The Faith Component of Global Warming Predictions


It’s been ten years since I addressed this issue in a specific blog post, so I thought it would be useful to revisit it. I mention it from time to time, but it is so important, it bears repeating and remembering.

Over and over again.

I continue to strive to simply these concepts, so here goes another try. What follows is as concise as I can make it.

  1. The temperature change in anything, including the climate system, is the result of an imbalance between the rates of energy gain and energy loss. This comes from the First Law of Thermodynamics. Basic stuff.
  2. Global warming is assumed to be due to the small (~1%) imbalance between absorbed sunlight and infrared energy lost to outer space averaged over the Earth caused by increasing atmospheric CO2 from fossil fuel burning.
  3. But we don’t know whether the climate system, without human influence, is in a natural state of energy balance anyway. We do not know the quantitative average amounts of absorbed sunlight and emitted infrared energy across the Earth, either observationally or from first physical principles, to the accuracy necessary to blame most recent warming on humans rather than nature. Current best estimates, based upon a variety of datasets, is around 239-240 Watts per sq. meter for these energy flows. But we really don’t know.

When computer climate models are first constructed, these global-average energy flows in and out of the climate system do not balance. So, modelers adjust any number of uncertain processes in the models (for example, cloud parameterizations) until they do balance. They run the model for, say, 100 years and make sure there is little or no long-term temperature trend to verify balance exists.

Then, they add the infrared radiative effect of increasing CO2, which does cause an energy imbalance. Warming occurs. They then say something like, “See? The model proves that CO2 is responsible for warming we’ve seen since the 1950s.”

But they have only demonstrated what they assumed from the outset. It is circular reasoning. A tautology. Evidence that nature also causes global energy imbalances is abundant: e.g., the strong warming before the 1940s; the Little Ice Age; the Medieval Warm Period. This is why many climate scientists try to purge these events from the historical record, to make it look like only humans can cause climate change.

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

one is amazed at aurora borealis or the aurora austrailis with the deep red, blue colors that shimmer over the horizon on a daily event. the climate experts and followers gawk at this wondrous heavenly event. this heavenly event impacts upon the elector-magnetic field about the earth. these auroras disrupt the magnetic field and contribute to massive loss of energy. so maybe the climate pimples should ban auroras.

Climate Misinformation by Source: Roy Spencer

There’s one thing can be said with certainty: public perceptions on the issue are influenced every bit as much by politics on the right as on the left.

The models don’t confirm anything but what climate alarmists believe (or want to make others believe) is happening. This is why the cataclysmic predictions made don’t come to pass. As more of these predictions fail, the left grown more desperate because convincing a public that can SEE through the lies is becoming more difficult. Desperate because trillions of dollars and global control is slipping away.

Which predictions are you referring to? Those of the denialists’ favorite straw men, or those agreed upon by the great majority of all climatologists? Because those of the latter do seem to be coming to pass.

@Greg: List of issues climate activists will not face

A Short List Of Facts Global Warming Alarmists Don’t Want To Face

Signs predicting glacier disappearance by 2020 removed after it grows by 30%

National Parks Quietly Toss Signs Saying Glaciers ‘Will Be Gone’ By 2020 (They’re Growing)

Increasing rate of species extinctions? No, DECREASING.

Mass extinction lie exposed: life is thriving

Ice thickness gains at Antarctica

Climate scam predictions fail to come to pass

For the record… One week ago the temperature reached 100°F in Verkhoyansk, a small Siberian town 70 miles north of the Arctic Circle. In a few short years, gobal warming is going to make COVID-19 look like a Sunday afternoon walk in the park.

Not to worry. It’s probably just more leftist false news—leftists being people who believe human beings should stop acting like morons.

June 24, 2020 – NASA Images Show Extreme Heat and Fires Raging Across Siberia

This would be a concrete example of The Heat Component of Global Warming Predictions.

@Greg: I think it’s what you socialists call “weather” in the wintertime during unprecedented snowfalls and freezes.

I think the world could be burning down around them and some people would deny the smell of smoke. Over the past few years we have become a very stupid country. Witness the childish resistance to the simple remedy of wearing masks as a pandemic surges. There’s no chance we’ll respond intelligently to a climate catastrophe a decade in the future when we can’t even get it together to head off a looming COVID-19 economic catastrophe only weeks or months away. Some people will stand on the tracks watching that train approach, angrily complaining about the noise of the whistle.

@Greg: Well, we know we could have record thickness of polar ice and you wealth-redistributors would be denying THAT.

@Deplorable Me, #9:

Seasonal fluctuations are not the issue. The issue is the continuing overall decline in ice volume, as this chart graphically demonstrates.

There’s really not much question about the reality of Arctic sea ice decline. It’s simply an observed fact. Wikipedia has collected a large body of compelling evidence. Links have been provided to the sources of that data. There is no credible evidence to the contrary. Arctic sea ice decline

@Greg: Ah, from the Wikipedia Institute of Science.

