The addition of an esteemed Norwegian climate scientist to the London-based GWPF will help bring some sobriety back to a science that has all too often been immersed in alarmism.
The London-based Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) recently announced Professor Ole Humlum of Norway was joining its Academic Advisory Council.
This brings another persuasive voice to the influential think tank.
Dr. Ole Humlum is a former Professor of Physical Geography at the University Centre in Svalbard, Norway, and Emeritus Professor of Physical Geography at the University of Oslo. He is a member of the Norwegian Scientific Academy for Polar Research. Photo: GWPF.
The GWPF appointment is a move that climate science critics say will deliver some much needed sobriety to a science that has too frequently found itself immersed in activism, hysterical projections and alarmism.
In the wake of his appointment, Prof. Humlum answered some questions on climate science posed by NTZ via social media.
Sea level rise projections overblown
Concerning global sea level rise, Prof. Humlum believes the planet will see only “8-15 cm rise by the year 2100”. And though most scientists agree man is warming the planet through CO2 emissions by burning fossil fuels, Prof. Humlum wrote that the figure for CO2 climate sensitivity is completely in dispute.
Natural factors at play, modest cooling ahead
On what has driven the climate change observed over the past 40 years, Prof. Humlum wrote that it goes far beyond just CO2 and that the sun, clouds and oceans have played huge roles. Over the coming decades he thinks the planet will cool, but that “it won’t be dramatic”.
Concerning whether the 20th century warming has led to more weather extremes today, he answered: “No, not according to statistics known by me.”
“Natural climatic variations dominate”
On the global scale natural climatic variations dominate over effects caused by man. Climate models often claim to incorporate natural variations, but this is not correct, as can be shown by statistical analyses. Thus, the argument that only by assuming a large effect of CO2 can climate models reproduce global climate change since 1950 is invalid.”
Bringing expertise to climate science
Prof. Humlum has authored or co-authored some 100 publications on climate related topics. Few scientists are able to claim having such a broad and valuable interdisciplinary knowledge that Professor Humlum possesses. His specialties include:
- Glacial- and periglacial geomorphology
- Landforms derived from bedrock weathering, with emphasis on rock glaciers
- Reconstruction of Quaternary ice sheets, glaciers in the North Atlantic region
- Historical and modern climatology of the Arctic and North Atlantic region
- The impact of climate on societies the North Atlantic region
- Comparison and integration of different climate proxy series
- Numerical modelling in geomorphology
- Mapping Arctic and Antarctic surface temperature changes
- Modelling natural cold-climate geomorphic processes and -hazards
- Permafrost and periglacial processes
- Physical geography of Svalbard
- Snow avalanche risk in Svalbard
53 responses to “Top Climate Scientist: CO2 Model Assumptions “Invalid”…”Natural Climatic Variations Dominate”!”
[…] Read more at notrickszone.com […]
Looks like Seb left work to go home for the weekend. We’ll see if he comments more this weekend, or if he will come to work on Monday and spend worktime commenting at NTZ.
What is wrong with you Pierre? First AndyG55 always commenting about the car I drove trying to trigger me, now you with this worktime thing?
But thanks for missing me I guess.
Regarding your post: everyone is entitled to an opinion …
Looks like Seb is still at work, whereas AndyG is resting his fingers for the weekend.
Looks like I misspeculated with seb commenting from work. Sorry seb. 🙂
Your comment has forced him to “work” during the weekend. Well done, Pierre. 🙂
From where are you guys commenting from? Are you constantly refreshing this blog to find out if I or another “skeptic skeptic” commented again?
Cue the warmists to attack Humlum for this.
The only time in the history of tracking CO2 in the atmosphere we made a dramatic increase in CO2 in the late 1930’s through 1950’s as we prepared for and fought WWII burning down most of Europe and Japan. During that period atmospheric temperatures declined through the war and rebuilding years.
We have developed a simple, inexpensive, accurate atmospheric simulator that allows us to increase CO2 to any degree we wish and the results are illuminating.
