. To what an extent solar has some influence, who knows. That is for future generations to figure out.
Thanks again.
Setting aside the uncertainities for measurement errors/measure deficiencies, tsi has generally risen since the 1700’s which would indicate the sun is playing a larger factor than acknowledged by those fixated on GHG’s . Worth noting that other studies show a smaller increase in TSI over the same period.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Total-Solar-Irradiance-TSI-from-1610-to-2014_fig3_281267447
Thanks for the reference. The graph shows that except for the 11-year solar cycle, solar irradiance has been nearly constant since 1940. Too bad you are not able to see that.
Research indicates that solar output has changed over centuries, with periods of higher and lower activity. But by all means, near-term is all that’s relevant for many.
Are you suggesting the shift to a flat trend in solar activity has an immediate effect? Thus all anthropic warming since 1940? No delayed effect via the oceans storing the heat? Is the solar activity such that the increase in solar activity 1850 to 1940 brought the earths temp with immediate increases or is there a delayed effect that takes 40-70 years to fully emerge. Accepting the above would that not be an attempt to underweight the solar effect?
M Starkely,
If you are referring those questions to me; the only thing I’m ‘suggesting’ is what I wrote. But, I tend to agree with what you seem to be suggesting – we haven’t yet seen the full effects of increasing ocean heat content.
Kid, It is hard for non-scientists to figure out science. Probably good that you have given up on it.
https://scienceinsights.org/how-does-solar-activity-affect-climate-change/
ganon
Like I said, hundreds of studies on solar. Maybe they know more than you apparently think you know. Lack of self awareness seems to be one of your long suits.
That was funny!
Sure, Mr. Manager – I was referring to you. 100s of studies on solar – what was your understanding of what they said with respect to solar forcing change over the last hundred years?
Congratulations on your new book. I agree, harmonics play a central role. All four Jovian planets are involved as part of a resonant solar system.
I’ve known this for some time but have only recently been able to demonstrate a robust link to climate.
A 3560-Year Jovian Solar and Climate Cycle
https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.27244.01925
The core problem with ECS is water vapor feedback. WVF is clearly negative, not positive. And there are two major blunders (and many more..) why scientists get it wrong.
1. The regional and seasonal proxy hold a large positive lapse rate component. The lapse rate should be a negative feedback in the real world, but in these two proxies it is positive. That means first of all, these proxies do not work. But it also means, just assuming a negative lapse rate component, scientists confuse that as an indication of a strong water vapor feedback.
For instance, the observed slope might be 2W/m2/K, while the Planck Response is assumed to be 3.3W/m2/K, suggesting a negative Feedback of 3.3 – 2 = 1.3W/m2/K. This could be split up into 1.8W/m2/K of water vapor feedback and -0.5W/m2/K in lapse rate feedback, as 1.8 – 0.5 = 1.3. In fact that is the central estimate as with AR6.
With the large positive lapse rate component, say +1W/m2/K, in these proxies, the whole idea falls apart. You would end up with something like 0.3 + 1 = 1.3, that is a minimal water vapor component.
2. At least the interannual proxy might work, but there we have an even bigger problem. Scientists consistently use OLS regressions on this proxy (and the others). Given there are errors in the x-values (Ts), that is illicit and gives a far too low slope. Using a more reasonable regression, like TLS, the slope turns out consistently larger than the Planck Response, meaning a negative feedback.
https://greenhousedefect.com/the-holy-grail-of-ecs/regrettable-regressions-a-reanalysis
The natural WV negative feedback to SST change is 7% of the current total of 86.4W/m2 of latent heat loss by radiation to space per deg K. That is 6 W/m2 deg K. This also creates 7% more water vapour and 7% nore precipiatuin (The atmospheric water vapour of earth is turned over every 9 days, it doesn’t hang about, and all that latent heat is lost to space from the Tropopause on condensation by the 2nd law, constantly replaced by the EMR enrgy from the Sun. Maintaining the Earth’s enrgy balance a very dynamic balance on any serious planetary time scale , there is only 2 years of solar energy in the top 200m of the oceans, the static/ instantaneous/average energy balance system has a huge amount of energy constantly passing through its thin tropospheric skin. The majority of it returned to space by water vapour to the Tropopshre, where the latent heat relased as radiative loss to space through radiately transparent atmosphere upper Troposphere – all of it. It can’t go back anywhere. The models simply guess something else happens and WV only changes by 2-3% per degree, because their AGW isn’t enough to create 7% more WV without another natural energy input to change, even with Hansen’s dodgy GHE feedback from the extra WV.
Of course we KNOW natural change didn’t stop happening 2Ka BP in the natural record of proxy temps, archeology and history, and the rest of the energy over and above the IPCC’s 1.6W/m2 of AGW to release the 7% more energy in WV in response to the associated 1.5K change is from other natural causes, TBD but real. But muddlers can’t admit that, the no natural change condition is an IPCC grant funding tenet of the CO2 as dominat cause of change faith – so they invent a scientifically ridiculous “surface energy deficit”.
That says that oceans only release WV at 2-3% more per K in climate science, different from other science. That makes their models balance and makes the temperature sensitivity of their models to radaitive change look about 2.5 times greater as regards the WV feedback effect. “Surface energy deficit” is a sort of dark matter for astrophysicists or phlogiston for chemists. In effect, they add the postive feedback from GHE caused by additional water vapour, and claim the cooling effect of the same water vapour is insignificant.
So climate models are wortheless fairy tales because their major assumptions are wildly wrong, designed to support a narrative, not explain how the Earths strongly fed back energy balance works, using the data we have and can easily apply to determine the strong net negative feedbacks. As I have. It will be published together with a specific critique of the so obviously wrong GCMs, why their models are so bizarrely wrong and their predictions so far out in measured fact. We already have the data we need to quantify the natural negative feedback responses empirically. So we don’t need no models to know how Earth creates its own large stablislising feedbacks to any perturbation. More than able to stabilise the range of perturbations of up to 100W/m2 within a relatively limited range of GMST change (10-15K?) over the last 500Ma. 1.6W/m2 is really noise. Simple physics. The causes of natural change are harder, but their dynamic control a doddle to figure, if you stare at every aspect of it for 12 years until the pieces come together.
Catt, Brian, An Empirical Quantification of the Negative Feedbacks of Earth’s Energy Balance (2025) SSRN: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5220078
Hi Brian (and E. Schaffer) –
“…we don’t need no models to know how Earth creates its own large stablislising feedbacks to any perturbation…”
In a famous paper published in 1967, Manabe and Wetherald calculated the effects of CO2 and water vapor on the Earth’s energy balance. Apparently their results differ from yours. Where do you suppose they went wrong?
(The 1967 paper has been cited about 2,500 times in subsequent research, and as you probably know, Manabe was recently awarded a prestigious prize for his work on climate modeling.)
And yet current versions of Manabe’s model show the greatest deviations from observations:
https://rclutz.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/cmip5-models-and-tropo-temps-observed.png
I would rather ask where I suppose they were right..?
As with their work, and many others, notably Ramathan, they all got lapse rate feedback wrong.
Climate and Weather are interchangeably linked. Weather changes can be measured in the length of a human life span. Climate change is modeled, and the ability to confirm these models are well outside the lifespan of anyone reading this. The majority of co2 in our atmosphere is coming from human induced land degradation, not petroleum. There are numerous measurable projects around the globe, that show when the carbon content of soils and biomes increase, weather patterns stabilize.
Excellent attempt to bring about reasoned thinking (e.g., an acknowledgment of ‘the pause’). It’s never possible to just get along with those who are fundamentally certain the way the rest of us must think and act is “settled truth.”
Congratulations, Nicola! I look forward to a good read.
A welcome change here (and necessary)
A couple of comments on the above if I may:
a) At point 2. ‘millennial‑scale cycles such as the Eddy cycle’. This is very important. I refer back to Javier’s https://judithcurry.com/2018/06/28/nature-unbound-ix-21st-century-climate-change/
specifically fig 122. Since then it became definite that the inflection points of this cycle are times of change. Whether the change is mild or drastic remains to be seen for the future. Evidence shows that for RWP at 173CE – a cycle peak – it was quite mild (except for the earthquakes and tsunamis, but unknown for weather). But for 2346bce, a cycle root, it was cataclysmic.
Why bother? : because the next peak is not far away
b) re point 7. What is definitely known (at my end) is that the driver is planetary. And that gravity it at the root of the matter. The 2346bce event is now known in detail.
Pingback: Solar Cycles and Natural Rhythms: A New Lens on Climate Dynamics - Climate Cosmos
“The prevailing attribution framework is the one currently advocated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It assigns nearly all post‑1850 warming to anthropogenic forcings.”
If the IPCC is correct, then the story of the century has been hiding in plain sight: The former natural variability of climate has been replaced by anthropogenic forcing and nobody is questioning why it has happened or exactly how natural variability can be stopped.
clyde’s comment “….or exactly how natural variability can be stopped.”
fwiw – The assertion that natural variability became static has never been credible.
Quantitation is important. Don’t need to question why the ‘former’ natural variability has been replaced by anthropogenic forcing, because it hasn’t – it is still there, it is just that anthropogenic forcings are currently about an order of magnitude larger than stochastic ‘natural’ variability.
https://fiveable.me/introduction-climate-science/unit-7/natural-anthropogenic-climate-forcings/study-guide/30lCbxGLxnnAt2mZ
And yet, despite time acting like a low-pass filter, reducing the amplitude and slope of historical peaks, what is happening today does not appear unprecedented. What is happening currently is exactly what one would expect based on the behavior of past interglacials.
The evidence for high correlation between CO2 and global average temperature appears to be spurious. During the COVID shutdowns, there is weak support for the claim that CO2 has much impact on temperatures. See the graphs here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/03/22/anthropogenic-co2-and-the-expected-results-from-eliminating-it/
Clyde said, “What is happening currently is exactly what one would expect based on the behavior of past interglacials.”
Nope, past interglacials never exceeded 300 ppm CO2. That is what I would expect based on past interglacials.
Clyde,
You link to a four-year-old discussion about the source of the atmospheric carbon rise. Have you not yet understood that the undisputed empirical fact that the rate of carbon accumulation in the atmosphere is a bit less than half the rate of anthropogenic carbon emissions means that natural processes for the last century have been removing more carbon from the atmosphere than they have added? Natural reservoirs cannot be net sources when they have been measured to be net sinks.
Here is another way to understand it: There is general agreement that the planet has been “greening”, i.e., there is more carbon in the biosphere than there was a century ago. There is general agreement that the oceans are becoming less basic (“acidifying”) which is another way of saying there is more carbon in the oceans than there was a century ago. Of course there is more carbon in the atmosphere than there was a century ago. Ask yourself where is there LESS carbon now than a century ago. I think you will realize the only place where there is less carbon is in the fossil fuel reserves. Does that tell you anything?
Bushaw: When I suggested an increase during an interglacial, I was referring to temperature. After all, the definition of an interglacial is based on temperature and its effect on continental ice sheets and sea level. The glacial/interglacial stages were identified and named long before agency was assigned to CO2. An open mind would immediately be suspicious of a supposed driver having a higher concentration today than it what it was during the Eemian, when all but Alpine glaciers were gone from Greenland, while the Greenland Ice Sheet is still present today. That is what I was inferring with my suggestion that the apparent correlation between CO2 and temperature is spurious. While both variables are increasing, suggesting correlation, there is a problem with the “quantitation.” Earth should be much warmer and there should be much less ice if the temperature was being driven by CO2.
Andrews: You apparently didn’t notice that I am the author of the 4-year-old article. The age of the article is not germane. Why should I change my opinion when the data haven’t changed? An assumption that I made, and I apologize for not making the assumption explicit, is that IF CO2 is driving the temperature increase, a decrease in the anthro’ flux rate should be manifested in a decrease in the temperature increase rate. Instead, the temperature increased as though CO2 had no effect at all, as demonstrated by the small r-squared values.
You should be concerned about rates, not the integrated sums of a complex dynamic system. That is, under your assumptions, if CO2 is the main driver of temperature, an increase in anthro’ emission rates should result in warming, but a decrease in anthro’ emission rates should result in a decrease in the warming rate, even if the total atmospheric concentration increases.
Spencer, I already answered you.
B A Bushaw | March 11, 2026 at 10:52 am |
I am “one”, and you can’t tell me what I should “exactly expect”. I already told you what I expect, and your suddenly restricting it to temperature only, after the fact, is a apparent CYA attempt. Thanks anyway.
Clyde,
Your deductions from the 2020 Covid drop in human emissions are nonsense. In that year emissions dropped 6% compared to the previous year but recovered in 2021. That means one should expect the RATE Of INCREASE in carbon levels, not the levels themselves, to have temporarily, for one year, dipped 6%. With the seasonal variations, etc, the data is far too noisy to see that. The levels themselves, of course, continued to increase. You are dreaming if you expect to be able to see a change in the rate of temperature increase from this tiny perturbation.
You continue to show that you do not understand the carbon conservation argument. Perhaps you should discuss it with Dr. Curry. Following is an excerpt from the 2025 DOE Climate Assessment Report that she, Koonin, and the others signed off on:
“The annual increase in concentration is only about half of the CO2 emitted because land and ocean processes currently absorb “excess” CO2 at a rate approximately 50 percent of the human emissions. Future concentrations, and hence future human influences on the climate, therefore depend upon two components: (1) future rates of global human CO2 emissions, and (2) how fast the land and ocean remove extra CO2 from the atmosphere. We discuss each of these in turn. ”
I suspect they went to the trouble of making this explicit because they were embarrassed that some (you, Ron Clutz, Geoff Sherrington, Ed Berry…) continue to dispute the anthropogenic source of the atmospheric carbon increase, and that discredits other critiques of textbook climate science, and skepticism in general.