@Deplorable Me: Yes the any moron can alter the information as long as the libs running it approve pedia.
Palms flourished in the Arctic during a brief sweltering period about 50 million years ago, according to a study on Sunday that hints at big gaps in scientific understanding of modern climate change.
(yes, we live in an ice age!). Currently, we are in a warm interglacial that began about 11,000 years ago. not with Ford inventing the assemby line for cars.

@Greg: June 24, 2020 –

NASA Images Show Extreme Heat and Fires Raging Across Siberia

People used to use peat to heat their hovels, lightning strikes seemed to have caused these fires and peat like coal is hard to extinguish. Oh, fire happens to cause heat.
Could it be the draining of the bogs by short sighted communists could be a contributing factor not climate crises? Central government planning drained lots of bogs to reclaim the area for farming.
Then there is this communist follow the science error
They will like Democrats never admit a mistake but double down.

@Deplorable Me, #11:

Did you miss the part about the links to all of their data sources?

@kitt, #12:

Yes the any moron can alter the information as long as the libs running it approve pedia.

Actually, that statement is totally incorrect. Wikipedia is a collective effort, but articles presented there are subject to peer review. Anyone who has a disagreement about information provided can be included in an open discussion about it. Sources for the information must be credible, and those sources must be provided so that they can be found by Wikipedia users. The vandalism of politically motivated morons is generally discovered and removed quickly, though it remains in the history of every article’s revision so that anyone can see what changes have occurred and why. There’s also a discussion page where disputed information is openly discussed.

You won’t find that sort of attention to detail or that sort of detailed revision history in any printed reference.

@Greg: that sort of detailed revisionist history in any printed reference.
I know in the remedial class in your banana republic education they may not have taught you that climate changes, the forces that cause it are beyond pathetic human control, The Sun, the wobble of the earth, volcanic activity and changes in magnetic north, yes the earth is a big magnet. The death of our kelp forests caused most likely by dams no minerals or plant food no kelp, if they would dump the minerals into the ocean when they dredge the dam it might make a difference.
Our current Ice age may be ending but I still cant plant orange trees, global attempts at geo-engineering could be a cause of much freaky weather, we know our pals the Chinese wouldnt weaponize it, thats against the rules.
Humans adapt, we must simply adapt to the natural cycles of the planet.

Discounting all sources of information that don’t comply with what we imagine we already know guarantees that we will remain ignorant. People are being encouraged by right-wing media to do exactly that. This takes the form of constant disparaging attacks on “the mainstream media”, on scientific consensus, on public television and radio, and on readily accessible collections of credible, non-controlled information like Wikipedia.

Have you not noticed that Trump does this constantly? He doesn’t want competing information, views, or interpretations. He wants to control what you think. He wants authority over what is understood to be true or false. Any intelligent, free-thinking person should instantly recognize this as a serious danger signal.


Discounting all sources of information that don’t comply with what we imagine we already know guarantees that we will remain ignorant.

Yup exactly what Forbes did. By censoring a source that in all accounts was deemed an expert censoring what could be information vital to you to make you less ignorant, there is no science that is performed by consensus, science is repeatable, proven and never ever settled.
Its these insane phrases that give us pause to reflect and conclude they have no experiments that are repeatable and could be proven as fact.
Kids/Gregs inner child: Definition of science
1 : knowledge about the natural world that is based on facts learned through experiments and observation.
It is a scientific fact climate changes, no one denies that.

Enjoy yourself…

09/08/22 – World on brink of five ‘disastrous’ climate tipping points, study finds

It’s later than you think…

09/06/22 – The Thwaits Glacier could collapse in only 3 to 5 years. That event alone would raise global sea levels by 6 to 10 feet.

On the bright side, Mar-a-Lago would be under water. Its elevation is only 3 feet above sea level.

As for the rest of us, 126 million Americans live in the nation’s coastal counties.

Climate Change is a doctrine, a religion at this point, meant to give the pretense of a crisis so normal citizens give their rights away to global power brokers.

It’s been one of the main ways Europe has leveraged their power to make a run for a global dictatorship (the WEF), but it’s failing.

Climate Change Religion is now killing millions, which of course is the point. It’s a genocide, with the so-called “enlightened” among us ready to inherit the Earth after they have pushed policies to kill off Billions (See: Sri Lanka).

Vote out any candidate that is enslaved by this demonic ideology, and say NO to the ESG.

Americans have a chance to smash this global attack on freedom, and to save third world countries from Euro-trash led disaster.

So I guess Obama isn’t worried. A house in Hawaii and one in Martha’s Vineyard, both in danger of flooding, but he seems not to care. He also is has propane tanks installed, which I have no idea what they will put in them since fossil fuels won’t be available in the liberal utopia.
AOC said we had 12 years left, now it must be about 9. Sorry if I don’t play along. I’ve heard this song before. So far we have a history of nothing but FAILED climate change predictions. Yet you never question the doctrine.

I suppose you want the rest of the US to copy the California model? Sorry if I don’t want to play along.

California’s Net-Zero Energy Model Is Already A Disaster — So Why Should The Rest Of The U.S. Copy It?