Read “CO2 Is Innocent” at https://sciencefraunds.blogspot.com and clip-copy, print, take to a Chemistry or Physics teacher for authentication of chemistry, stoichiometry and physics, do the demo-experiment for a few Dollars and see for yourself that CO2
additions to the atmosphere on the order of those expected have no effect on the IR energy captured from sunlight. Add more and get over 10,000 ppm and see the temperature fall! You have been lied to for power and money by grant grabbers
I get “blog not found” Perhaps check your link?
Just delete the “n”, link works.
no, not “sciecefraunds” 😉
your link to the OLR grape in the previous post was interesting. I have often thought that we should be be able to measure the loss of heat into space after El Niño events, indicating the loss of heat from the atmosphere as they dissipate.
Are you aware of any CRES sat or other data that might show this effect especially after both the 98 and 2017 events?
This may or may not only be evident over the Arctic if that was where the heat in the atmosphere ended up.
K probably has more in his stash than I have.
Here’s some other interesting charts
As CO2 has increased, so has outgoing long wave radiation
In the graph below, we see the large increase in OLR as temperatures have increased naturally, a distinct step change after the 1998 EL Nino as more energy is released from the system.
And of course, it is very clear that CO2 has NON inhibited escape of energy from the Arctic
I did have a graph somewhere that showed even more clearly the link between major ENSO events and OLR, but I can’t find it at the moment.
“And of course, it is very clear that CO2 has NON inhibited escape of energy from the Arctic”
is basically my point if CO2/H2O/etc.. cannot inhibit the escape of energy from the system as evidenced by an increase in escape of energy into space after major ENSO events then you cannot claim a run-away heating event on earth.
it also shoots down the nonsense argument the missing heat went into the ocean.
Why is this important as we know this. but the average person on the street does not; and showing them that heat escapes into space, changes minds very quickly.
The other graph I love is the IR Spectra of O2, CO2, Water etc which CO2islife’s site has. This the field I played in in my early work days and very comfortable talking about H2O and CO2 IR band overlap.
“escape of energy into space after major ENSO events”
EL Nino is basically a release of built up solar energy from the ocean, usually in the El Nino Pacific tongue.
This last one also had a release of built up solar energy.
It releases into the atmosphere, but also into the surrounding oceans.
Unusually, this last El Nino had a large spike effect on both Arctic and the southern oceans.
A lot of warmed water came to the surface and got spread around different regions, hence taking a while to dissipate.
But it is absolutely NOTHING to do with humans or human released CO2, most likely it was the re-balancing of the oceans due the drop in solar intensity after the Grand Solar Maximum of the latter half of last century.
Yep agree CO2 has an infinitesimal if anything impact. The tiny additional LW bands around the 13-18 micron level due to an additional tiny fraction of CO2 over a massive quantity of H2O in the atmosphere is a non event. All this does is slow the escape of heat from the atmosphere by a very minute amount.
The portion of the release of the ENSO heat into the atmosphere is what I guess I want to understand better.
While the heat from the ENSO event partially dissipates in surrounding ocean as well as the atmosphere we know that the heat in the atmosphere cannot go back into the ocean -correct?
Therefore it has to go somewhere and I would have surmised out into space and we should be able to see this signature of the loss of heat in the atmosphere.
“All this does is slow the escape of heat from the atmosphere by a very minute amount.”
NO, it doesn’t.
Any tiny warming is dealt with immediately by convection and conduction.
At the TOA, extra radiative gases mean more heat can escape.
Its all regulated by the gravity based thermal/energy gradient.
so what happened to the heat in the atmosphere after the ENSO event?
It gradually dissipates through TOA.
Its big surge of energy, so it can take a while.
Doesn’t mean its slowed down.
I think everyone is confusing my question with the AGW claims on CO2.
you do not have to convince of the lack of impact of CO2, My background is Chemistry. My University Chemistry days were the time when Sulphur in Coal was going to cause Acid Rain and destroy near the Latrobe valley in Victoria Australia. Still waiting on that one to appear….