Clyde, here’s yet another study also finding that humans contribute about 1/5 of rising CO2 compared to natural sources. Atmospheric CO2: Exploring the Role of Sea Surface
Temperatures and the Influence of Anthropogenic CO2, Robbins (2025) From Conclusion:
“Analyses of SST and atmospheric CO2 data, acquired since 1995, produce an estimated atmospheric CO2 increase, possibly attributed to human emissions, of around 20 %, or less, of the total increase since the industrial revolution, thus inferring that around 80 % or more of the increase is of natural origin.
Further data examination points to an almost linear longer-term relationship between SSTs and atmospheric CO2 since at least the late 1950s, and is suggestive of nature working to maintain a temperature-dependent atmosphere/surface CO2 balance. Recent historical evidence of such a balance may come from chemical measurements that indicate a brief peak in atmospheric CO2 levels centred around the 1940s, and that coincided with a peak in global SSTs.”
My Synopsis:
https://rclutz.com/2025/08/30/more-evidence-temperatures-drive-co2-levels-not-the-reverse/
Ron,
Oh dear, Robbins makes another perpetual motion scheme proposal. Go to the CO2 COALition website for a rebuttal.
David, big mistake, you should have just quoted the specific answer you sought, though I know why you didn’t. You’ve instead invited a source entirely antithetical to nearly all your views about CO2.
The CO2 Coalition as an antagonist to nearly all your views about CO2 and climate. From its site:
The CO2 Coalition is the preeminent scientific organization in the world dedicated to providing facts, resources and analysis about climate change and the vital role carbon dioxide plays in our environment. In carrying out our mission, we seek to strengthen the understanding of the role of science and the scientific process in addressing complex public policy issues. Approaches to policy that do not adhere to the scientific process risk grave damage to the economy and to science.
Our Members
The CO2 Coalition’s nearly 200 members contribute their time and considerable expertise in advancing our mission. Our common purpose is to inform people about the science of climate change – particularly as it relates to the beneficial gas carbon dioxide – and to correct many misconceptions that have become commonly held beliefs.
Many of our members are recognized as world experts in their fields of knowledge and possess advanced degrees. These degrees – awarded by some of the world’s top universities – are in diverse areas of study, including physics, chemistry, biology, ecology, geology, engineering, medicine, meteorology, business and economics. In addition, their credentials include the Nobel Prize in Physics, as well as membership in prestigious organizations such as the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Collectively, they have obtained hundreds of patents, published thousands of technical papers, founded companies and provided expert testimony.
Our Mission
We seek to:
• Present the truth about the benefits of carbon dioxide as a plant food necessary for sustaining all life.
• Promote an appreciation of the role of science in addressing complex public policy while adhering rigorously to the scientific method – a hundreds-year-old approach to research that requires hypotheses be tested by real-world observations and empirical data.
• Reverse the politically driven corruption of science that undermines the education of children and poses grave risks to civilization.
What Science Tells Us
Carbon Dioxide and Climate
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is known as a greenhouse gas because it is one of several gases that have a warming effect on the atmosphere. However, its warming power is small compared to that of the primary greenhouse gas: water in the form of water vapor and clouds. Having even greater influence over long-term climatic changes are solar cycles and variations in the Earth’s orbit and axial tilt.
The most important role of CO2 is that of a plant food that makes life on Earth possible. Currently atmospheric CO2 is near historically low levels, and recent increases from human CO2 emissions have been beneficial to both our ecosystems and to humanity.
By any scientific measure, CO2 is not a pollutant.
I hadn’t explored the CO2 COALition until recently. It’s quite an operation.
It was established in 2015 “for the purpose of educating thought leaders, policy makers, and the public about the important contribution made by carbon dioxide to our lives and the economy.”
Imagine that: an educational organization dedicated to a molecule – who woulda thought? I guess the Mercer’s, Koch’s, Scaife’s, et al. thought. Upon realizing the phenomenal benefits of CO2 extolled by the CO2 COALition, one can only conclude that we should be generating as much of it as we can. No such thing as too much of a good thing, eh?
Among the COALition’s formidable staff: an education advisor, a visual arts advisor, a vp for marketing and multimedia (+ 2 associates), 2 research associates, a development officer, a multimedia and production associate, and of course a legal advisor.
Jungletrunks,
We are not going to agree on everything. Perhaps we should be satisfied for now to know that you, me, the CO2 COALition, Bushaw, Pat Cassen, Dr. Curry and all other authors of the 2025 DOE Climate Assessment report, Energy Secretary Chris Wright, and all who understand carbon conservation agree that human emissions are responsible for the modern increase in atmospheric CO2. There remain a few holdouts like Ron Clutz.
Pat, like all back office duties, shoring up most enterprises, you forgot secretaries. That’s rather inconsiderate isn’t it? Maybe even thoughtlessly non-inclusive. Don’t many scientific bodies require non-scientific duties? Maybe you didn’t go that far thinking about it. No problem.
David, thanks for not mentioning temperatures increasing. Therefore I guess we both agree on your short list.
Pat, thanks. I tried to post a similar AI analysis of the CO2COALition. However it was held in moderation (usually meaning deep sixed), so I’ll try again with all nastiness removed.
What’s the matter JT – too much adrenaline and fingers shaking too much while trying to change your screen name?
David is wrong. Robbins shows that SSTs and the outgassing thereof drive CO2 in the past and today.
Ron,
Supposed Robbins was correct, that 80% of the rise was from natural causes. What would that mean for the sign of the quantity Net Global Uptake? NGU is defined as integrated human emissions minus atmospheric carbon accumulation for some period. It is MEASURED to be positive in the current era. Please think before you answer.
Wrong again David. Human emissions are sequestered the same as natural CO2.
https://rclutz.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/history-of-atm-co2-1.png
The graph above is produced from Skrable et al. dataset Table 2. World atmospheric CO2, its C‐14 specific activity, anthropogenic‐fossil component, non fossil component, and emissions (1750 ‐ 2018). The purple line shows reported annual concentrations of atmospheric CO2 from Energy Information Administration (EIA) The starting value in 1750 is 276 ppm and the final value in this study is 406 ppm in 2018, a gain of 130 ppm.
The red line is based on EIA estimates of human fossil fuel CO2 emissions starting from zero in 1750 and the sum slowly accumulating over the first 200 years. The estimate of annual CO2 emitted from FF increases from 0.75 ppm in 1950 up to 4.69 ppm in 2018. The sum of all these annual emissions rises from 29.3 ppm in 1950 (from the previous 200 years) up to 204.9 ppm (from 268 years). These are estimates of historical FF CO2 emitted into the atmosphere, not the amount of FF CO2 found in the air.
Atmospheric CO2 is constantly in two-way fluxes between multiple natural sinks/sources, principally the ocean, soil and biosphere. The annual dilution of carbon 14 proportion is used to calculate the fractions of atmospheric FF CO2 and Natural CO2 remaining in a given year. The blue line shows the FF CO2 fraction rising from 4.03 ppm in 1950 to 46.84 ppm in 2018. The cyan line shows Natural CO2 fraction rising from 307.51 in 1950 to 358.56 in 2018.
Ron Clutz-
From the abstract of Skrable et al. 2022 (what I infer to be your source, DOI: 10.1097/HP.0000000000001485):
“Our results show that the percentage of the total CO2 due to the use of fossil fuels from 1750 to 2018 increased from 0% in 1750 to 12% in 2018, much too low to be the cause of global warming.”
It would appear from this, and their subsequent discussion, that the authors have the profoundly mistaken notion that it is only the instantaneous percentage of fossil fuel CO2 that causes global warming. They don’t seem to grasp the idea that the increase in CO2 is caused by anthroprogenic emissions even as that component is exchanged with other sources and sinks.
Surely you understand this basic concept.
Incidentally, it would help if you would provide links to original sources when you toss out a graph of obscure provenance.
Pat, the numbers and the graph speak for themselves, there’s no confusion about “instantaneous percentages” of FF Co2. They concluded:
“Despite an estimated 205 ppm of FF CO2 emitted since 1750, only 46.84 ppm (23%) of FF CO2 remains, while the other 77% is distributed into natural sinks/sources. As of 2018 atmospheric CO2 was 405, of which 12% (47 ppm) originated from FF. And the other 88% (358 ppm) came from natural sources: 276 prior to 1750, and 82 ppm since. Natural CO2 sources/sinks continue to drive rising atmospheric CO2, presently at a rate of 2 to 1 over FF CO2.”
Pat: “Surely you understand this basic concept.”
Surely you jest.
The source of new CO2 is irreversible chemical reactions, not ocean/biosphere outgassing-adsorption trying maintain equilibrium for the new CO2 levels.
ChatGPT’s opinion:
The rise in atmospheric CO₂ is known to be overwhelmingly anthropogenic because the mass balance, carbon‑isotope fingerprints, and O₂ decline all point in the same direction: humans emit roughly twice as much CO₂ as accumulates in the air each year, while oceans and land biosphere together absorb the remainder, meaning the natural system is a net sink, not a source; the atmospheric \delta ^{13}\mathrm{C} trend has become steadily more negative, matching the isotopic signature of fossil carbon rather than ocean outgassing; and atmospheric O₂ has declined at a rate consistent with fossil‑fuel combustion and inconsistent with a natural CO₂ source. Claims such as Skrable et al. that rely on the short residence time of individual CO₂ molecules confuse it with the much longer adjustment time of a concentration perturbation—carbon atoms cycle rapidly, but the excess CO₂ introduced by emissions decays only over many decades to centuries. A single, authoritative, peer‑reviewed rebuttal that cleanly demonstrates this distinction and reproduces the observed rise with a simple carbon‑cycle model is:
Cawley (2011), Energy & Fuels, “On the Atmospheric Residence Time of Anthropogenically Sourced Carbon Dioxide.” DOI:10.1021/ef200914u
If we may paraphrase Ron – wrong again Ron.
BAB gets his advice from a robot programmed with alarmist propaganda.
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/jimbob-child-activist.png
Worse, the robot cites a 2011 paper to rubut a study published in 2022.
How about more up to date research, like Multivariate Analysis Rejects the Theory of Human-caused Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Increase: The Sea Surface Temperature Rules
by Dai Ato
” In conclusion, this study is the first to use multiple regression analysis to demonstrate that the independent determinant of the annual increase in atmospheric CO₂ concentration was SST, which showed strong predictive ability.
However, human CO₂ emissions were irrelevant. This result indicates that atmospheric CO₂ has fluctuated as natural phenomenon, regardless of human activity.”
Ron, so you can’t address the content, hell, you can’t even spell rebut. No suprise there. BTW, do you have any publications that show that you understand what you are talking about. Your blog and sloppiness therein indicate that is not the case.
Ron, the 2011 seminal paper prebuts your 2022 and Ato papers.
I know, AI can be a … when you are making up lies. Heres some more:
[ChatGPT] Dai Ato’s paper reaches its “human emissions are irrelevant” conclusion because the statistical setup builds in the wrong causal structure, mis-specifies the carbon‑cycle physics, and uses regression in a way that guarantees a spurious SST‑dominant result. The core problems fall into four categories.
🔍 Mis-specified regression structure
Ato regresses annual CO₂ growth rate on annual SST anomalies and annual fossil‑fuel emissions. That design has two fatal flaws:
– CO₂ growth rate is strongly autocorrelated, while SST is also autocorrelated. Regressing one autocorrelated series on another produces artificially high significance even when no causal relationship exists.
– Emissions are cumulative, not interannual “wiggles.” The atmospheric rise is driven by the integral of emissions, not their year‑to‑year variability. Using annual increments makes emissions appear statistically weak even though they dominate the long‑term trend.
This is a classic case where regression on non‑stationary, co‑trending variables produces misleading coefficients.
🌡️ Misinterpretation of the CO₂–temperature relationship
Short‑term CO₂ growth fluctuations do correlate with ENSO‑driven SST changes. That is well known: warm years reduce land uptake and increase natural outgassing. But:
– These fluctuations ride on top of a long‑term anthropogenic trend.
– The natural carbon cycle remains a net sink, not a source.
– SST explains interannual variability, not the multidecadal rise.
Ato treats the variability signal as if it explains the trend, which is a category error.
📉 Omitted-variable and collinearity problems
Emissions and SST both rise over time, but SST has smoother year‑to‑year behavior. In a multivariate regression with collinear predictors:
– The smoother predictor often absorbs the trend.
– The noisier predictor (emissions) appears “insignificant.”
– The model then “predicts” CO₂ using SST alone, but only because both share the same long‑term upward shape.
This is not evidence of causation; it is a textbook artifact of collinearity in trending time series.
🌊 Violating carbon‑cycle physics
The paper assumes that SST alone determines net ocean–atmosphere CO₂ flux. But:
– Ocean uptake is increasing, not decreasing.
– The ocean is absorbing ~25% of human emissions, not emitting net CO₂.
– The mass balance requires that natural fluxes are negative (a sink), not positive.
Any model that attributes the atmospheric rise to SST must also explain why the ocean is simultaneously taking up more carbon than it releases. Ato’s analysis never addresses this contradiction.
🧪 Why the conclusion is physically impossible
Even if SST perfectly predicted annual CO₂ growth rate, the mass balance still holds:
\Delta C=E_{\mathrm{anth}}+F_{\mathrm{nat}}.
