Greenland Ice Core CO2 Concentrations Deserve Reconsideration

Guest post by Renee Hannon

Ice cores datasets are important tools when reconstructing Earth’s paleoclimate. Antarctic ice core data are routinely used as proxies for past CO2 concentrations. This is because twenty years ago scientists theorized Greenland ice core CO2 data was unreliable since CO2 trapped in air bubbles had potentially been altered by in-situ chemical reactions. As a result, Greenland CO2 datasets are not used in scientific studies to understand Northern and Southern hemispheres interactions and sensitivity of greenhouse gases under various climatic conditions.

This theory was put forward because Greenland CO2 data were more variable and different than Antarctic CO2 measurements located in the opposite polar region about 11,000 miles away. This article re-examines Greenland ice cores to see if they do indeed contain useful CO2 data. The theory of in-situ chemical reactions to explain a surplus and deficit of CO2, relative to Antarctic data, will be shown to be tenuous. The Greenland CO2 data demonstrates a response to the Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age, Dansgaard-Oeschger and other past climate change events. This response to past climate changes offers an improved explanation for why Greenland and Antarctic CO2 measurements differ. Further, Greenland CO2 measurements show rapid increases of 100 ppm during warm events in relatively short periods of time.

Continue reading


Polar Push and Pull

Guest post by Renee Hannon

This post examines regional temperature reconstructions during the past several thousand years relative to different baselines and the responses of end member deviants, the Arctic and Antarctic polar extremes. And it’s a quite interesting tug of war.

Continue reading

The Effects of the Bray Climate and Solar Cycle

By Andy May

Javier has posted three new essays on the Bray climate and solar cycle on Judith Curry’s web site. Part A is here, part B is here and Part C is here. In these posts, he lays out the evidence, in some detail, for the climate cycle and the associated solar cycle. Here I will summarize the results of his analysis and explain why it matters. The Bray solar and climate cycle are arguably the most important climate/solar cycle of the Holocene Epoch. Continue reading

IPCC Politics and Solar Variability

By Andy May

This post is about an important new paper by Nicola Scafetta, Richard Willson, Jae Lee and Dong Wu (Scafetta, Willson and Lee, et al. 2019) on the ACRIM versus PMOD total solar irradiance (TSI) composite debate that has been raging for over 20 years. ACRIM stands for Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitor, these instruments recorded solar irradiance from space for many years. Richard Willson is the principle investigator in the laboratory that studied the results, Nicola Scafetta worked in the laboratory, until he accepted a position as a professor at the University of Naples Federico II.

The paper casts a spotlight on the political problems at the IPCC. In order to properly put the ACRIM vs PMOD debate into context and to show why this obscure and complicated scientific and engineering debate is important, we need to also discuss the messy politics within and between the IPCC and the UNFCCC.

Continue reading

#acrim, #pmod, #tsi

Dutch Cabinet Postpones New Climate Measures because of Virus

Guest opinion by Wim Röst


The Dutch government has been in the forefront for ‘Climate Action’. But a remarkable switch in policy has been caused by the economic reality resulting from ‘the virus’.

Postponement of new climate measures

Autumn 2019 the Dutch Parliament asked the Dutch government to take extra climate measures. But in an announcement last Friday the Government stated that no new measures will be taken to diminish CO2 emissions because of the corona virus crisis.

“Many people now have other things to do. So do we.” said minister Wiebes from the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy.

This fundamental switch by the Dutch government is quite logical given the recent developments in the economy caused by the corona virus. A real crises asks all energy and money to be directed to other goals than the virtual goal of ‘trying to avoid a possible danger for the year 2100’. Even the internationally well known ‘Urgenda Court Ruling’ does not have any priority. In the words of the Minister: “The court ruling is not off the table, but there are other priorities”.


According to the Urgenda Court Ruling the Dutch government is obliged to do more to achieve the present emission goals. This year many more measures should be taken to reach those goals. Economic reality however puts the climate goals aside. One of the groups that is putting pressure on governments to do so is Clintel which stands for ‘Climate Intelligence’.

Clintel’s letter to World Leaders

Last week a letter co-signed by Professor Richard Lindzen, by The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (and many others) asked world leaders to let the actual virus and economic crisis prevail over climate goals. In the words of Prof. Guus Berkhout, president of Clintel:

“Your Excellencies, compared to COVID-19 climate change is a non-problem! It is based on computer models and looks into the far future. In current health emergency, however, your attention to the peoples’ needs is today! Please, don’t continue pushing your zero carbon emission ambition in a time that the world is dealing with a deadly global crisis. Yes, there is an emergency, but it is NOT the climate.”

A translation of the open letter is available in many languages.


The decision of the Dutch government to postpone new climate measures signals a fundamental change in priorities by a country that has been one of the most committed to achieving climate goals.

Economic reality will urge many governments to follow.

With regards to commenting: please adhere to the rules known for this site: quote and react, not personal.

About the author: Wim Röst studied human geography in Utrecht, the Netherlands. The above is his personal view. He is not connected to firms or foundations nor is he funded by government(s).

Glaciers and Sea Level Rise

By Andy May

This is the seventh and last post in my series on the hazards of climate change. In this post we examine the effects of climate change on glaciers and sea level rise. The first six examined the effect of humans on the environment, the effect of the growing human population, climate change and the food supply, the cost of global warming, the effect of man and climate change on extinctions, climate (or weather) related deaths, and extreme weather and climate change. Continue reading

Some Failed Climate Predictions

Guest post by Javier

Here, for the first time in public, is Javier’s entire collection of massive, “consensus” climate science prediction failures. This collection is carefully selected from only academics or high-ranking officials, as reported in the press or scientific journals. Rather than being exhaustive, this is a list of fully referenced arguments that shows that consensus climate science usually gets things wrong, and thus their predictions cannot be trusted. Continue reading

The planet is no longer warming

By Javier


We define “warming” as a positive rate of temperature change over time. According to the main hypothesis, warming since 1951 has been due almost exclusively to the increase in GHGs (greenhouse gases), of which CO2 is the most important one. The IPCC does not find anything else that has contributed to the observed warming. Continue reading

Calculating the Cost of Global Warming

By Andy May

Hopefully, the first two posts in this series, “Do humans harm the environment” and “Population Growth and the Food Supply” have convinced the reader that man-made climate change and global warming are not an existential threat to humanity or the planet. This leaves us in a discussion of the cost of global warming, which is something we can calculate. To do the calculation, we need to estimate the monetary damages caused by global warming, when they will be incurred, and the discount rate of money over that period of time. We will not attempt the calculation here, it is too complex, but we can discuss the parameters and some of the calculations done by others. Continue reading

Do humans harm the environment?

By Andy May

This is the first of seven posts on the potential costs and hazards of human-caused global warming and the impact of humans on the environment in general. The IPCC WGII AR5 Technical Summary, defines “hazards” on page 39:

“The potential occurrence of a natural or human-induced physical event or trend or physical impact that may cause loss of life, injury, or other health impacts, as well as damage and loss to property, infrastructure, livelihoods, service provision, ecosystems, and environmental resources. In this report, the term hazard usually refers to climate-related physical events or trends or their physical impacts.”

Do humans harm the environment? If we assume humans are causing most of the current global warming, is the warming dangerous? If we are dangerous to the environment, should we limit our population in some way? If global warming is potentially dangerous, and we assume human CO2 emissions are the cause, would we be better off to adapt to the human-caused global warming and continue using fossil fuels, or do we need to stop using fossil fuels to limit emissions? We will consider these issues here and in future posts. Continue reading