I worked as a chemist resolving IR spectra separating H2O bands from C=O bands to determine Water content in Oil. So more than most I get the lack of impact of CO2 with high water vapour. on anything.
I also developed the equation to determine Vapour pressure for any given location in Australia given 90% temperature data that I had to manually transcribe from BOM microfiche. (I wish I still had a copy as it was way before the data has been corrupted) This was because the introduction of unleaded petrol in Australia was causing vapour lock at the pump and the cars.
So why am I pushing this line of questioning that has nothing to do with CO2???
because the average person cannot comprehend the science of IR bands, PV=nRT etc….
They need logic traps explained in easy to understand terms like if the temperature went up after the El Nino and then it went down, and CO2 is supposed to be such a great blanket then where did the heat go?
If you can show the average punter that the atmospheric heat went into space via some form of CRES data or other, then you can show in very simple terms that if their understanding is that CO2 traps heat how did it get out into space? therefore how can AGW be real? it also shoots the argument down that it went back into the ocean.
This very simple approach convinces more people than any equation as their eyes just glaze over in confusion.
The honest scientists know its a crock we need to convince Joe Public and your not going to do that with chemistry or maths equations.
it has to be simple things like if CO2 is so good why isnt it placed in between double glazing oh thats right it gives a worse result than plain air.
That simple point convinced more average people that they need to start looking elsewhere for answers.
so very simply do we have any data that shows after the El Nino’s in 1998 and 2017 that there was a spike in outgoing heat, indicating it has left the atmosphere???
Pretty sure you will find what you are after at
I recall seeing graph that showed a dip in OLR during El Ninos, because of WV, followed by a period of somewhat higher OLR until it settled down.
I can’t remember which topic it was under, though. Have fun hunting. 🙂
All excellent points, and an impressive resume!
I also have Chem background, and went through the acid rain scare that everyone “knew” to be true.
As to “Joe Public,” I think most could care less. Still, it would be nice if they had some basic information that doesn’t require a lot of math.
Of course, if you like the math, this guy has some great material.
“so very simply do we have any data that shows after the El Nino’s in 1998 and 2017 that there was a spike in outgoing heat, indicating it has left the atmosphere???”
I don’t know. I’d like to, as well.
Thank you, too.
PS – Some interesting material by Bob Tisdale.
Thanks Andy and Yonason,
Andy I will have a look and see what I can find and report back.
Yonason to a degree you are correct but its the masses that the pollies listen to and its amazing when you see the light come on in someones mind and they start looking at it differently. Each person will tell another 5 to 7. A lot of people tell me they dont believe in AGW but dont know enough or are comfortable enough to discuss it. So our job is to simplify the discussion points as much as possible.
if we cant convince the general public with simple concepts then the pollie’s will never change because they dont care about what is good for the country, just how to get re-elected.
Perhaps the biggest lie (omission) is stating the CO2 = 400PPM number without explaining that > 10% is manmade. That brings approximately 40 PPM into something that can be reduced. Assume USA now emits 18% of world CO2 manmade emissions = 7 PPM. A 20% reduction = 1.4 PPM. This could not be measured accurately when trying to factor seasonal CO2 variations in Northern hemisphere.
Carlos, it’s not a lie. Human emissions are causing 100% of the CO2 concentration increase. Please state where you got this bogus information from? A Harde paper perhaps?
“Human emissions are causing 100% of the CO2 concentration increase.”
That is blatant misinformation. Just AGW mantra
The Herde paper shows around 15% and you certainly have NEVER been able to put forward any counter to his calculations.
Stop perpetuating NONSENSE that you cannot support with scientific evidence.
“Human emissions are causing 100% of the CO2 concentration increase.”
And totally against ALL scientific data.
But that’s seb for you.