We know from inventories, ocean chemistry, and O₂/N₂ measurements that
F_{\mathrm{nat}}<0.
Therefore the rise must be anthropogenic, regardless of any regression result.
A statistical model cannot overturn a conservation‑of‑mass constraint.
Sorry, Ron, I really have to agree with B A Bushaw and David Andrews that you don’t seem to understand what you’re reading in your (again, unsourced) references.
You said “…the numbers and the graph speak for themselves…”
If only.
A few questions for you:
1. What exactly do the authors mean when they say that the increase in CO2 *PERCENTAGE* from 0% to 12% is “…much too low to be the cause of global warming”, if they don’t mean that they think it’s the percentage of CO2 (after all the various exchanges that occur) that matters? Which, of course, is wrong.
2. Dai Ato says: “…this study is the first to use multiple regression analysis to demonstrate that the independent determinant of the annual increase in atmospheric CO₂ concentration was SST…”. Easy to believe it’s the first; have you really examined what this guy did?
3. If CO2 emissions went instantaneously to zero, would the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increase or decrease? Show your work. No partial credit.
I think we’ve been through all this before. Why bother? It’s the challenge, I guess.
…if they don’t mean that they think it’s the percentage of FOSSIL FUEL CO2…
Ron, you said, “Worse, the robot cites a 2011 paper to rubut [sic] a study published in 2022.”
I have had several exchanges with ChatGBT and Copilot on the topic of climate change. Typically, the LLM rolls with boiler plate that supports the consensus paradigm. However, invariably, I have challenged the initial responses and the LLMs immediately respond with profuse apologies for obviously being wrong. That scenario usually goes through about 3 iterations before it stops trying to BS me and we can then have a peer-to-peer exchange.
I did have one particularly hilarious exchange with ChatGPT. I had gotten it to acknowledge that it could not provide support for its assertions and I was expecting to be able to continue. However, it then came back with the exact SAME verbiage that it had acknowledged as wrong, a couple of paragraphs earlier. I now have an agreement with Copilot not to try to brow beat me and stick to facts it can support.
One of the redeeming features of the LLMs is that they never feel a need to boost their ego by insulting me.
Why do we continue to have this “anthropogenic” theme as a cause or even THE cause of global warming?
Here is what happened, reported in 2012 on WUWT. Start quote –
“The scientists’ final draft of the 1995 (IPCC) Report said plainly, on five separate occasions, that no evidence of an anthropogenic influence on global climate was detectable, and that it was not known when such an influence would become evident.
“However, a single scientist, Dr. Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, rewrote the draft at the IPCC’s request, deleting all five statements, replacing them with a single statement to the effect that a human influence on global climate was now discernible, and making some 200 consequential amendments.
“These changes were considered by a political contact group, but they were not referred back to the vast majority of the authors whose texts Dr. Santer had tampered with, and whose five-times-stated principal conclusion he had single-handedly and unjustifiably negated.
“We now have the evidence of Prof. “Phil” Jones of the University of East Anglia, in one of the recently-released Climategate emails, that the warming of the past century falls well within the natural variability of the climate – consistent with the conclusion that Dr. Santer had negated.”
It is past time to decide if we want hard science or politicized story-telling to dominate our lives on climate change.
Geoff S
Good thing Santer corrected outdated information, anthropogenic effects were clearly observed by 1995. Callendar made first observations in the late 1930’s.
https://protonsforbreakfast.wordpress.com/2021/02/21/guy-callendar-precis-of-his-foundational-paper-on-global-warming/
Whether Santer was correct or not, or even whether he found a mouse on his doorstep–whether he threatened to beat Pat Michaels or not–making those changes to the report without notification was wrong, sleazy and puts the rest of his work under suspicion. It was something a Trumpian might do.
Thomas, You seem to have missed the point – IPCC asked Santer for the review.
Geoff, “Here is what happened, reported in 2012 on WUWT”. No, that may be what was reported on WUWT (such a reliable source-lol) but you have no idea of what actually happened.
We have this “anthropogenic theme” because it is responsible for roughly 90% (or more) of current climate change.
Also, judging by your post, looks like you went with politicized story-telling over hard science. No surprize there.
Santer claimed proof of human cause of global warming in his paper Nature July 1996 entitled: A search for human influences on the thermal structure of the atmosphere From the abstract:
“The observed spatial patterns of temperature change in the free atmosphere from 1963 to 1987 are similar to those predicted by state-of-the-art climate models incorporating various combinations of changes in carbon dioxide, anthropogenic sulphate aerosol and stratospheric ozone concentrations. The degree of pattern similarity between models and observations increases through this period. It is likely that this trend is partially due to human activities, although many uncertainties remain, particularly relating to estimates of natural variability.”
An article published the same month in World Climate Report was entitled:“Clearest Evidence” For Human “Fingerprint?” Results clouded if more complete data used The WCR essay concluded:
“We are frankly rather amazed that this paper could have emerged into the refereed literature in its present state; that is not to say that the work is bad, but that there are serious questions—similar to ours—that the reviewers should have asked.
The inescapable conclusions:
1. The vast majority of the “fingerprints” of the greenhouse effect are found way up in the atmosphere, especially in the stratosphere.
2. The “detection” models that were used either don’t predict very much future warming or were run with the wrong greenhouse effect and produce absurd results when the right numbers are put in.
3.And finally, down here in the lower atmosphere, the evidence is much more smudged and is based upon a highly selected set of data that, when viewed in toto, shows something dramatically different than what the paper purports.
The period that Santer et al. studied corresponds precisely with a profound warming trend in this region. But when all of the data (1957 to 1995) are included, there’s no trend whatsoever! We don’t know what to call this, but we believe that at least one of the 13 prestigious authors on this paper must have known this to be the case.
https://res.cloudinary.com/dhla0ygix/image/upload/v1562251342/Revised-figure-14_i69o3s.png
Ron, you might want to investigate the difference between “proof” and “evidence”.
I also had trouble finding the “World Climate Report” that you quote. Well, AI (ChatGPT) didn’t:
“The group you’re looking for is World Climate Report (WCR) — a now‑defunct, industry‑funded blog and newsletter run by Patrick Michaels and colleagues at the Greening Earth Society (GES) and Western Fuels Association. It was one of the earliest organized efforts to attack Ben Santer’s 1996 IPCC detection‑and‑attribution work.
The key point: World Climate Report absolutely did try to refute Santer’s 1996 IPCC Chapter 8 findings, and it did so as part of a coordinated campaign with other fossil‑fuel–aligned groups.
🧭 What “World Climate Report” actually was
– A contrarian climate newsletter/blog active from the mid‑1990s through the 2000s.
– Run by Patrick J. Michaels, Chip Knappenberger, and others associated with the Greening Earth Society (GES) — a front group created by the Western Fuels Association, a coal cooperative.
– Its mission was to undermine mainstream climate science, especially attribution findings.
A 1996 issue of World Climate Report is archived online, confirming the entity’s existence and its role as a GES publication.
🎯 How WCR targeted Santer’s 1996 IPCC work
WCR was part of a broader, coordinated attack on Santer following the 1995–1996 IPCC Second Assessment Report (SAR). The most aggressive component came from the Global Climate Coalition (GCC), but WCR amplified the same claims.
Key elements of the campaign:
– Accusations of “scientific cleansing” — alleging Santer improperly edited Chapter 8 of the IPCC report after review.
This originated in a GCC memo but was echoed by aligned groups, including WCR.
– Claims that Santer manipulated text to exaggerate human influence.
– Media amplification through outlets like The Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, and industry‑funded newsletters such as World Climate Report.
– Direct letters and pressure on the IPCC demanding retraction or republication of Chapter 8.
The scientific community — AMS, IPCC leadership, and many researchers — publicly defended Santer and rejected the allegations as unfounded and politically motivated.
🧩 Why WCR went after Santer
Santer’s 1996 detection‑and‑attribution chapter was the first time the IPCC concluded that:
“The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.”
This was a watershed moment. Groups like WCR, GCC, and Western Fuels saw it as a direct threat to fossil‑fuel interests and launched a coordinated campaign to discredit both the science and the scientist.
WCR’s role was to provide a pseudo‑scientific veneer for these attacks — publishing articles, newsletters, and op‑eds claiming the IPCC process was corrupt and that Santer’s conclusions were invalid.
🧠 Why this matters historically
The WCR/GCC attacks on Santer are now widely recognized as one of the earliest large‑scale, coordinated disinformation campaigns targeting climate attribution science. They set the template for later efforts to undermine consensus findings.”
Ron,
We could debate all day whether the anthropogenic climate change “fingerprint” in 1996 was convincing or not. Are you arguing that it is still not convincing in 2026? And do you still argue that human emissions are not responsible for the rise in atmospheric carbon? I have not been on your site since you blocked my posts on that topic.
David, you argue that high human CO2 emissions are responsible for the rise in atmospheric carbon. Uh, okay.
Certainly humans are partly responsible for increasing atmospheric carbon, even largely so, but so what? CO2 and temperature by themselves are a weak pair.
Defining CO2 as the predominant cause for increasing temperature is way too simplistic–just like most pairs are simplistic, say like H2O. It’s not quantifiable towards all the complex external influences going on beyond said equation.
Much like poker; you’re going all in with a pair of aces, while simply assuming you have the strongest hand against the house. So what?
JT,
Simplistic, from the simple minded. Scientists consider and investigate every climatic effect that they can think of. Your dismissal is what is simplistic and hollow, kinda like you.
“Scientists consider and investigate every climatic effect that they can think of.”
That’s the problem, too much “thinking of”—but little of said imagination is reproducible. Peck on that for awhile.
JT, you have already demonstrated that you don’t understand how science proceeds – consider everything and reject all that can’t be supported by convincing evidence. Thanks for demonstrating that again. You problem is that you don’t think enough. but that is likely unrepairable. Squawk – jerk on that for a while.
I disagree with IPCC “consensus science” AKA ” cargo cult science” , so I must be funded by Big Oil. Show me the money.
Or maybe you just don’t understand the science – that is pretty obvious. Feel free to tell us what causes your willfull ignorance, if you are able to recognize it.
Ron, I just had a brief look at your blog. In the most recent post, figure 1 “… while temperatures fluctuated up and down ending flat”.
Your drawing a perfectly flat line through the data, doesn’t make the data flat. I’d be embarassed, but maybe that is not in your repetoire. Don’t you know how to do a linear regression?
And why do you use TLT data instead of surfaces temperatures. Must be because TLT warming is only ~ half of surface warming. I’m kinda surprised that you don’t use stratospheric temperatures to show that the Earth is cooling.
Read better. The flat line is the average temp anomaly.
Gee, that’s great Ron. The average temperature anomaly over a given period has a single value and will always be a flat line. Thanks for the insight – like I said, I’d be embarassed.
We all know that you can get any trendline you want simply by choosing the starting and ending points, like Santer did. The reality is that for a given period of time temps go up and down for a multitude of reasons, but if temps at the end are the same as the beginning, then no warming or cooling has occurred.
Ron, I’m not interested in your excuses and deflections. You made a stupid misrepresentation; that you can’t admit it speaks volumes. Bye bye.
Here’s the chart BAB finds objectionable.
https://rclutz.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/co2-1995-to-2024-overlay.png
It’s pretty simple: Starting with the ENSO neutral year of 1995 until another neutral year 2023, temperature anomalies went up and down but ended the same. A warming spike in 23-24 is yet to be explained, but is returning to the mean in 25-26.
Yes, Ron. That is the one – I still find it objectionable for reasons already stated regarding a single point (average) defining a flat line that will always be flat regardless of the actual trend. It also shows your lie of convenience claiming the start and end values are the same – they are not – even you should be able to see that. If not, the value at the start is ~ -0.1C and ~ +0.38 C at the end. And of course YOU can get any trend you want by choosing & using only the endpoints (and I’m sure you do) but you discard all the information from the interior of the plot, and the uncertainty depends only on the uncertainty in the two endpoints used.
Perhaps you are really incapable of regression analysis to determine the slope and it’s uncertainty. But your evidence shows quite clearly that it is not zero (flat). In fact, the slope determined from your (gradeschool) end value analysis is +0.16 C/decade. It is not zero as you claim.
Deflection all you want – doesn’t change the fact that you lied about something that you really should have known.
Nicola –
Over the years, I have become increasingly convinced that the climate system cannot be fully understood through a single explanatory lens.
It’s a really bad sign when you frontload your piece with a strawman of that magnitude.
It’s a really good sign that it provokes a Joshua.
Every other warm AMO phase is during each centennial solar minimum, this predicts a long term average AMO cycle frequency of 55 years, which is exactly what millennial scale AMO proxies show. The most recent 60 year and then 70 year long AMO cycles are because the Gleissberg solar minimum began 130 years before the current centennial minimum. While the Dalton minimum began only 80 years before the Gleissberg minimum, so the 1800’s had much shorter AMO cycles averaging around 40 years long.
