Reality-based climate forecasting

By |2017-01-08T11:14:42+00:00January 8th, 2017|CFACT Insights|23 Comments

After diving recently among Key West’s fabled ship-destroying barrier reefs, I immersed myself in exhibits from the Nuestra Senora de Atocha, the fabled Spanish galleon that foundered during a ferocious hurricane in 1622. The Mel Fisher Maritime Museum now houses many of the gold, silver, emeralds, and artifacts that Mel and Deo Fisher’s archeological team recovered after finding the wreck in 1985.

Also featured prominently in the museum is the wreck of a British slave ship, the Henrietta Marie. It sank in a hurricane off Key West in 1700, after leaving 190 Africans in Jamaica, to be sold as slaves.

As Fisher divers excavated the Henrietta wreck, at 40 feet below the sea surface they found – not just leg shackles and other grim artifacts from that horrific era – but charred tree branches, pine cones and other remnants from a forest fire 8,400 years ago! The still resinous smelling fragments demonstrate that this area (like all other coastal regions worldwide) was well above sea level, before the last ice age ended and melting glaciers slowly raised oceans to their current level: 400 feet higher than during the frigid Pleistocene, when an enormous portion of Earth’s seawater was locked up in glaciers.

Climate change has clearly been “real” throughout earth and human history. The question is, exactly how and how much do today’s human activities affect local, regional, or global climate and weather?

Unfortunately, politicized climate change researchers continue to advance claims that complex, powerful, interconnected natural forces have been replaced by manmade fossil fuel emissions, especially carbon dioxide; that any future changes will be catastrophic; and that humanity can control climate and weather by controlling its appetite for oil, gas, coal, and modern living standards.

If you like your climate, you can keep it, they suggest. If you don’t, we can make you a better one.

Not surprisingly, climate chaos scientists who’ve relied on the multi-billion-dollar government gravy train are distraught over the prospect that President Donald Trump will slash their budgets or terminate their CO2-centric research. Desperate to survive, they are replacing the term “climate change” with “global change” or “weather” in grant proposals, and going on offense with op-ed articles and media interviews.

“This is what the coming attack on science could look like,” Penn State modeler and hockey stick creator Michael Mann lamented in a Washington Post column. “I fear what may happen under Trump. The fate of the planet hangs in the balance.” (Actually, it’s his million-dollar grants that hang in the balance.)

A “skeptic” scientist has warmed to the idea that a major Greenland ice shelf may be shrinking because of climate change, a front-page piece in the Post claimed. Perhaps so. But is it manmade warming? Does it portend planetary cataclysm, even as Greenland’s interior and Antarctica show record ice growth? Or are warm ocean currents weakening an ice shelf that is fragile because it rests on ocean water, not land?

The fundamental problem remains. If it was substandard science and modeling under Obama era terminology, it will be substandard under survivalist jargon. The notion that manmade carbon dioxide now drives climate and weather – and we can predict climate and weather by looking only at plant-fertilizing CO2 and other “greenhouse gases” – is just as absurd now as before.

Their predictions will be as invalid and unscientific as divining future Super Bowl winners by modeling who plays left guard for each team – or World Cup victors by looking at center backs.

As climate realists take the reins at the EPA and other federal and state agencies, the Trump Administration should ensure that tax dollars are not squandered on more alarmist science that is employed to justify locking up more fossil fuels, expanding renewable energy and “carbon capture” schemes, reducing U.S. living standards, and telling poor countries what living standards they will be “permitted” to have.

Reliable forecasts, as far in advance as possible, would clearly benefit humanity. For that to happen, however, research must examine all natural and manmade factors, and not merely toe the pretend-consensus line that carbon dioxide now governs climate change.

That means government grants must not go preferentially to researchers who seek to further CO2-centrism, but rather to those who are committed to a broader scope of solid, dispassionate research that examines both natural and manmade factors. Grant recipients must also agree to engage in robust discussion and debate, to post, explain and defend their data, methodologies, analyses, and conclusions.

