From “Show me the money” to “Show me your work”

Much of what is wrong with climate science started when they switched from real world observations to building and playing with computer toy models of the world. Much of the research money has gone into climate modelling, which has yet to show skill in predicting changes in weather patterns on any time scale beyond a few weeks. The models themselves are confused by their makers with the real world, and they even refer to computer runs as “experiments.”

Almost 2 years ago I became aware of Dr. Arnd Bernaerts’ insightful phrase, “Climate is the continuation of the ocean by other means.” From oceanographic observations, he has long been persuaded the climate changes because of ocean oscillations, and I learned a lot from him while writing a number of posts here collected under the category Oceans Make Climate.

Arnd is also persuaded that humans are impacting on the oceans, and thereby upon the climate, but by obvious maritime activities and not by CO2 emissions. For his impertinence, he was “disappeared” from Wikipedia by the zealots there who purge that website from sources and information skeptical of global warming dogma.

As happened in Soviet history, climate revisionists are rewriting history.

As happened in Soviet history, climate revisionists are rewriting history.

Dr. Bernaerts continues to write on climate and ocean matters, most recently at his website: Oceans Govern Climate

Ironically, alarmists are crowing right now about Arctic ice extent being a little lower this year, while not mentioning most of the deficit is due to Barents Sea, and secondly to less ice in Bering Sea. Both of those places are subject to extensive maritime activity–shipping, fishing, oil and mineral exploration and extraction, and icebreaking to support year-round operations. Bernaerts explains: Man-Made Ocean Warming? Yes, but it’s not CO2.

Activist scientists, fixated on models and global warming, are indifferent to the correlation between WWI Atlantic naval warfare and unprecedented warming at Spitzbergen (Svalbard). Only an evidence-based scientist like Bernaerts is paying attention, as I have reported previously (here).

Another example of how science is perverted to support a political climate agenda was provided by commenter crypto666 referring to Matt Lachniet’s research into the former ocean basin in Nevada. By happenstance, Bernaerts had visited the Great basin last September (If you’re devoted to the oceans, I guess you are interested even in prehistoric, dried-out basins.)

Lachniet is properly circumspect in his writing and presentations, noting his findings pertain to a particular location, and suggesting several possible explanations for anomalous warming starting 1600 years ago. Yet his research was twisted into a climate change warning by journalists writing in the Las Vegas Sun (here).

As crypto points out, this is not what Lachniet himself has said. He is as clear as anyone that warming starting in the Fifth century did not come from people driving SUVs, so some natural oscillations must be in play. (California terminology: SUV=Axle of Evil).


My hope for 2017 is to begin seeing a regime shift in climate science from “Show me the money” to “Here are my data and work, Let the chips fall where they may.” Natural scientists have always owned a sense of awe alongside their curiosity, appreciating the enormity of the world they seek to understand. Dr. Bernaerts is right to remind us that even with modern technologies, our hard-won observational data is a minuscule sampling of oceanic and atmospheric activities. Any conclusions to be drawn should be put forward with humility. The dogmatic positions of climate alarmists are a disgrace to the profession.

Footnote: Below are reprinted relevant comments from Bernaerts and crypto.

Arnd Bernaerts said:

Hi Ron, having been to the Great Basin/NV recently, I couldn’t resist asking: what have 3,500 Argo floats and other ocean sensors (image caption) and the Matt Lachniet „nevada-caves-climate-change” (link in one of your comments) in common?
In – MHO – a lot, as they are both of little help to understand how to prevent anthropogenic climate change sufficiently. Recalling my visit of the Lehman caves a few days earlier or later (on 9th September) as Matt Lachniet, the cave formation was impressive, but hardly of any use for current concern.

3,500 Argo floats are certainly a more promising approach. But if one considers the dimension (& temperatures) in which they operate; nicely outlined recently at, it is like reading from stalactite about AGW matters.

The use of Argo floats is an achievement, but by far too small. Observations below the sea surface would require a number of several hundred thousand, if not millions of devices (and the capability to process the data sufficiently). After all we need to understand the role of the oceans, and whether they bring a severe cooling, which is possible at any time.

Ron, to you, your family and everybody calling at this site:

crypto666 said:

Thanks for pointing that out Ron. All I can say is unbelievable.

“Lachniet’s Great Basin research suggests that, based on the Earth’s orbit, the region should not be in a dry period. But it is. In any scenario, human-caused climate change, amplified over the next few centuries by natural warming, could be troublesome for a place that’s already notoriously dry and hot.”

The first thing I will point out however, is that those are not his words. Those are the words of the article writer. It is also either an outright lie, or a mistake. Another writer from the UNLV paper tried saying that Matt’s research suggests humans started changing the climate 1,600ybp, which again is not the case.

I know Matt, and he delivered his 2014 study to my colleagues and myself personally. After we talked for a bit, and surprised him by identifying that change in trend before he did in his work, which he identified as being 1,600 ybp, I asked him what his thoughts were on co2. What I vividly remember is Matt pointing to his chart and stating that he doesn’t think anyone will be able to identify co2’s contribution to climate change until we reached the point of his finger, which is where we should start the long road back to glaciation. It may have 2ky or maybe it was 55ky, at any rate what he says in person isn’t exactly what you get from news articles and twitter feeds.
I will also point out this:

A Speleothem Record of Great Basin Paleoclimate
January 2016
DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-444-63590-7.00020-2
In book: Lake Bonneville – A Scientific Update, pp.551-569…n_Paleoclimate

“The lag behind NHSI of d18O variations suggests that the forcing is indirect. Several possible forcings are associated with the Great Basin d18O variations. First, it is clear that CO2 concentrations increase abruptly around the MIS 2/1 and MIS 6/5d transitions, which may explain some of the warming over Terminations I and II. However, Nevada d18O values drop steadily throughout the Holocene, whereas CO2 remains high and even increases slightly over the last 8000 years (Ruddiman, 2003). Similarly, the strongly low d18O values during MIS 5d and MIS 7 happen during intervals with intermediate to high CO2 values.

Thus, the CO2 changes may amplify a warming already in progress around ice volume terminations but are unlikely to be the source of the climate change, because they are decoupled during prominent intervals such as MIS 1 and 5d. A related hypothesis suffers from similar problems: the extent of the Laurentide Ice Sheet (LIS). The LIS retreated over the MIS 2/1 and MIS 6/5 transitions when temperatures in the Great Basin warmed (as inferred by increasing d18O values). However, decreasing d18O values from 8 ka to modern happened in the absence of any ice-sheet regrowth, and the prominent MIS 5d and MIS 7 minima also happened when ice sheets were small. Thus ice-sheet extent cannot be the primary driver of Great Basin d18O variations. The clear conclusion is that neither CO2 nor ice-sheet extent were the sole or dominant controls on Great Basin paleoclimate over orbital timescales.”

That conclusion doesn’t strike me as coming from someone who believes co2 controls climate.  There is a big leap from believing that co2 could cause increased heating of the atmosphere, and thinking co2 controls climate and/or we can control climate with co2.

I have actually had people try to use Mr. Lachniet’s twitter account in an attempt to change the conclusion of his studies. Which is always entertaining.


One comment

  1. ArndB · January 1

    Thanks a lot, Ron. All the best! Arnd

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s