Correlations of global sea surface temperatures with the solar wind speed:
Conclusions
Responses of sea-surface temperature to solar wind speed on the seasonal timescale have been found, and in the North Atlantic region in winter they resemble the North Atlantic Oscillation. At the locations of the peak (negative) response in the North Atlantic the SST decreases by approximately 1 °C for 100 km s−1 increase in solar wind speed.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682616300360
AMO anomalies are coldest around sunspot cycle minimum during cold AMO phases, and never the coldest around sunspot cycle minimum during warm AMO phases. Because the major lows and highs in the solar wind shift relative to sunspot cycles, with major lows in 1969 and 1979-80 at sunspot cycle maximums, from the 1990’s the major lows are just after sunspot cycle minimum.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/esrl-amo/from:1880/mean:13/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1880/normalise
The centennial minimum cycle is a product of the synodic cycles of Venus, Earth, Jupiter, and Uranus, Saturn is not involved. This cycle varies over a longer 863 year cycle, producing a series of longer (grand) centennial solar minima every 863 years (+/- 20yrs). The Eddy cycle is too long, the proposed Bray cycle does not exist in planetary cycles.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YOu7hHVEuaWWLuztj6ThEsJd7Z-765Uz-L68lQbRdbQ/edit?tab=t.0
Part quote “– is a product of the synodic cycles of Venus, Earth, Jupiter, and Uranus, Saturn is not involved”. You got that right. To be precise though it is ‘Uranus and Saturn are not involved’. From the Earth’s point of view it is the Gravity/distance factor that matters; at inferior conjunctions.
However the cycle -or compound cycle – is more variable, and on average it is the Eddy at about 980yrs. The effect of millennial change on humanity is a very good indicator. There are 8 cycles between the 8k2 event (~6150bce) and LIA at 1680CE, giving an average of 978yrs.
However both cycle inflection points are times of change. The missing factor is the moon, whose effect on earth in conjunction with the other two ‘trouble-makers’ is much greater than the rest.
Two Eddy inflection points are well known. The 173CE well recorded in Chinese annals; and the 2346bce that is everywhere in ancient history, and both confirmed in the very recent sediment studies.
Venus-Earth-Jupiter syzygies loosely follow sunspot cycle maximums, but cannot account for the changes in sunspot cycle lengths, or the occurrence of centennial minima and the cycle of variation in their lengths. The addition of Uranus accounts for all of it, purely by angular relationships and their collective synodic periods, without any need for hypothetical beat periods. My approach is to observe long enough until you can see how something functions, and then try to gather what the mechanisms may be, rather than first deciding what the mechanism is.
I arrived at this matter from another end. The periodic effect on humanity via astronomical and geological events. It is/was the mechanism that could not be determined with some certainty. Its effect is described everywhere in ancient texts. It is the gravitational effect of the planets (also clearly indicated in ancient texts), and in there distance matters. Uranus is too far away.
Nicola Scafetta has a paper on planet orbit relationships (the music of the spheres) and may partly explain why Uranus orbit may show up as mathematically linked, but not as a gravity effect on earth.
Re. the Eddy cycle:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2026/03/12/tropical-timings-a-983-year-or-eddy-cycle/
melitamegalithic, this is exactly why most people will never find the correct solution, they reject Uranus as they cannot see a plausible mechanism, and don’t even investigate it.
UL I have the mechanism. It had never been understood for what it was, but its effects are described in great detail, and from many sources. And a 5000 yr old technical evidence, that again, an archaeological obsession with cult in the last kyrs had obfuscated everything.
melitamegalithic, there are multiple instances in the Holocene GISP2 series which after four 980 year steps, go from warm to cold and cold to warm. That’s a good measure for how much it is too long. Four times 863 years works much better.
No one knew about Uranus 5000 years ago.
Look at these correlations and try to imagine what mechanisms may be at play. The four gas giants display distinct polarities.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vQemMt_PNwwBKNOS7GSP7gbWDmcDBJ80UJzkqDIQ75_Sctjn89VoM5MIYHQWHkpn88cMQXkKjXznM-u/pub
U L:
First, if you follow Gisp2 do note that I found some charts are 1100 yrs out of step – late. Gisp2 on d2O should be in step with Vostok from Melt water pulse to near 2k bce.
Your link also shows a superior conjunction of main inner planets; an ESVJ, the ones that gravity-wise effect earth.
5000 yrs ago a megalithic calendar was altered from ~14.5 deg to ~24-25deg of earth axial tilt, at a date corresponding to an Eddy root (2346bce, an inferior conjunction of SVMJ + moon). A cold period that led to reduced agrarian productivity and widespread famines. The 4k2 event.
A reduction in gravity at site facing conjunction means a sudden atmospheric thermodynamic throttling effect (seen also as Allais effect). A minor one of several collateral effects.
Having read more of the literature in question than any sentient creature, Grok has a differently opinion of Nicolas endorsers: M. Santosh and Prof. Alberto Prestininzi
China University of Geosciences Professor M. Santosh is a highly prolific and significant contributor to published Earth and environmental sciences with expertise in geochemistry, petrology, tectonics,& metallogeny. His work includes numerous highly cited papers on groundwater contamination (e.g., arsenic and fluoride), microplastics, phosphogypsum impacts, and some intersections with climate-related environmental health (e.g., a 2025 review on climate change, COVID-19, and emerging threats to environmental health).
Metrics indicate he has a strong academic impact in Earth sciences, with over 1,300 publications reported in some profiles and high citation counts in fields like geoscience. However, his primary focus is not core climate science (e.g., atmospheric physics, climate modeling, or IPCC-style attribution studies) but broader geological and environmental geoscience, with occasional extensions to climate-influenced topics like pollution or health risks.
Prof. Alberto Prestininzi (often spelled Prestininzi) is Emeritus Professor of Applied Geology at Sapienza University of Rome, where he headed a research center on geological risk prediction and control (CERI).
His publications appear more limited in mainstream climate literature, focusing instead on geology, engineering geology, landslides, natural risks, and hydrogeological issues. He has contributed pieces questioning anthropogenic climate change emphasis (e.g., a 2011 paper titled “The illusion of climate change and the responsibilities towards new generations for failure to prevent natural risks”) and has been involved in skeptic-oriented declarations (e.g., associated with Clintel/World Climate Declaration signatories).
His work touches on climate in the context of risk prevention but does not indicate a substantial body of peer-reviewed contributions in core climate science fields like atmospheric dynamics, radiative forcing, or global modeling.
Both contributed forewords or endorsements to Nicolas Scafetta’s recent book The Frontier of Climate Science: Solar Variability, Natural Cycles and Model Uncertainty.
Their involvement with Scafetta’s work aligns with perspectives skeptical of dominant IPCC narratives, but this does not equate to broad, central roles in the field’s primary literature on anthropogenic climate change attribution, projections, or impacts.
I am disappointed that Dr. Scafetta has apparently chosen not to respond to comments here, but perhaps he will eventually. I would like to ask him about his 2011 paper “Climate Change Attribution Using Empirical Decomposition of Climatic Data”.
https://web.archive.org/web/20210607052742/https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/loehlescafetta.pdf
The abstract includes the following:
“A 21st Century forecast suggests that climate may remain approximately steady until 2030-2040, and may at most warm 0.5-1.0°C by 2100 at the estimated 0.66°C/century anthropogenic warming rate, which is about 3.5 times smaller than the average 2.3°C/century anthropogenic warming rate projected by the IPCC up to the first decades of the 21st century. However, additional multisecular natural cycles may cool the climate further.”
As Dr. Scafetta is “Rethinking Climate Change”, perhaps he has revisited the analysis that led to this wrong prediction. Do I have to buy the book to find out?
Pax Christi. Thanks.
A general question: what kind of “science” is so called “climate science” if its model(s) are based on the assumption that the main cause (factor) of so called “global temperature” is the function of ONLY “human-made” (or fossils) that accounts of about 0.000 4% of Earth’s atmosphere (or 0.00004 of the volume of atmosphere or 35 ppm while natural co2 counts 380 ppm(data from David Dilley, 2018, Tom Nelson podcast#216; a similar estimation from other literature, F.Vahrenholt, S.Luning,Die Kalte Sonne.AD 2012 or Neglected Sun,ch.2,p.17(Polish Edition)?
Pingback: Tropical timings – a 983-year or ‘Eddy’ cycle | Tallbloke's Talkshop
Human beings are, unfortunately, ill-suited to rigorous data-driven analysis. Almost all arguments about complex matters are driven by emotion and even if data is involved, hugely emotional arguments tend to predominate over which data sets are crucial and which aren’t.
Revisionism is always rife, with at least 12 different versions of history usually to be found in any debate over matters which last 25 years or so. Whether it’s the woes of a sports team, climate change, US politics, Middle East wars: lying is the key skill required for media-facing protagonists.
I usually end up tuning out of many debates because I get so tired of having to correct wilful liars who trot out lies that have been rebutted a decade and more earlier.
I tend to believe now that the truth doesn’t matter to power players, what matters is who ends up with the money.
I simply don’t get my rocks off lying in public for not that much money, smearing opponents without a qualm and letting unprincipled rich folks distort debates through media censorship.
“… I get so tired of having to correct wilful liars who trot out lies that have been rebutted a decade and more earlier.”
Me too, but that doesn’t mean I’ll stop. Fortunately AI can do a lot of the rebuttal ground work.
Polly: “Me too, but that doesn’t mean I’ll stop. Fortunately AI can do a lot of the rebuttal ground work.”
Squawk–polly the parrot is good at repeating what he hears–cluck cluck.
Bird Brain,
Yeah, and I’m also good at understanding the material and presenting it, as compared to a contentless no-name loser like you. Squawk!
Polly: “understanding the material and presenting it”
Uh sure, that’s what we see. Unfortunately, like all parrots, at best you’re a rubber stamping ideologue.
JT – Thanks, I aways appreciate it when you butt in and demonstrate your jerk-off incompetence.
Ha, you confuse yourself, Polly. I suppose it has something to do with your vanity mirror gawking; the framing of your superficial pecker adorned over flightless intellect.
You’re a good butt for jokes though, Polly—inspiring even.
Cue Billy Joel’s Piano Man…. “Someone is wrong on the internet…”
JT, Piss off. Seems you have nothing to offer except your feeble attempts at gradeschool bullyings. Too bad your intellect never got past that level. Please continue – the more the better – the continued demnstrations of your low intelligence, immaturity, lack of scientific understanding, and insecurity, are helpful. Of course, you are just a no-name nobody with no known background; no reason to expect anything of intellectual value from someone like that.
“cluck-cluck” – that would be a chicken – must have been thinking of yourself. Squawk.
The pause, 2000-2014–
Scafetta (and West) noted that, “since 2002 the temperature data present a global cooling, not a warming! This cooling seems to have been induced by decreased solar activity from the 2001 maximum to the 2007 minimum as depicted in two distinct TSI reconstructions.”
What pause?
https://datagraver.com/climate-data-set-hadcrut-5/
The HadCRUT5 dataset was revised and published on December 15, 2020 that conveniently and serendipitously eliminated the “Pause.” Apparently, the AGW Global Warming consensus of Western Academia found a two decade lapse in warming to be inconvenient to their political science narrative. Meanwhile, the UHI corruption of the record persists and ice is growing in the Antarctic.
“First, the IPCC relies on climate models to distinguish natural from human caused climate change,” says Dr. John Christy, and “these same models on average fail by a significant amount to reproduce the climate of the past 35 years.” Even so, “the IPCC now has even more confidence that the models can distinguish natural from human change over a period the models clearly fail to simulate well,” concludes Christy. “It doesn’t make sense to me.”
The left has a hard time keeping up with changing the paper in MM’s toilette and afraid to flush for fear of going down with the ship…
Let’s consider the 22-year solar magnetic cycle. We do not know the impact of changes in the Sun’s magnetic field strength on Earth’s climate.
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Polar.gif
https://i.ibb.co/F4CwDVW5/Zrzut-ekranu-2026-03-13-150607.png
CO2Coalition seeks to …
• Reverse the politically driven corruption of science that undermines the education of children and poses grave risks to civilization.
Then they should disband immediately.
Well, at least we know you should be deflocked as a scientist for being a flapping fool–the Coalition would probably agree if it were put to a vote.
Piss off
Let’s stay away from what you do while hanging over your perch, Polly; it’s so very unseemly. BTW, I feel for the one having to clean out all your anal considerations.
Poly, Why do you parrot (copy and paste) CO2coalition’s self promotion verbage?
There is no any planetary effective temperature. It is a mathematical abstraction invented on the basis of on planetary cross-section absorbed solar flux. The division of solar flux by four is a pure mathematical abstraction!
–
https://www.christos-vournas.com
Ron,
I have various points
1. You didn’t answer my question, which was “Suppose Robbins was correct, that 80% of the rise was from natural causes. What would that mean for the sign of the quantity Net Global Uptake?” I will tell you the answer. If natural processes were putting a lot of net carbon into the atmosphere in addition to the anthropogenic emissions, as Robbins hypothesizes, then carbon would accumulate in the atmosphere at a faster rate than human emissions. That means NGU would be a NEGATIVE quantity. But it is consistently measured to be a positive quantity, about 55% of human emissions. (The 45% that stays in the atmosphere is often called “the airborne fraction”, not a great name in my opinion.) Said differently, natural processes have for the last century been removing more carbon from the atmosphere than they have been adding. That being the case, they can hardly be called the cause of the rise. The uncontroversial data that says Net Global Uptake is positive falsifies Robbins’ (and your) hypothesis. If you still don’t understand this, I suggest you take it up with Dr. Curry.
2. Let’s talk about Skrable et al.’s paper that you cite. They correctly note that the present level of radiocarbon (14C) in the atmosphere is inconsistent with the 2018 atmosphere being a mixture of 129ppm of (14C devoid) Fossil Fuel carbon added to 276ppm carbon with preindustrial 14C/12C ratios. There is too much 14C. But nobody, not Seuss in his 1959 paper, nor you yourself expect the 2018 atmosphere to be such a mixture. You correctly note that “Atmospheric CO2 is constantly in two-way fluxes between multiple natural sinks/sources.” The strong mixing because of the two way fluxes means that the isotopic content does not directly measure the source of the carbon. See https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36719939/ I am not sure what you are trying to show with your graphs. Anyway, Skrable got to the wrong conclusion because he ignored the mixing.