They must devote far more attention to improving our understanding of all the forces that drive climate fluctuations, the roles they play, and the complex interactions among them. Important factors include cyclical variations in the sun’s energy and cosmic ray output, winds high in Earth’s atmosphere, and decadal and century-scale circulation changes in the deep oceans, which are very difficult to measure and are not yet well enough understood to predict or be realistically included in climate models.

Another is the anomalous warm water areas that develop from time to time in the Pacific Ocean and then are driven by winds and currents northward into the Arctic, affecting U.S., Canadian, European, and Asian temperatures and precipitation. The process of cloud formation is also important, because clouds help retain planetary warmth, reflect the sun’s heat, and provide cooling precipitation.

Many scientists have tried to inject these factors into climate discussions. However, the highly politicized nature of U.S., IPCC, and global climate change funding, research, regulatory, and treaty-making activities has caused CO2-focused factions to discount, dismiss, or ignore the roles these natural forces play.

The political situation has also meant that most research and models have focused on carbon dioxide and other assumed human contributions to climate change. Politics, insufficient data and inadequate knowledge also cause models to reflect unrealistic physics theories, use overly simplified and inadequate numerical techniques, and fail to account adequately for deep-ocean circulation cycles and the enormity and complexity of natural forces and their constant, intricate interplay in driving climate fluctuations.

Speedier, more powerful computers simply make any “garbage in-garbage out” calculations, analyses, and predictions occur much more quickly – facilitating faster faulty forecasts … and policy recommendations.

The desire to secure research funding from Obama grantor agencies also perpetuated a tendency to use El Niño warming spikes, and cherry-pick the end of cooling cycles as the starting point for trend lines that allegedly “prove” fossil fuels are causing “unprecedented” temperature spikes and planetary calamity.

Finally, the tens of billions of dollars given annually in recent years to “keep it in the ground” anti-fossil fuel campaigners, national and international regulators, and renewable energy companies have given these vested interests enormous incentives to support IPCC/EPA pseudo-science – and vilify and silence climate realists who do not accept “catastrophic manmade climate change” precepts.

The Trump Administration and 115th Congress have a unique opportunity to change these dynamics, and ensure that future research generates useful information, improved understanding of Earth’s complex climate system, and forecasts that are increasingly accurate. In addition to the above, they should:

* Reexamine and reduce (or even eliminate) the role that climate model “projections” (predictions) play in influencing federal policies, laws and regulations – until modeling capabilities are vastly and demonstrably improved, in line with the preceding observations.

* Revise the Clean Air Act to remove the EPA’s authority to regulate carbon dioxide – or compel the EPA to reexamine its “endangerment” finding, to reflect the previous bullet, information, and commentary.

* Significantly reduce funding for climate research, the IPCC and the EPA, and science in general. Funding should be more broadly based, not monopolistic, especially when the monopoly is inevitably politicized.

This is not an “attack on science.” It is a reaffirmation of what real science is supposed to be and do.


  1. ninetyninepct January 8, 2017 at 4:45 PM

    Alberta Government Department of Agriculture CO2 report. The NDP Government don’t even follow their own information or scientists. Carbon taxes are outright theft based on lies.$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/opp2902

    • Dano2 January 8, 2017 at 7:26 PM

      This is about plant greenhouses. Poe’s Law alert everybody!



      • Brin Jenkins January 9, 2017 at 4:02 AM

        Then show us the mechanism where by an effect can become the cause Dano? Until you do I think you don’t understand yourself.

        • Immortal600 January 9, 2017 at 9:18 AM


  2. Dano2 January 8, 2017 at 7:24 PM

    ➀ First fib: politicized climate change researchers . Evidenceless assertion.

    ➁ Second fib: have been replaced by . No one claims that. Natural forces are swamped, not replaced.