You are correct in your figures. cAGW advocate cling on to the unrealistic, inaccurate, and unprovable 100%, demanded by their belief system.
the CO2 spectra emissions start at about 5-6km height with it´s free emission space. There it is colder than below and the IR power is less to T(4). With more CO2 this emission height increases somewhat (colder again), therefore more CO2 can only make the surface something warmer, not colder, by keeping the lapse rate almost constant. You have some very big misunderstandings in atmospheric physics!
From that “Co2 is innocent” article:
As can be seen in the next quote you claim that Dr. Jim Hansen is the inventor of this concept. Are you really sure that you understood the concept? The greenhouse effect theory doesn’t say that there is a solid, clear layer capturing IR at all.
Uhm no, the concept doesn’t include any mechanic that would heat the atmosphere overnight causing an increase in temperature. Declining temperatures are perfectly normal and do not contradict the greenhouse effect.
The height at which radiative transfer is greater than transfer by convection is not in 60 to 100 miles. More like 6 to 10 miles … also, no solid transparent covers! Apparently, you are confused by the name greenhouse which implies a roof of some kind of material holding heat in.
And it goes on like this.
My previous comment on this got deleted, so I assume you want this guy to have a voice and do not object his thoughts. Right or wrong?
As you are well aware, seb
The CO2 warming idea is a TOTAL CROCK.
There is NOCO2 warming signature in the satellite data.
There is ZERO empirical evidence that enhanced atmospheric CO2 has any other effect except enhanced plant growth.
The ONLY reason to call CO2 a greenhouse gas is because it is used in greenhouses to promote plant growth
It does not and cannot “trap” energy in any part of the atmosphere.
There is NO EVIDENCE that it causes any warming of the atmosphere.
Stop regurgitating NONSENSE that you have ZERO scientific evidence for.
We are discussing SCIENCE, not FANTASY.
And you seem to have great difficulty telling the difference.
“The greenhouse effect theory doesn’t say that there is a solid, clear layer capturing IR at all.”
So its a total misnomer, because that’s how a greenhouse works. They can’t even get the analogy correct.. DOH !!
Let’s call it what it is, shall we.
The “gravity based thermal gradient effect”, where convection and conduction RULE the lower atmosphere.
And CO2 cannot change that one tiny bit.
Professor Humlum’s website climate4you is the best source of clear concise empirical data on climate easily accessible to non-scientists, a wonderful resource.
Professor Ole Humlum of Norway seems like a reasonable fellow – – unlike some of the folks here that get off-kilter on occasion.
Just kidding. You are all wonderful.
General comment to all.
Best way to deal with trolls is to take a leaf out of the climate alarmist’s playbook and not engage in debate.
In short DNFTT.
Prof. Humlum is born in Denmark.
Feb 13, 2018: The judge dismissed all charges in the lawsuit brought against Tim by BC Green Party leader Andrew Weaver. It is a great victory for free speech.
‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science’.
My website is
“Human Caused Global Warming”, ‘The Biggest Deception in History’.
It’s criminal that you were put through this process in the first place but nice to be vindicated in the end.
One reply lost?
Probably because there was NOTHING in it. !
Well done Tim.
There was NEVER a case.
In your other case, Mann CANNOT allow “discovery” of his fabrications.
You are on a winner.
Thanks for putting yourself through the pain in the cause of TRUTH and SCIENCE.
Congratulations Tim! FYI….you may find this of interest.
Apparently NTZ posted on that last year.
Way to go, Dr. Ball!
[…] Top Climate Scientist: CO2 Model Assumptions “Invalid”…”Natural Climatic Variations Dominate… […]
[…] Fonte: No Tricks Zone […]
[…] P. Gosselin, April 6, 2018 in […]
I think we can learn a lot from Prof Humlum. The study of periglacial geomrphology can tell us a lot about past climates by proxy. Too many predictions on future climates are based on massaging figures which are what we used to call guesstimates.It is too soon to come to conclusions since we don,t know enough and we don,t know what we need to know,yet,to predict much about the future of the atmosphere of this planet.To the bureaucratic mind this is anathema but scientific enquiry is based on an admission of ignorance on the part of the enquirer.