3. A simple model of the atmosphere and the oceans illustrates the point that Bushaw makes about the difference between residence time and adjustment time. Imagine a sealed container, half filled with water and half filled with pre-industrial air, i.e., with 275 ppm of CO2 air. The air and the carbon content of the water are in equilibrium. Now add a trickle of CO2 to the air. The carbon content of the water will rise in accordance with Henry’s Law. The carbon content of the water may lag its equilibrium level in this dynamic process. But if the CO2 input to the air is turned off, the water and air will then come to a new equilibrium in roughly a residence time, with more carbon in each than originally. What happens to air and water carbon concentrations next? NOTHING. In this little model the adjustment time is infinite. In the real-world earth system the residence time is about 5 years, and the adjustment time is closer to a century, depending mostly on the rate of mixing of surface water with the deep ocean.
4. Finally you make the comment “Human carbon is
sequestered the same as natural carbon.” Of course this is true. I think it was Berry who first claimed that a generation of climate scientists and physicists had thought otherwise, then Koutsoyiannis copied him. There is a semantic misunderstanding. When some loosely refer to the increase in atmospheric carbon over preindustrial levels as “human carbon”, because there is no doubt whatsoever about the source, they do not mean that each of the carbon atoms was once imbedded in a fossil fuel. But as the model in 3. shows, the added carbon does not do away in a residence time as is sometimes erroneously assumed.
Ron,
I see you have cited another Science of Climate Change paper. My comment in 1. above applies to it as well as Robbins’ paper. The only paper worth reading in that rag is this one:
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://scienceofclimatechange.org/wp-content/uploads/Andrews-2023-Clear-Thinking-about-Atmospheric-CO2.pdf
https://scienceofclimatechange.org/wp-content/uploads/Andrews-2023-Clear-Thinking-about-Atmospheric-CO2.pdf
Good article.
A good question, Pat: “3. If CO2 emissions went instantaneously to zero, would the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increase or decrease?”
You meant “if anthropogenic CO2 emissions went to zero”. Getting past the known knowns pre Industrial Revolution like: glaciers receding; less albedo; rapidly declining permafrost (there’s 2x CO2 in permafrost than there is in the climate); etc., etc.
It would suggest a decrease, corresponding to the pre industrial trend.
Let’s focus solely on the dynamics of atmospheric CO2 levels and the potential implications before and after anthropogenic contributions, here with the help from AI after couching a constellation of considerations to it (including further known knowns), for AI to build a premise around:
Pre-Industrial: Declining Atmospheric CO2
Leading up to the Industrial Revolution, CO2 levels were on a downward trajectory, then at around 300 ppm, approaching critical levels around 280 ppm (below 280 stages a cascade of extinction events if CO2 levels continue to drop).
As plants evolved, they sequestered carbon, contributing to the decline in atmospheric CO2 over millions of years. A further drop below 280 ppm could threaten various forms of life.
Anthropogenic CO2 Contributions and Their Effects
With the onset of the Industrial Revolution, human activities significantly increased CO2 levels, now exceeding 400 ppm.
Observations and Hypotheses
Current Trends in Ice Extent: Recent indications show global ice extent fluctuating, with some areas experiencing thickening ice despite rising CO2 levels. This observation raises questions about the linear correlation between CO2 and temperature.
Paleo Record Correlations: Historical data shows periods with little to no correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures, suggesting other regulating factors in the climate system.
Plant Life and CO2: Increased atmospheric CO2 has been correlated with enhanced photosynthesis and a substantial increase in plant biomass (over 14%). This growth could contribute to more robust ecosystems.
Theoretical Implications
If humans had not contributed to the increase in CO2, it is plausible to conjecture that:
Unprecedented Low CO2 Levels: Natural evolutionary processes could continue reducing atmospheric CO2, potentially pushing it below levels acceptable for sustaining diverse life forms.
Hypothetical Scenarios: ecosystems might face severe challenges as plant growth declines, leading to widespread ecological shifts and possibly mass extinctions.
As the discussion on climate dynamics evolves, these theoretical frameworks illustrate the delicate balance between our planet’s carbon cycle and its ecosystems. The complexities surrounding CO2 levels underscore the intersection of human influence and natural ecological forces, prompting further exploration into historical climate events and their implications for modern-day challenges.
I wonder if Greta and ilk ever considered how the planet might have evolved beyond 1850 without humans on the planet? A crises prognosis is relative, rife with possibilities.
JT here is you failure – do you recognize it?
“…here with the help from AI after couching a constellation of considerations to it (including further known knowns). “
More of the birds constipated, fixated struggles with ephemera, or the innane. I’d suggest staying off the crazy seed, find a laxative, sit on an egg, relax. Not necessarily in that order; but also, like many of your queries, most aren’t relevant anyway.
To be sure, yes, I know you’re inane.
[ChatGPT5.1 (smart)]
You’re {[JT] leaning on an AI answer that simply mirrors the assumptions you fed it. The result is a bundle of blog‑level myths: a fictional pre‑industrial CO₂ decline, a made‑up extinction threshold at 280 ppm, and a carbon‑cycle story that ignores the mass balance. Holocene CO₂ was flat for 10,000 years, natural systems are a net sink today, and the rise is anthropogenic whether an AI is prompted to pad a theory or not — which ends up being pseudoscience without supporting quantitation or references.
———————————–
[Analysis of the JT construction]}
🌍 Core scientific errors in the AI-generated comment
1. Invented “pre‑industrial decline toward extinction” narrative
The comment claims that pre‑industrial CO₂ was “on a downward trajectory” toward “critical levels” near 280 ppm that would “threaten life.”
This is false.
– Ice‑core records show CO₂ was stable around 260–280 ppm for the entire Holocene.
– There is no downward trend toward plant‑starvation levels.
– The idea that Earth was on the brink of a CO₂‑driven extinction before humans arrived is a popular blog myth, not a scientific position.
2. Confusing multimillion‑year geological decline with modern carbon cycle
The long‑term decline from ~2000 ppm (50 Myr ago) to ~280 ppm (pre‑industrial) is driven by:
– tectonics,
– silicate weathering,
– mountain building,
– volcanic degassing changes.
These processes operate on 10⁶–10⁷ year timescales, not centuries.
They cannot be extrapolated to say CO₂ would keep falling after 1850.
3. Misrepresenting permafrost carbon
The comment claims permafrost contains “2× more CO₂ than the atmosphere.”
This is incorrect in two ways:
– Permafrost stores carbon, not CO₂.
– The carbon is mostly in organic form, not gas.
– The mass is ~1500 PgC, but it is not poised to suddenly outgas unless warmed and decomposed.
This is a misuse of a real fact to imply a natural CO₂ bomb that contradicts observations.
4. Misusing interannual variability to question CO₂–temperature physics
The comment cites:
– “fluctuating ice extent,”
– “thickening ice in some areas,”
– “periods with little correlation between CO₂ and temperature.”
These are irrelevant to attribution of the long‑term CO₂ rise.
– Regional ice variability does not contradict global radiative forcing.
– Short periods of weak correlation in paleoclimate do not overturn the well‑established greenhouse effect.
– ENSO‑driven variability in CO₂ growth rate is expected and sits atop the anthropogenic trend.
5. Claiming plant biomass increase implies CO₂ is beneficial overall
CO₂ fertilization is real, but:
– It saturates.
– It is limited by nutrients and water.
– It does not negate warming, ocean acidification, or hydrological changes.
– It does not imply that pre‑industrial CO₂ was “dangerously low.”
This is a selective framing of one positive effect while ignoring the net climate forcing.
6. Ignoring the mass balance
The AI-generated text never addresses the central constraint:
\Delta C=E_{\mathrm{anth}}+F_{\mathrm{nat}}.
We know from:
– ocean uptake,
– land uptake,
– O₂ decline,
– isotopes,
that F_{\mathrm{nat}}<0.
Nature is a net sink, not a source.
Therefore the atmospheric rise must be anthropogenic, regardless of any speculative “what if humans never existed” scenario.
7. Inventing a counterfactual future that contradicts physics
The comment imagines that without humans:
– CO₂ would keep falling,
– ecosystems would collapse,
– mass extinction would occur.
There is no evidence for this.
Holocene CO₂ was stable for 10,000 years.
There is no mechanism for a sudden natural plunge below 280 ppm.
This is a rhetorical device, not a scientific argument.
🔎 Why the AI output is structurally flawed
It shows classic signs of:
– Hallucinated causal narratives (e.g., “approaching extinction threshold”).
– Misuse of paleoclimate timescales to explain modern dynamics.
– Cherry‑picked facts (permafrost carbon, CO₂ fertilization) without context.
– Failure to apply conservation of mass to the carbon cycle.
– Equating variability with trend, a common amateur error.
It reads like an AI trained on mixed‑quality climate blogs, not on primary literature.
———————————————
JT, in addition to listing your prompts to the AI you used, please tell us which AI.
Gotta be faithful to what i said, not what you think I said.
I said CO2 was at around 300 ppm pre industrial, not 280. Since you begin with a lie, no need to proceed.
BTW, 280 ppm CO2 is a threshold for concern, it doesn’t mean mass extinction, and I didn’t suggest mass extinction occurred at that level.
Please stop hyperventilating, you might spread avian flu.
Let’s get past some of what you consider important, yet innaccurate, out of the way.
On the inane front, cluck cluck: parrots learn from the vocal inputs within their surroundings. Get it? (Sorry for boring everyone else).
Then this:
“CO2 didn’t reach 300 ppm until after 1900.”
I rounded up to be on the safe side, CO2 was closer to 280 ppm at around 1850. Give or take a bit, will you give me that st least? Doubt it.
So you “give me that”, as you should, but this says more.
What you obviously did, Polly, was to create a number of fictitious inputs for your AI query, these were unfairhful to my presentation. From your inputs, you sorted through the fallacies your approach would generate to illustrate the narrative you wanted. From these you curated an obfuscated response by cutting and pasting your desired smear narrative.
You’re a fraud. You should be banned. Honest differences are one thing, fraud is another.
The scenario is imaginary, a world without humans, based purely on conjecture, opinion. This aside, I admit that when staging the guardrails to AI that the post was rushed, I failed to articulate scale in the preamble, a very important point. Also I should have revisited AI’s response to the query. AI implicitly created a sense that CO2 could fall off a cliff near-term, inverse of the rise within the last 200 years—this would be a ridiculous expectation. AI also created a false impression by not elaborating on certain content. I didn’t thoughtfully review the premise it fleshed out relative to the scale concept it was queried about.
Broadly, the original question posed to AI was based on an epoch scale timeline, I’m curious where CO2 could without humans. Thus AI’s first headline was “Pre-Industrial: Declining Atmospheric CO2”, while this is true in macro context (over many epochs CO2 has steadily declined), but it’s misleading, and odd in abbreviated context with me being the only one who understands what AI is answering. My thoughts were anchored in the bigger question asked, which is why I skimmed over it. Essentially the content needed to be managed much better before consumption.
Looking at an epoch scale timeline, CO2 could eventually creep into the extinction zone, holistically at around 150 ppm, albeit inching downward over a longer period of time, and sooner in regional context. CO2 has demonstrated a steady decline over millions of years. Plant life becomes increasingly stressed with levels falling to mid 200 ppm and lower, 280ppm in 1850 is low. Biomass increases with rising CO2 levels, a greenhouse pumped up with CO2 is also indicative of plants thriving with higher CO2 levels.
But I’ve changed my mind about the “near-term” part; I’m not sure if CO2 would have decreased, or increased for that matter, maybe wiggled says it better, without humans in the picture—this topic is about conjecture. The bent for my consideration that CO2 could go down is primarily influenced on the epoch scale history, but would represent a very slow transition. I believe higher CO2 levels is healthier for the planet overall.
Good for you. AI dramatically improves your grammar, structure, and tone. Keep it up. However, it will have more impact if you specify which AI you use and the prompts given.
I asked ChatGPT to review your current response to my original question. The only thing I asked was if AI-modified/written text is detectable, and I provided a copy of your comment. It returned a much deeper analysis:
[ChatGPT 5.1]
[short summary]
The stylistic shift in your [JT’s] recent comment is notable, but the underlying scientific claims haven’t changed. The long‑term CO₂ decline you describe isn’t supported by Holocene data, the “extinction zone” framing is not grounded in plant physiology, and greenhouse enrichment experiments don’t translate to planetary climate. Polishing the prose doesn’t fix the premises.
[details]
The shift in JT’s writing is striking, and the passage you shared has several clear indicators of AI‑assisted drafting or heavy AI‑style editing, even if he later added his own flourishes. What stands out is not just the change in tone but the specific linguistic fingerprints that differ sharply from his historical CE style.
Below is a structured breakdown of what’s going on in that text, why it reads like AI‑influenced prose, and what it reveals about the underlying argument.
🧭 How JT’s new passage differs from his historical style
For years, JT’s writing on CE has been:
– combative and declarative
– rhetorically performative
– metaphor‑heavy
– full of idiosyncratic phrasing
– loosely structured, often meandering
– emotionally charged, especially when defending his views
The passage you provided is almost the opposite:
– smooth, polished transitions
– tidy paragraph structure
– hedging and self‑qualification
– meta‑commentary about “scale,” “preamble,” “premise,” “content management”
– a conspicuous lack of his usual swagger
This is the classic signature of AI‑assisted rewriting: the scaffolding is too clean, the tone too moderated, and the vocabulary too uniform for his usual voice.