    ➂ Third fib: any future changes will be catastrophic. Paul can’t quote anyone or anything stating this.

    ➃ Fourth fib: humanity can control climate and weather Paul can’t quote anyone or anything stating that humans can control

    ➄ Fifth fib: If you like your climate, you can keep it, they suggest. Cheap rhetoric. No one says anything but keeping temp changes under 1.5 or 2 C. Hardly ‘keeping it.

    ➅ Sixth fib: Desperate to survive, they are replacing the term “climate change” with “global change” or “weather” in grant proposals Craven ploy. The first two have been in use for over a decade, and no one is using “weather” in place of CC, and Paul can’t show any examples.

    ➆ Seventh fib: Greenland’s interior and Antarctica show record ice growth Utterly false (first fig)

    ➇ Eighth fib: If it was substandard … modeling Evidenceless assertion. No one can show any substandard modeling (save maybe for the models to underestimate ice loss or sea level rise) (second-fifth fig)

    ➈ Ninth fib: we can predict climate and weather by looking only CO2 Zero climate models have CO2 as the only parameter.

    ➉ Tenth fib: plant-fertilizing CO2 CO2 is not a fertilizer. NPK, Mg, etc are fertilizers.


    Whew! Ten fibs through less than half the essay is enough for anyone to see this essay is utterly preposterous.



    • Brin Jenkins January 9, 2017 at 4:04 AM

      All based on unreliable models and adjusted data. Just explain the C02 mechanism and infra red.

      • Immortal600 January 9, 2017 at 9:19 AM

        He can’t. He just parrots what he’s read somewhere. He is trying to save the world, you know? hahahahaha

        On second thought, if he really believes his third statement above, then WHY is he even worried about the increase in CO2????? Also number 4 falls into the same category. Why worry about it? OR do anything about it????

        • Dano2 January 10, 2017 at 1:14 AM

          Smart people would refute Dano to show how awesome they are and how wrong Dano is.

          Start any time.



          • Immortal600 January 10, 2017 at 8:28 AM

            If there was something to refute we would. You offer nothing but disinformation and you can’t explain how CO2 DRIVES change. Simple.

            • Dano2 January 10, 2017 at 9:14 AM

              I explained it for you.

              You lack ability and education to grasp it. My eighth-grader knows more than you do.



              • Immortal600 January 10, 2017 at 11:01 AM

                LIAR. You have NEVER explained it. You don’t have the intellect to do so. EVERYONE here has seen it.

                I hope your eighth grader can comprehend more than you do, sicko.

                • Dano2 January 10, 2017 at 11:36 AM

                  You have NEVER explained it.

                  Sure I have, to that thick dolt and to you as well.

                  Not my fault that you failed to grasp it. A 13 y.o. girl knows more about it than you do, and has better reading comprehension and critical thinking skills as well.




                  • Immortal600 January 10, 2017 at 11:39 AM

                    A 13 y.o. girl knows more about it than you do, and has better reading comprehension and critical thinking skills as well.

                    Projecting again, Dano?


                    Tell us again “how” you explained it. You haven’t, you know. Your attempt to bluster fails here. Why? I have forgotten more than you’ll ever know, fool.

                    One more thing. Have you had your mid-life crisis yet?


                    • Dano2 January 10, 2017 at 12:01 PM

                      Thanks for the prancing and ululating, LOLO.

                      Everyone remembers the last time I recapped for you the fact that I explained this to you and you couldn’t understand it.

                      You pranced and rent your garments and credulously linked to The Dumbest Disinformer on The Internet*, so I explained it again for you in a different way (I told you I’d bookmark it for the next time you pranced and ululated).

                      So this will be the reference comment for your deflecting, wailing, prancing, and gavotting behavior when you inevitably complain again that no one has ever explained it for you.



