Ceteris Paribus; Less is More, Use Only Data Sets That Don’t Require “Adjustments.”


CO2 blankets the globe at 400 ppm, so as far as any cross-sectional multivariable model it is considered a constant. In other words, at any one period in time, CO2 can not explain regional differences in temperature. CO2 is 400 ppm at the N. Pole, S. Pole, and the Equator. You can’t explain a variation with a constant, especially one that traps outgoing, not incoming radiation.

CO2, however, does vari over a time series. Each year CO2 increased by about 4 ppm, or about 1%, and vari as much as 11 ppm peak to trough. CO2, therefore, can explain variation over time of temperature. Key is, for all modern data sets, CO2 since the beginning of the industrial age, the period of study, CO2 only increases, it never decreases. If CO2 is the independent variable and temperature is the dependent variable, ceteris paribus, CO2 can only cause temperature to increase. CO2 can not explain drops in temperature. There is no defined mechanism by which CO2, trapping LWIR between 13 and 18 microns, can ever result in cooling. Absorbing radiation can only cause warming according to the AGW theory. In reality, CO2 causes cooling, not by absorbing, but by

Absorbing radiation can only cause warming according to the AGW theory. In reality, CO2 causes cooling, not by absorbing, but by increasing the transmission of radiation into outer-space. Greenhouse gasses impact temperature in two ways. The first and one embraced by the climate alarmists is through the absorption and “thermalization” of the outgoing radiation. Greenhouse gasses get “excited” when they absorb LWIR. No argument there. The “excitement” of the greenhouse gas is only temporary, and the absorbed radiation is rapidly re-radiated. This re-radiation of energy, directed away from the earth, rapidly transfers the energy out of the atmosphere and into outer-space resulting in cooling of the atmosphere. So greenhouse gasses can both warm and cool the atmosphere.  mlo_two_years

Because CO2 blankets the globe, there is really no need to include all areas, in fact, a well-run experiment would seek to remove many/any places that are impacted by factors over than CO2. In science, you want to “control” for as many factors as you can, and attempt to isolate the impact of changing just the independent variable on the dependent variable, i.e ceteris paribus.

Land measurement are all contaminated by many many many factors other than CO2, the best known is the “urban heat island effect.” Climate “scientists” compound this problem far far far more than they have to. CO2 is 400 ppm over the cities and is 400 ppm over the oceans. Oceans almost uniformly cover over 70% of the earth’s surface and inner Antarctica is almost uniformly snow. The oceans and inland Antarctica are ideal “controls” for the impact of CO2 on temperature.

Antarctic shows no warming since the late 1950’s even though CO2 has increased significantly, none. Neither do the oceans. The introductory graphic is a compilation of ocean lower troposphere temperatures. That data can be found here. Prior to the recent El Nino, temperatures were below the level reached in the early 1980s. While there are large variations, there is no significant established trend of warming. NASA/NOAA/CRU “adjusting” surface temperature data gathered in areas where the corruption of the CO2 temperature relationship is guaranteed demonstrates an ignorance of biblical proportions of collecting relevant data and proper modeling or a willful effort to deceive the public. By using known corrupted data sets, it has allowed the “adjustment” of the global climate data to fit the desired outcome.

In reality, a real scientist would want less temperature data, not more data. The climate data collected to study the impact of CO2 on climate should be limited to the areas there the impact of CO2 and temperature can be isolated and doesn’t need “adjustment.” Many real scientists like Dr. Willy Soon spend countless hours trying to “un-adjust” the data sets in an effort to reach the truth. These are noble efforts, but by using surface ground measurements, the data will always be corrupted. Interestingly, if one isolates the ground temperature measurements to just the locations that have long term unadjusted thermometer data, one also finds no warming. Only when the data gets “adjusted” does the warming develop. To fix this problem, the need to “adjust” the data should be eliminated. Only data that isolates the impact of CO2 on temperature should be used, and that data comes from over the oceans and inland Antarctica, and that data shows no warming.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

If President Trump wants to cut government spending, he should start by cutting all funding that is being used to collect corrupted data sets. Why spend money to only complicate the issue, and reward the propagation of psuedo-science? Data collection should be directed at collecting the purest data relevant to the theory. If CO2 drives temperature is the theory, collect data that best helps establish that connection. The data being collected today requires extreme “adjustments” and concentrates a lot of power in the hands of unelected guardians of the key, the keepers of the climate ring. The possibility of corruption is simply too high, and the consequences too great to risk.


18 thoughts on “Ceteris Paribus; Less is More, Use Only Data Sets That Don’t Require “Adjustments.””

  1. You would also have been well advised to include a graph showing the number of “corrections” to the true data. It truly is a hockey stick.


  2. The corrupted, adjusted data sets that alarmists fraudulently use to show every year being the hottest on record need to be discarded into the dust bin and real scientists should reconstruct the actual temperature graphs from scratch.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Looks like a small typo…………
    “The oceans are inland Antarctica are ideal “controls” for the impact of CO2 on temperature.”
    s/b oceans “and” inland Antarctica, not “are ”
    BTW Great article


  4. My question:
    Does the absorbed IR re-emit at the same wavelength, or does the the CO2 thermalize and re-emit at many other wavelengths?
    Also, if the CO2 thermalizes then, being a gas, it must expand and rise, which speeds up convection and is thus aids cooling. Is that true??
    And, if there is some down-welling IR, why would it not be “jammed” by the much stronger out-going IR?
    Weak radio signals can be jammed by strong transmitter on the same frequency. Right?


    1. CO2 has a distinct IR spectrum at 2.7, 4.3 and 15 microns, it isn’t a blackbody. It does however emit in all directions, and emiting upward faces less resistance than downward, so CO2 is more likely to transmit radiation out of the atmosphere than to trap it.

      Yes, convection does also help to pull heat away from the earth.

      Don’t know about the jamming, but the path of least resistance if out, not it.

      Lastly, CO2 has no impact on the lower atmosphere due to H2O dominating the absorption.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s