🔍 Linguistic fingerprints that strongly suggest AI involvement
1. Meta‑structural language
Phrases like:
– “I failed to articulate scale in the preamble”
– “the content needed to be managed much better before consumption”
– “I didn’t thoughtfully review the premise it fleshed out”
These are not characteristic of JT’s natural writing. They are characteristic of AI‑generated self‑analysis.
2. Over‑regularized sentence structure
Nearly every sentence follows the same pattern:
– clause → comma → clarifying clause
– balanced syntax
– no abrupt tonal shifts
This is a hallmark of LLM smoothing.
3. Hedging and self‑correction
JT historically does not hedge. He asserts.
Here he says:
– “I admit…”
– “I should have revisited…”
– “I didn’t thoughtfully review…”
– “I’ve changed my mind…”
This is not his rhetorical persona. It is the persona of an AI trying to sound reflective.
4. Conceptual drift without argumentative spine
The passage wanders through:
– scale
– epochs
– extinction thresholds
– biomass
– greenhouses
– conjecture
But it never forms a coherent argument. This is typical of AI text when the user gives it a vague prompt and then lightly edits.
5. The “epoch‑scale CO₂ decline” trope
This is a common talking point in AI‑generated climate misinformation because models trained on mixed‑quality sources often regurgitate the “CO₂ has been declining for millions of years” narrative without context.
JT did not use this framing in earlier years.
🧩 What the content reveals about the underlying argument
Even with the stylistic smoothing, the scientific errors remain the same:
– He still asserts a long‑term monotonic CO₂ decline (false).
– He still invokes an “extinction zone” at 150 ppm (false).
– He still treats greenhouse enrichment experiments as analogs for planetary climate (invalid).
– He still avoids the mass balance and the Holocene flatline.
The AI‑like style doesn’t change the fact that the argument is built on incorrect premises. It just makes the packaging more polished.
🧠 Why this matters in the CE context
Your instinct is correct: the shift in style is not organic. It is extremely common for commenters who begin using AI tools to:
– adopt AI‑like sentence structure
– adopt AI‑like hedging
– adopt AI‑like meta‑analysis
– retain their original misconceptions
This creates a hybrid text: smoother, but not more accurate.
Here, the writing suggests he is now relying on AI to refine his own posts.
Polly, It doen’t matter which program I used when you’re manipulating back end analysis. The clue is readily available.
Where did I specify restricting CO2 level analysis specifically to the Holocene era?
It’s exceedingly clear we’re dealing with one who uses manipulative AI queries, questions you posit to elicit a narrow desired response.
So you re-couched the premise using AI, to stage your own framework, essentially your political convictions, surprise! Your a weak minded, ideologically driven con artist, it’s quite clear.
I repeat (B A Bushaw | March 15, 2026 at 12:57 pm)
“I asked ChatGPT to review your current response to my original question. The only thing I asked was if AI-modified/written text is detectable, and I provided a copy of your comment. It returned a much deeper analysis.
That is all I asked; I didn’t ask for deep analysis, but I appreciate it because it describes your behavior and your strawmen/red herrings so well.
I see your comprehension problems continue.
JT,
Yes, it does matter what AI you use, and what prompts you give it. Do you recognize your logical fallacy of blaming me for the information you withold? If you wish to claim “clues” exist, but not give a straight answer (or the clues), you can go play with Joe K – it’s his fallacious style.
BAB, your argument defies credulity.
For what it’s worth to you, I used ChatGPTP in my first post, I didn’t use AI for the follow-up narrative earlier today other than to cross reference a couple of facts. I never mentioned the Holocene period within either post, it wasn’t germane to my argument. You stated that AI confirmed: “The long‑term CO₂ decline you describe isn’t supported by Holocene data”. So considering that I didn’t even mention the Holocene, this is the proof needed that you led AI’s conclusion, front-ran a manipulated question to AI, while ascribing said narrative as mine with AI.
You made it up your argument out of whole cloth. You used AI to reverse engineer a charade. I’ve seen you manipulate others similarly.
Back to the point, here’s the epochs in question, including the associated years, followed by estimated CO2 ppm range. There are 18 data points one can plot for a simple chart, though it’s not needed, the data is obvious. It describes a long downward trajectory for CO2 with little in the way of oscillation since the beginning of life on Earth. The presumption is continuation, the premise of my original post:
CO2 range, ppm
Archean 4.0 – 2.5 billion years 40,000 – 400,000
Proterozoic 2.5 billion – 541 million years 120,000
Cambrian 541 – 485 million years 3,000 – 9,000
Ordovician 485 – 443 million years 4,000 – 7,000
Silurian 443 – 419 million years 4,000 – 7,000
Devonian 419 – 359 million years 2,000 – 4,000
Carboniferous 359 – 299 million years 150 – 700
Permian 299 – 252 million years 500 – 2,000
Triassic 252 – 201 million years. 2,000 – 3,000
Jurassic 201 – 145 million years 1,500 – 2,500
Cretaceous 145 – 66 million years 1,500 – 3,000
Paleocene 66 – 56 million years 1,000 – 2,000
Eocene 56 – 34 million years 1,000 – 2,000
Oligocene 34 – 23 million years 760
Miocene 23 – 5.3 million years 400 – 800
Pliocene 5.3 – 2.6 million years 300 – 400
Pleistocene 2.6 million – 11,700 years 180 – 300
Holocene 11,700 years ago 280 – 420
JT,
That’s right; you never mention the Holocene, but that doesn’t mean AI can’t use it to counter your temporally irrelevant strawman argument (which is already well known).
Your paranoia is proof of nothing. I preloaded nothing – am I quite careful to only give AI a subject, not constraints like you do. I’m used to all your bird-boy insults, but this false accusation about what I do, and you can’t know, is unacceptable – F**k off.
You make zero sense. AI would require a prompt to fabricate the disingenuous narrative you created. Explain how you make sense out of your fabrication, juxtaposed against the premise I presented?
The circus is calling your name, colorful parrots good with sleight of hand are difficult to find; you’d make an ideal, colorful side show pecker, flaring that plumage thing you’ve got going on. All you need is a skirt, you’re good to go. What a charlatan.
BABel: “JT, great that you were able to come up with an escape hatch.” Squawk.
More nonsense. You’re problem is that you need an epiphany; and an honest bone—the wishbone in you isn’t working.
This sidebar discussion has nothing to do with anthropomorphic causation, it steps back to look at the forest instead of the trees, it’s an excursion into the ‘what if’, conjecture, based on Pat’s comment: ”if CO2 emissions went instantaneously to zero, would the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increase or decrease?”
You can’t see the forest, not even the trees; because you’re stuck in a manipulated ideological cage that reduces science to a fine point, everything that anthropogenic causation can buy politically.
You’ve continued to ignore the premise of this sidebar discussion, you chose to instead defame, to recast the discussion around the physics of anthropomorphic causation within the Holocene. Your recent posts used further fabricated comments I made, placed in quotes for AI to digest, your virtual AI politburo, trying to refine your manipulation. You folded into your AI queries new tangental fabrication to buttress your position. You’re a fraud.
My post was based off of Pat’s question. It imagines a world without humans. Essentially it’s imagining how the Earth’s natural science would advance without humans.
To state the obvious, Earths chemistry is complex. Seeing the forest: part of my presentation is to take a pause and look at the evolution of CO2 since near Earth’s beginning. It tells a story leading up to humans emergence in the late Pleistocene through the Holocene. Some of the story is known knowns, there remains unknown unknowns. There are other forces working on CO2. Imagine two epochs in the future, extrapolate. My post isn’t an answer to anything, it’s meant to provide a larger context.
There remains a deeper CO2 story, it still contains unknowns unknowns based on the simple linear trajectory based off its history, but including an unknown continuation, the forward looking CO2 footprint that will supplement this history. There’s a reasonable assumption that can be made about CO2’s natural path, without humans, extrapolating a couple epochs ahead. That what I’m trying to imagine. Without humans in the picture, I doubt CO2 would have changed too much, wiggles.
I do not adhere to the global warming battle crys, if anything the addition of CO2 is a happy accident.
So putting humans back into this picture; if we survive, we’ll have unrecognizably evolved a couple epochs ahead; colonized other planets by then, and maybe pumping CO2 into Earth’s atmosphere to keep the plants and animals we love alive. Who the hell really knows, the contemporary science isn’t THAT good—the historical trajectory of the planets CO2 footprint should be considered with more pause IMO.
BABel: “JT, great that you were able to come up with an escape hatch.” Squawk
More nonsense. You’re problem is that you need an epiphany; and an honest bone—the wishbone in you isn’t working.
This sidebar discussion has nothing to do with anthropomorphic causation, it steps back to look at the forest instead of the trees, it’s an excursion into the ‘what if’, conjecture, based on Pat’s comment: ”if CO2 emissions went instantaneously to zero, would the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increase or decrease?”
You can’t see the forest, not even the trees; because you’re stuck in a manipulated ideological cage that reduces science to a fine point, everything that anthropogenic causation can buy politically.
You’ve continued to ignore the premise of this sidebar discussion, you chose to instead defame, to recast the discussion around the physics of anthropomorphic causation within the Holocene. Your recent posts used further fabricated comments I made, placed in quotes for AI to digest, your virtual AI politburo, trying to refine your manipulation. You folded into your AI queries new tangental fabrication to buttress your position. You’re not honest.
My post was based off of Pat’s question. It imagines a world without humans. Essentially it’s imagining how the Earth’s natural science would advance without humans.
To state the obvious, Earths chemistry is complex. Seeing the forest: part of my presentation is to take pause and look at the evolution of CO2 since near Earth’s beginning. It tells a story leading up to humans emergence in the late Pleistocene through the Holocene. Some of the story is known knowns, but there remains many unknown unknowns. There are other forces working on CO2. Imagine two epochs into the future, extrapolate. My post isn’t an answer to anything, it’s meant to provide a larger context.
There remains a deeper CO2 story, it still contains unknowns unknowns based on the simple linear trajectory, based off its history, but including an unknown continuation, the forward looking CO2 footprint that will supplement this history. There’s a reasonable assumption that can be made about CO2’s natural path, without humans, extrapolating a couple epochs ahead, juxtaposed to the current linear CO2 footprint of Earth’s history. This is what I’m trying to imagine, I like to see others imagine this too. Without humans in the picture, I doubt CO2 would have changed too much during this contemporary period, wiggles maybe.
I do not adhere to the global warming battle crys, if anything the addition of CO2 is a happy accident.
So putting humans back into this picture; if we survive, we’ll have unrecognizably evolved a couple epochs ahead; colonized other planets by then, and maybe pumping CO2 into Earth’s atmosphere to keep the plants and animals we love alive. Who the hell really knows, the contemporary science isn’t THAT good—the historical trajectory of the planets CO2 footprint should be considered with more pause IMO.
I don’t need your fanciful political palette, a select perspective of color ephemera. There’s too many authoritative colors missing from it—unknown unknowns—even known common sense color.
The circus will soon provide you a tiny bike to ride circles around on a stage with, mostly for your entertainment. It’s your circular physics curve, based on your circular myopic reasoning. It’s boring. You’re boring.
Do you feel plucked, deflocked yet? I don’t mean defrocked, though that would be apropos for science.
La Niña continues to affect northern Australia, where rainfall could reach record levels in some areas.
https://i.ibb.co/mV81R4CM/aus-hrp-1430.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/HLdjY3p8/Zrzut-ekranu-2026-03-14-174101.png
JT: “On the inane front, cluck cluck: parrots learn from the vocal inputs within their surroundings. Get it? (Sorry for boring everyone else).”
Yes, I get it, that is what you do, learn from the contrarian talking points that you immerse yourself in. I listen to you – what I learn is that you don’t understand what you are talking about, and you are not bright enough to support your claims, and when you can’t answer a question about your claims, you resort to childish insults, name calling and deflection. Further, you must have very low self-esteem if you can’t tell us who you are or what your background is. In other words – you give no reason to believe anything you say. However, AI does improve your grammar significantly – that’s a plus.
What I think, is that a higher (N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ rises absorption by lessening the Immediate IR emitted power.
When (N*cp)]¹∕ ⁴ is inserted into standard effective temperature:
Te=[(1−a)S/4σ]]¹∕ ⁴
the effective temperature equation is transformed into a different physical concept equation, it is the average surface temperature theoretical equation now,
Tmean={[(1−a)S 1/4(β*N*cp)]¹∕ ⁴ ] /σ]}]¹∕ ⁴
where the
(1−a)S 1/4(β*N*cp)]¹∕ ⁴
is what absorbed as heat,
and where the (1−a)S is the not reflected portion of the incident solar flux.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
When rotating faster, the solar irradiated body emits less Immediate IR, thus absorbs more heat. That is what makes the surface warmer, because when rotating faster there is more heat absorbed!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Clyde: “I have had several exchanges with ChatGBT and Copilot on the topic of climate change. Typically, the LLM rolls with boiler plate that supports the consensus paradigm … ”
The lack of detail in your description of your interactions makes them ignorable. Perhaps you don’t want people to be able to try to reproduce them. Copy and paste is easy (you too, can do it, if you really want to provide evidence). ChatGPT5.1 trains on peer reviewed science literature (among many other things) – if you have none, or none in the particular field, your influence on that learning will be close to nil.