                      *The Dumbest Disinformer on The Internet is a sure-fire indicator that the person linking to The Dumbest Disinformer on The Internet is near the bottom of the cognitive totem pole. Check it out for yourselves – watch what kind of person links to The Dumbest Disinformer on The Internet – the man with two names and is shunned by every other denialist and disinformation site on The Internet – The Dumbest Disinformer on The Internet can’t even post on LoWatts any more – sad!

                    • Immortal600 January 10, 2017 at 12:07 PM

                      Just because YOU say so????? Really??????


                      The dumbest poster has to be YOU. You simply have no clue as you believe that CO2 science is settled. IT ISN’T and anyone with half a brain knows it.

                      Your links are to material that does NOT show how CO2 DRIVES climate change. YOU HAVE NOTHING TO SUBSTANTIATE your position. FACT!!!

                      I have more links for you from people 20 times smarter than you dream of being:



                      Take your lame views to them and let’s see how you fare.


                      PS How is your mid-life crisis coming along???


                    • Dano2 January 10, 2017 at 12:14 PM

                      Your links are to material that does NOT show how CO2 DRIVES climate change.

                      Like I said, you lack ability and capacity to grasp it.

                      Everyone else can see that you are a complete and utter time-waster on this issue, so this is the reference comment to show that you lack ability and capacity to grasp it, and you you are a complete and utter time-waster on this issue.

                      So to save time the next time 774 times you prance and ululate that my links are to material that does NOT show how CO2 DRIVES climate change, I’ll simply link to this reference post to show you lack ability and capacity to grasp it, and you you are a complete and utter time- (and byte) waster on this issue.

                      You are dismissed.



                    • Immortal600 January 10, 2017 at 12:16 PM

                      You are dismissed…………………………


                      I can grasp material 100 times better than you can. You are a lightweight trying to impress people with garbage that has no real meaning. Pass your tripe on to those who don’t know better. You lose here just as you always have.

                      BTW, check Dr. Berry’s link out. You won’t be able to refute it. Eric Grimsrud couldn’t. Maybe you’d like to try???

                    • Brin Jenkins January 12, 2017 at 2:19 PM

                      Your correct I don’t see how C02 drives warming, you are still failing and other fresh folk can see your lack of expertise and knowledge in explaining what you believe. Now in your own words give it a try.

                    • Brin Jenkins January 15, 2017 at 8:02 AM

                      Idiot, you make the claim C02 drives climate, its for you to substantiate this.

                    • Michael Castillo June 13, 2017 at 6:58 PM

                      The driver for climatic conditions is solar output.

                    • Brin Jenkins January 12, 2017 at 2:14 PM

                      Are you being sexist here Dano? Now just explain and educate folks, there are others you might win over!

                  • Brin Jenkins January 15, 2017 at 8:00 AM

                    Thick dolt? Dano you are an absolute liar who has never explained anything at all. Just give it a go in your own words without relying on others graphs, squiggles and websites. I can explain everything that I believe, are you unable or incompetent to do this?

  3. Crispus Attucks January 9, 2017 at 5:27 PM

    Carbon Cycle and Life

    Carbon is a fundamental building block of life; life on Earth is comprised of carbon-based life forms.

    Carbon and Life

    It is hard to overstate the importance of carbon; its unique capacity for forming multiple bonds and chains at low energies makes life as we know it possible, and justifies an entire major branch of chemistry – organic chemistry – dedicated to its compounds. In fact, most of the compounds known to science are carbon compounds, often called organic compounds because it was in the context of biochemistry that they were first studied in depth.

    What makes carbon so special is that every carbon atom is eager to bond with as many as four other atoms. This makes it possible for long chains and rings to be formed out of them, together with other atoms – almost always hydrogen, often oxygen, sometimes nitrogen, sulfur or halides. The study of these is the basis of organic chemistry; the compounds carbon forms with metals are generally considered inorganic. Chains and rings are fundamental to the way carbon-based life forms – that is, all known life-forms – build themselves.

Comments are closed.