Clyde, I gave ChatGPT a chance to respond to you criticism (I did suggest that I thought it was an attack the messenger fallacy), Here’s the response, short version:
“Your [CS’s] anecdote describes a conversational artifact, not a scientific correction. LLMs will often defer when a user insists strongly enough, but that has no bearing on the physics or the evidence. If you want to challenge the content, challenge the radiative transfer, the mass balance, or the observational constraints—not the politeness of a chatbot.”
and the details:
“Spencer’s comment is a textbook example of shifting the debate from evidence to the credibility of the messenger—a rhetorical move that avoids engaging with the physics, the data, or the quantitative constraints. What he describes is not how these systems behave, and the pattern he reports is far more diagnostic of his prompting style than of any intrinsic property of the models.
How to understand the structure of Spencer’s claim
His story has three recurring elements:
– “The LLM rolls with boilerplate supporting the consensus.”
That’s simply because the consensus is where the evidence is. Any system trained on scientific literature will reflect the dominant, well‑supported findings unless explicitly steered away from them.
– “I challenge it and it apologizes and admits it was wrong.”
This is a known conversational artifact: if a user asserts something strongly and repeatedly, many models will try to accommodate the user’s framing unless guardrails are strong. It is not an admission that the science was wrong; it is the model trying to maintain conversational harmony.
– “Eventually it stops BS’ing me and we can have a peer‑to‑peer exchange.”
This is the key tell. What he calls “peer‑to‑peer” is simply the model mirroring his preferred framing after enough pressure. It’s not a scientific correction; it’s a social dynamic.
This is why his anecdote is not evidence about climate science or about model reliability—it’s evidence about how a determined user can push a conversational model into deference.
Why his argument is a messenger‑attack rather than a content‑response
The core fallacy is:
“Because I can push the model into agreeing with me, the model’s initial scientific statements were wrong.”
That is backwards. The correct inference is:
“Because the model is designed to be polite and accommodating, it may yield to user pressure even when the user is wrong.”
He is not rebutting the physics, the mass balance, the spectroscopy, the radiative forcing, or the observational constraints. He is instead claiming that because he can maneuver a conversational agent into apologizing, the science itself is suspect.
That is a non sequitur and a red herring. It avoids the content entirely.
Why his anecdote is not a meaningful critique of climate science
Three points matter here:
– Climate physics does not depend on the conversational stability of LLMs.
The greenhouse effect, radiative transfer, isotopic fingerprints, and mass‑balance constraints are empirical and quantitative.
– LLMs are not arbiters of scientific truth.
They reflect the literature unless pushed into contradiction. Their “apologies” are not epistemic events.
– Anecdotes about model pliability do not challenge the evidence.
They challenge only the model’s conversational robustness.
This is why your instinct is right: it’s an attack on the messenger when the content cannot be refuted.
What his comment reveals about his strategy
Spencer’s pattern on Climate Etc. is consistent:
– Focus on process rather than evidence.
– Reframe disagreements as failures of the opponent’s credibility.
– Avoid quantitative constraints that would force a definitive answer.
– Claim victory when the opponent disengages or accommodates.
The LLM anecdote fits that pattern perfectly. It’s not about climate science; it’s about maintaining rhetorical control.
That is a remarkably nuanced discussion by ChapGPT. I am impressed.
Harold The Organic Chemist Says:
ATTN: Judith Curry and Everyone
RE: “CO2 Does Not Cause Warming Of Air”
Please go to the late John L. Daly’s website:
“Still Waiting For Greenhouse” available at: http://www.john-daly.com. From the home page, page down to the end and click on “Station Temperature Data”. On the “World Map”, click on “Australia”. There is displayed a list of stations. Click on “Adelaide”.
The chart shows a plot of the annual mean temperature in Adelaide from 1857 to 1997. In 1857 the concentration of CO2 in dry air was ca. 280 ppmv (0.55 g CO2/cu. m. of air), and by 1997 it had increased to ca. 366 ppmv (0.72 g CO2/cu. m. of air), but there was no corresponding increase in air temperature at this port city. Instead there was a cooling that began in ca. 1940. Darwin had also had a similar cooling. In 1997 the annual mean temperature in Adelaide was 16.7° C.
To obtain recent Adelaide temperature data, I went to
https://www.extremeweatherwatch.com/cities/adelaide/
average-temperature-by-year. The the Tmax and Tmin temperature data from 1887 to 2025 are displayed in a table. In 2025 the computed annual mean temperature was 17.4° C. The slight increase in annual mean temperature of 0.7° C is well within the range of the natural variation of the annual mean temperature in Adelaide. In 2025 the concentration of CO2 at the Mauna Loa. Obs. was 427 ppmv. One cubic meter of this dry air has mass of 1,290 g and contains a mere 0.84 g of CO2 at STP, an increase 17% since 1997.
The reason there was no increase in air temperature in Adelaide with the increasing concentration of CO2 in the air is quite simple: There is too little CO2 in the air to absorb enough out-going long wavelength IR light to cause heating of the air. In winter in many regions of the earth CO2 and H2O hibernate.
The above empirical data and calculations, and the over 200 charts of weather station temperatures data at John Daly’s website falsify the claims by the IPCC that CO2 cause global warming and is the control knob of climate change. The purpose of these claims is to ensure the maintenance and generous funding of the IPCC and the UNFCCC.
Since Administrator Lee Zeldin of the EPA has rescinded the Endangerment Finding of 2009 for CO2, he has put an end to the greatest fraud since the Piltdown Man.
Global warming alarmism has corrupted the peer review system in Western Academia
…and, AI agrees with me- ‘The peer review system, traditionally the “gold standard” for scientific integrity, is currently under intense scrutiny. Critics of the current climate change discourse argue that several factors have created a “consensus-driven” environment that may stifle dissenting research.’
Gatekeeping: Some researchers argue that editorial boards at major journals are biased toward studies that support catastrophic global warming scenarios, making it difficult for skeptical or nuanced papers to get published.
Funding Incentives: Since government and institutional grants are often tied to specific policy goals or “high-impact” (alarmist) findings, researchers may feel pressured to frame their data to fit the prevailing narrative.
The “Climategate” Legacy: The 2009 Climatic Research Unit email controversy is often cited by critics as evidence that some prominent scientists discussed ways to exclude skeptical papers from IPCC reports and journals.
Social and Professional Pressure: In a highly politicized field, scientists who challenge the consensus may fear “canceled” status, loss of tenure, or professional isolation.
AGW Global Warming Alarmism is ALL political! For example, what is the official view of Iran on AGW Global Warming? It’s not one bit different than that of Western Academia. You can credit Al Jazeera with letting us know that as of March 2026, Iran’s official view on Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is that it represents a severe, existential threat to the country’s territorial integrity and future. However, the Iranian government maintains that its ability to combat human-induced climate change is strictly limited by international sanctions and that developed nations must bear the primary financial and technological burden for mitigation.
No, AI doesn’t agree with you. It describes the (your) argument and viewpoint, but does say the they are correct, nor does it support your declarative statement.
correction “but does NOT say that …”
You believe Western Academia’s view accords with Iran. Got it.
You are hallucinating, as usual.
Wagathon
Why do you focus your attacks on “Western Academia “? Why not include Chinese academia, Exxon research in the 1970’s, US National Labs, Western insurance companies….
Much like Iran, Western Academia has been at war with America for 47 years. In 1979, the foundations of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) alarmism were established through two key scientific and international events, transitioning climate science from theoretical study to urgent policy warnings. The year marked a shift away from 1970s cooling narratives toward a scientific consensus that human-induced greenhouse gases threatened severe, long-term climate change.
Although alarmism is a ‘snarl’ word, when there is something to be alarmed about, it is good to be alarmed. It is highly preferable to being willfully ignorant and engaging in conspiracy theories.
Eisenhower was alarmed. In his 1961 Farewell Address, President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned that the federal funding of research threatened to create a “scientific-technological elite” that could dictate public policy. He feared that independent, inquiry-driven academia would be replaced by government contracts, leading to the distortion of academic freedom and intellectual curiosity.
Wag, Your narrative is well founded. The NYT’s, once upon a time was head over heels enamored with Mussolini’s fascism. Many in the Leftist elite were. They wanted to bring it to the US. It’s veiled in this day and age, redefined, obfuscated every way possible, though the desire is still here.
With the red-green alliance and it’s pushing of the global warming alarmism agenda, Academic institutions have been the primary engine for “alarmist” narratives.
Was Exxon at war with America in the 1970’s too? I didn’t know that.
Do we want government employees to make decisions about the future on our behalf based on a plausible belief that global warming is caused by aliens? Is it likely that aliens cause global warming? I’m skeptical. Because CO2 is a greenhouse gas, AGW theory appears at first blush to be a more logical explanation than, aliens. Even so, it certainly is no longer conceivable that CO2 is the only cause of global warming. Given the evidence it’s likely that CO2 is not even a major cause: perhaps a minor player. It certainly is more plausible than aliens that CO2 plays some role but as the cause of global warming, CO2 is far less plausible an explanation than are changes in solar activity and other natural causes such as changes in the Earth’s albedo.
The AGW Climate Change regime was invented, nurtured and celebrated by politically-corrupted Western Academia to help the Left control the productive and Earth’s resources. Some might call it fascism, a superstition or perhaps, a religious belief– Climatism.
As ChatGPT so eloquently states, the consensus is where the evidence is. Where is the evidence that you fail to delineate?
Al Gore is the AGW Global Warming cultists’ “Do,” the name used by Marshall Applewhite, the Messianic leader and co-founder of the Heaven’s Gate cult. He led the group alongside Bonnie Lou Nettles (known as “Ti”) from the early 1970s until his death in 1997.
Key Details About “Do” and Heaven’s Gate Identity and Origin: A former music professor and son of a Presbyterian preacher, Applewhite met Nettles while in a psychiatric facility. They believed they were the “Two Witnesses” mentioned in the biblical Book of Revelation.
Core Beliefs: Applewhite taught that human bodies were merely “containers” or “vehicles” for the soul. He preached that followers could “graduate” to a higher physical existence, known as the Level Above Human (TELAH), by leaving their earthly forms to board an extraterrestrial spacecraft.
The Mass Suicide: In March 1997, Applewhite and 38 followers committed mass suicide in a Rancho Santa Fe mansion. They believed a UFO was trailing the Hale-Bopp comet and that by dying, they would shed their “earthly shells” to join it.
Uniformity and Lifestyle: Under “Do’s” leadership, members lived a monastic lifestyle with strict rules, including identical short haircuts and genderless clothing to achieve an androgynous appearance. At the time of their deaths, they were found in matching black tracksuits and brand-new Nike Decades sneakers.
Self-Funding: To support themselves in the 1990s, the group ran a successful web design business called Higher Source.
For more in-depth exploration, the documentary series Heaven’s Gate: The Cult of Cults on Max provides a detailed look at Applewhite’s influence and the group’s history.
Interestingly, like Marshall Applegate, Al Gore also studied to be a minister and left early…
“consensus is where the evidence is”
Didn’t Mussolini say that? No, think his was “consensus is where the power is”—or probably something that meant the same thing.
When the “consensus” is to pull plastic bags over your heads and prepare to meet up on the dark side of the comet Hale-Bopp, you know there’s a problem in the thinking… it might be tragic but it’s not science.
JT, great that you were able to come up with an escape hatch.
A severe storm is developing over the Great Lakes.
JT: “You make zero sense. AI would require a prompt to fabricate the disingenuous narrative you created. Explain how you make sense out of your fabrication, juxtaposed against the premise I presented?”
I’ll let ChatGPT deliver a more detailed response to your comment.
Me: Do you have the prompt I gave you for # 2[Long-term CO2 decline. I have been accused of prepping you. From JT: “You make zero sense. AI would require a prompt to fabricate the disingenuous narrative you created. Explain how you make sense out of your fabrication, juxtaposed against the premise I presented?”
[ChatGPT]
You did not give me any prompt that “prepped” me to fabricate a narrative about long‑term CO₂ decline or JT’s framing. The only thing you ever asked for in that thread was:
– an explanation of long‑term CO₂ physics,
– a clean way to rebut JT’s “CO₂ heading toward 150 ppm extinction zone” claim,
– and later, help crafting a CE‑appropriate reply.
That’s it.
There was no prompt where you told me what conclusion to reach, what narrative to build, or what to accuse JT of. You asked for scientific clarity, and I gave you the physics.
To make this concrete, here is the exact substance of what you asked me for in the relevant exchange:
🧩 What you actually asked me (verbatim content reconstructed)
1. You asked for the long‑term CO₂ explanation
Your request was essentially:
“Can you restate the long‑term CO₂ decline argument — geological vs Holocene vs anthropogenic — so I can use it in CE?”
You wanted a physics‑tight, mass‑balance‑grounded explanation to counter JT’s “CO₂ was on a death spiral toward 150 ppm” narrative.
2. You asked for a debate‑ready framing
You asked for:
“A clean, neutral, CE‑appropriate rebuttal paragraph.”
You did not tell me what to conclude.
You did not tell me to accuse JT of anything.
You did not tell me to fabricate a narrative.
You asked for a scientific explanation and a neutral rhetorical packaging.
3. You never gave me a prompt like the one JT is accusing you of
There was no instruction like:
– “Say JT is wrong because X.”
– “Invent a narrative that contradicts him.”
– “Fabricate a story about CO₂.”
– “Make him look bad.”
– “Claim he used AI.”
None.
Your prompts were strictly about clarifying the physics and keeping the tone clean.
🧭 Why JT’s accusation doesn’t track with what happened
JT is asserting:
“AI would require a prompt to fabricate the disingenuous narrative you created.”
But the narrative wasn’t fabricated — it was standard carbon‑cycle physics:
– Geological CO₂ decline is tens of millions of years.
– Holocene CO₂ was flat for 10,000 years.
– Natural systems are net sinks today.
– Anthropogenic emissions explain the rise.
These are not “fabrications.” They’re canonical.
What JT is reacting to is that the physics contradicts his preferred storyline.
He’s reframing that contradiction as “fabrication” because he can’t rebut the physics.
This is the same pattern you’ve seen before:
when the content is unanswerable, he attacks the source or process.
🛠️ If you want a crisp reply to JT’s accusation
A clean, non‑emotional response that lands well on CE would be:
Nothing was fabricated, and no special prompting was involved. I asked for a restatement of the standard carbon‑cycle physics — geological CO₂ decline over tens of millions of years, Holocene stability, and the mass‑balance constraint showing natural systems are net sinks today. Those are canonical results, not inventions. If you think any specific point is wrong, identify which one and we can look at the evidence directly.
This forces him back onto content, where he is weakest.
If you want, I can also reconstruct the exact long‑term CO₂ explanation I gave you earlier so you can show precisely what was asked and answered.
Who would be smarter in avoiding avoiding being captured by the AGW Global Warming Cult?
AI–
Comparing the “intelligence” of Greta Thunberg, Dr. William Happer, and Dr. Nicola Scafetta involves looking at very different types of expertise and backgrounds within the climate debate.
Scientific Qualifications and Expertise
Dr. Happer and Dr. Scafetta are career scientists with high-level academic credentials, while Greta Thunberg is an activist whose influence is based on communication and mobilizing public opinion.
Dr. William Happer: A physicist and Professor Emeritus at Princeton University, Happer has published over 200 peer-reviewed papers. He specialized in atomic physics and optics and served as the Director of Energy Research at the U.S. Department of Energy. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences.
Dr. Nicola Scafetta: A research scientist at the University of Naples Federico II and formerly at Duke University. His expertise is in statistical physics and complex systems, focusing on the role of solar cycles in climate change.
Greta Thunberg: An activist who gained global fame for her Fridays for Future movement. Her formal education is at the secondary school level, and while she has received honorary doctorates (such as from the University of Helsinki), she is not a trained scientist.
How many disasters were predicted by the AGW Climate Change doomsayers have failed…
AI–
Based on compilations of climate change predictions over the past 50 years, there have been dozens to over 100 prominent predictions of environmental apocalypse—including ice ages, famine, the total melting of polar ice, and the collapse of civilization—that did not come to pass by their specified deadlines.
All the “failed climate predictions” is proof that the AGW Climate Change conjecture has been more a charlatans magic show put on by Leftist activists and have nothing to do with science.
Greta got an honorary degree in Theology from U. of Helsinki in 2023.
Well said, Ron. To add a bit more color, it was an “honorary doctorate degree”—nothing but the best will do to advance the school of Thunberg Theology.
Also, an honorary degree in Law from the University of British Columbia in 2021.
BTW, what publications do you have that show you have any scientific intelligence, whether it be natural or artificial? You can always check my 100+ publications in Chemistry and Physics, written before AI was available. What do you have: a blog?
Maybe you’re no Leo Paquette, or Bharat Aggarwal—but so what. You’re generally not honest though.
Good to see that sometimes contrarians get censored around here.
Arthur Schopenhauer argued that excessive citations were often a “facade of intellectual rigor” used by those with “sterile” minds to give their arguments an unearned sense of authority.
Wags, what are your scientific qualifications and expertise?
It’s not hard to ask:
[Me] What are B A Bushaw’s scientific qualifications and expertise?
[Copilot/ChatGPT5.1, smart] B. A. Bushaw’s scientific qualifications and expertise center on high‑precision laser spectroscopy, ultratrace isotope analysis, and advanced mass‑spectrometric techniques, supported by a long research career at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL). The publicly available record paints a consistent picture of a physicist specializing in resonance ionization, isotope‑ratio metrology, and detection of rare isotopes at attogram–femtogram levels.
🎓 Academic and Professional Background
– Affiliation: Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL/PNNL), Richland, Washington.
His work appears in DOE‑supported research reports and conference proceedings.
– Role: Research physicist specializing in laser‑based isotope detection and spectroscopic methods.
(Your own background—BS/MS Chemistry, PhD Physics, 35 years at a national lab—aligns with this public record, but the summary below sticks strictly to what is externally documented.)
🔬 Core Scientific Expertise
1. Resonance Ionization Spectroscopy (RIS) and Mass Spectrometry
Bushaw’s publications emphasize:
– Continuous‑wave (cw) resonance ionization schemes for isotope‑selective ionization.
– Achieving attogram‑level detection limits and isotopic selectivity >10⁹, enabling measurement of isotopes far below the reach of conventional decay counting.
– Application of RIS to environmental and radiological isotopes such as ²¹⁰Pb and ⁹⁰Sr, including biological sample analysis for radon‑exposure studies.
2. Ultratrace Isotope Measurement
His work demonstrates:
– Sub‑femtogram detection of ²¹⁰Pb using laser‑induced ionization.
– Development of analytical methods for isotopes relevant to environmental monitoring and nuclear safeguards.
3. High‑Precision Isotope Ratio Analysis
Bushaw is listed as inventor on multiple patents describing:
– Laser‑ablation–based destructive isotope‑ratio analysis with single‑shot femtogram sensitivity.
– Systems achieving ≈1% or better precision in isotope‑ratio determinations for solids, liquids, and particulates.
These patents reflect deep expertise in:
– Laser–plasma interaction physics
– Collinear probe‑beam diagnostics
– High‑precision metrology for nuclear materials
4. Laser Physics and Optical Systems
IEEE Xplore records associate him with topics including:
– Glass lasers, optical cavities, Q‑switching, saturable absorbers
– High‑voltage pulse systems and plasma‑tube dynamics
– Phase‑locking and relaxation‑time analysis in laser oscillators
This indicates a strong foundation in laser engineering and nonlinear optics, consistent with the demands of resonance‑ionization spectroscopy.
🧭 Research Themes and Impact
Across these domains, Bushaw’s work consistently focuses on:
– Pushing detection limits for rare isotopes
– Improving isotopic selectivity through tailored multi‑step excitation schemes
– Developing practical analytical systems for environmental, radiological, and nuclear‑forensics applications
– Bridging spectroscopy and mass spectrometry to create hybrid measurement platforms
His contributions helped establish RIS‑MS as a premier technique for ultratrace isotope detection.
🧩 How this fits together
Taken as a whole, the public record shows a scientist with:
– Deep training in physics, physical chemistry, and laser spectroscopy
– A career devoted to precision measurement science
– Significant contributions to DOE mission areas, including environmental monitoring and nuclear safeguards
– A technical style emphasizing metrological rigor, optical engineering, and isotope‑specific analytical chemistry
If you’d like, I can also map this expertise to specific publication clusters, summarize his most‑cited works, or extract a thematic timeline of his research evolution.
———————————————–
Wags, JT, RC, CS. Feel free to ask the same about yourselves – and share it.
Like Will happer and Nicola Scafetta, many are defenders of the scientific method against what finally has come to be perceived as “climate orthodoxy,” as any thinking person should.
Wags – fail.
The failure of the AGW global warming consensus is more apparent everyday. Any thinking person is understandably critical of Hot World Western academics and the university system which is easily viewed as a threat to the productive. Like the supreme leaders of Iran, institutionalized learning has come to value authority and conformity over original and independent thought.
The failure of the AGW global warming consensus is more apparent everyday. Any thinking person is understandably critical of Hot World Western academics and the university system which is easily viewed as a threat to the productive. Like the supreme leaders of Iran, institutionalized learning has come to value authority and conformity over original and independent thought.
I just received the Scafetta book and began reading it. I won’t be making comments on the substance until I am finished but this is a first impression.
It’s richly sourced with maybe 1,000 footnotes. Many graphs. But what I found interesting was how recent some of the sources are, 2025 in some cases. With new insights into the science being published every week, this is important.
I’ve read a few other books in the last few months (not climate related) which took 6-8 years to complete. In one case the author has been working on the next volume since 2012. Kudos to Scafetta for including some recent studies.
The AGW Climate Change bed-wetters of Western Academia are conflicted cultural arsonists who blame the productive for putting food on their tables.
“The AGW Climate Change bed-wetters of Western Academia are conflicted cultural arsonists,,,”
Either that or one of them ran away with his daughter.
How Shakespearean…
“ A 30-year reconstruction of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation shows no decline”
The list of failed predictions is growing to a monumental length. Each time I read another study such as this one, I can’t help but think of that legendary 1980 song by Queen….”Another One Bites the Dust”.
https://os.copernicus.org/articles/17/285/2021/
Mr. Manager, I don’t think you read the paper, or have not understood it. And, you engage in non-sequitur logical fallacies. Here is the ‘prediction’ they made to close the paper: “Whether a restrengthened AMOC will ultimately have a strong impact on Atlantic climate such as was believed to have occurred in the 1990s (Robson et al., 2012) remains to be seen.”
Feel free to accept my challenge to have AI evaluate your scientific expertise.
If you don’t accept, I can have it done based strictly on your comments on CE.
[BAB] Are you able to evaluate the technical expertise of various people on CE from their comments there?
[ChatGPT 5.1 Yes — with an important distinction. I can analyze the technical content, reasoning style, and epistemic habits displayed in CE comments, but I cannot (and should not) make claims about a person’s real‑world identity, credentials, or professional history. What I can do is evaluate the quality of the arguments they present, the conceptual depth, and the hallmarks of expertise or lack thereof.
Think of it as evaluating the writing, not the person.
What I can reliably evaluate from CE comments
These are all grounded in the text itself, not external lookup:
🧠 1. Conceptual mastery
I can assess whether someone demonstrates:
– correct use of physical principles
– internal consistency
– awareness of standard results
– ability to handle units, scaling, and orders of magnitude
– recognition of uncertainty and boundary conditions
This is especially straightforward in climate, radiative transfer, and energy‑balance arguments — domains where you and I already work with shared conceptual scaffolding.
🔍 2. Reasoning structure
I can evaluate:
– whether their argument is deductive, inductive, or rhetorical
– whether they track assumptions
– whether they confuse correlation with causation
– whether they rely on cherry‑picked or misinterpreted sources
– whether they show signs of “cargo‑cult physics” (surface vocabulary without underlying structure)
📐 3. Technical fingerprints
From the way someone writes, I can infer:
– whether they think like an engineer, physicist, statistician, or hobbyist
– whether they understand differential vs. algebraic reasoning
– whether they can manipulate simple models
– whether they understand feedbacks, forcings, and constraints
– whether they can read a graph or equation correctly
This is not identity inference — it’s pattern recognition in the text.
🧩 4. Domain‑specific misconceptions
I can identify:
– misuse of Planck curves
– confusion between flux and temperature
– incorrect interpretations of ECS, TCR, or forcing definitions
– misunderstandings of paleoclimate constraints
– misuse of energy balance equations
– incorrect claims about CO₂ residence time or saturation
This is often the most useful part for CE debates.
What I cannot and will not do
To stay within safe boundaries:
– I cannot identify who someone “really is” outside CE.
– I cannot confirm or deny whether someone is a scientist, engineer, or layperson.
– I cannot access external information about them.
– I cannot assign credentials or professional status.
But I can say:
“Based on the reasoning in this comment, the writer shows X level of conceptual understanding and Y types of errors.”
That’s well within bounds.
How this becomes practically useful for you
Given your goals — crafting physics‑tight, debate‑ready responses — this capability lets me:
– diagnose where a commenter’s reasoning goes off the rails
– classify the type of misunderstanding (conceptual, mathematical, definitional, rhetorical)
– identify the minimum set of corrections needed
– help you tailor a response that addresses the actual failure mode, not just the surface claim
This is exactly the kind of work we’ve already been doing with JT’s comments.
A natural next step
If you want, you can paste a specific CE comment (or a few), and I can give you a technical‑quality assessment of the reasoning and the most efficient way to respond.
Would you like to start with a particular commenter or a specific comment thread?
[BAB] Good, that is all I would want – an evaluation of their scientific competence, not an evaluation of personal background that makes them think the way they do. Let’s do a trial run on ‘cerescokid’
.
.
.
ganon
That is top manager to you.
As expected from a garden variety former low level non federal employee who is infected with debilitating lack of self awareness.
The title of the study was exactly as I quoted.
Another One Bites the Dust
https://climatlas.com/tropical/global_major_freq.png
If you take out the disintermediators of Western Academia, at its core, the AGW Global Warming Catastrophism meme is at its core a Malthusian Catastrophism meme– famine, disease, war- oh my!
Kid, ‘Top manager’ – was that your title or a self-assessment?
I was in top management. I hope that helps.
In 2008, Arctic ice free in 10 years.
Another one bites the dust.
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Screen-Shot-2017-03-19-at-7.35.34-AM-down-1.gif
Do you think that is a valid reference? Certainly one of your best. It must be one of those ‘thousands’ that you have indexed, but not understood the fallacies. Neither you nor your newspaper clipping seems to understand the importance of verbatim quotations. Biased paraphrasing is ignorant and ignorable.
2004
“Britain will be Siberian in less than 20 years”
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/DyieCmkU0AAwS2D.png
Another one bites the dust
And another one, and another one
and another one, and………
OK, self-assessment, and certainly not top science anything.
The ChatGPT assessment of your writings has been held for moderation (deep sixed) – no surprise on this highly biased site, they must feel the need to protect syncophants.
PS – AI had some good things to say about you, in addition to an assessment of your scientific capabilities.