Why is there so much preoccupation with atmospheric CO2 concentrations and reducing anthropogenic CO2 emissions when it is well documented in the peer-reviewed scientific literature that the CO2 contribution to the overall greenhouse effect is so weak that it can be easily supplanted by small changes in clouds and water vapor, or natural climate-changing constituents?


Wednesday, 23 January 2013

May the Right Climate Stuff Team Drive the Wrong Climate Stuff from our Schools

The Right Climate Stuff (TRCS) research team is a volunteer group of more than 20 scientists and engineers who are primarily retired veterans of NASA's manned space programme.  Here is an interim report from their ongoing study into climate:.

1. The science that predicts the extent of Anthropogenic Global Warming is not settled science.

 2. There is no convincing physical evidence of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Most of the alarm regarding AGW results from output of unvalidated computer models. We understand scientific arguments regarding how doubling CO2 in the atmosphere over a hundred years or more (if possible) can have a small direct warming effect, but we question the accuracy of feedback simulations in current models computing climate system responses that amplify CO2 effects. Efforts to estimate climate sensitivity to CO2 based solely on physical data have large uncertainties because many factors affect global temperatures, and CO2 levels rise in the atmosphere after the earth warms due to other factors. While paleoclimate data clearly show CO2 levels rise and fall in the atmosphere hundreds of years after temperature rises and falls due to other causes, the evidence is very weak to support claims of a catastrophic rise in global temperatures caused by CO2 emissions related to human activity.

 3. Computer models need to be validated before being used in critical decision-making.

Our manned aerospace backgrounds in dealing with models of complex phenomena have convinced us that this rule must be followed to avoid decisions with serious unintended consequences.

 4. Because there is no immediate threat of global warming requiring swift corrective action, we have time to study global climate changes and improve our prediction accuracy.

While there are many benefits due to some global warming, the major threats appear to be associated with a net loss of Greenland and Antarctica ice sheet mass that would contribute to a gradual sea-level rise. The history, current trends, and specific causes of ice sheet melting and ice accumulation by precipitation must be better understood before determining how best to respond to threats of accelerated sea-level rise.

 5. Our US government is over-reacting to concerns about Anthropogenic Global Warming.

More CO2 in the atmosphere would be beneficial for forest and crop growth to support the earth's growing population, so control of CO2 emissions is not an obvious best solution to hyped-up concerns regarding AGW. Eventually the earth will run out of fossil fuels and alternative energy sources will be required. Market forces will (and should) play a big role in this transition to alternative energy sources. Government funding of promising research and development objectives for alternative fuels appears to be a better option at this time than expenditures of enormous resources to limit CO2 emissions.

 6. A wider range of solution options should be studied for global warming or cooling threats from any credible cause.

CO2 effectiveness in controlling global average temperatures or sea levels has not been established. More reliable and greater control authority may be available from engineering solutions that would accommodate the beneficial aspects of more CO2 in the atmosphere.

Source:  http://www.therightclimatestuff.com/SummaryPrelimReport.html

Hat-tip: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/23/team-of-ex-nasa-scientists-concludes-no-imminent-threat-from-man-made-co2/ 


These are the words of level-headed adults working with no ulterior motives to critically review the shoddy structures and ill-founded strictures of CO2 alarmism.  That same alarmism promoted for decades by a mix of decidedly un-level-headed adults and also sundry schemers with ulterior motives.  They have also promoted it to children, often with the use of scare-stories.  It will take a while to clear up the worst of that mess, but these ex-NASA folks are doing their bit to help.  Well done them!


Background: The Right Climate Stuff (TRCS) research team is a volunteer group of more than 20 scientists and engineers who are primarily retired veterans of our manned space program. We began our investigation into the controversial issue of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) in February 2012. We have reviewed, studied and debated available data and scientific reports regarding many factors that affect temperature variations of the earth's surface and atmosphere. We have also studied the well-documented beneficial, as well as potentially detrimental effects, of more CO2 in our atmosphere. This report provides a summary of findings that we have reached at this point into our investigation.

Note added 5 February 2013. An anonymous commenter (oh the irony) below has pointed out that most of the people involved in the Right Climate Stuff venture have not been named.  I can find only three names: Jim Peacock (Webmaster, NASA retired aerospace engineer),James Visentine (NASA Alumni League, Curator and Webmaster, TRCD Database), and Thomas Wysmuller (Meteorologist, former NASA employee).  It still looks plausibly genuine, especially given those three people were signatories of the open letters about climate by 49/50 ex NASA people last year, but readers may want to be careful about taking Right Climate Stuff too seriously until more becomes known about them.

Note added 12 March 2012.  More background on the Right Climate Stuff group here:  http://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/2013/03/12/retired-nasa-scientists-enter-climate-change-fray/


  1. I've spent some time on The Right Climate Stuff website, but cannot find the names of these 20 engineers and scientists listed anywhere. Same goes for the report authored by this group in October 2012 called "Current Overview Assessment of How The Earth/Atmosphere Heat Balance Works". It does not list the names of those who assembled this information. More than one citation on this report points to the website: scienceofdoom.com

    Really? Retired scientists and engineers use scienceofdoom.com and wikipedia as their source material?

    The webmaster is listed as Jim Peacock (NASA retired aerospace engineer, USAF R & D, Apollo, Sky Lab, & Space Shuttle), but no other names appear. Why not?

    I'm very interested in hearing the other side of the man-made global warming debate and lean towards the notion that its a natural cycle and we're likely heading into an ice age at this very moment. CO2 is likely coming from the oceans via increased underwater vulcanism, not humans.

    But when I see so many people referencing this The Right Climate Stuff site, which keeps its team's names a big secret, I have to wonder if it is legitimately being run by retired NASA employees.

    If it is, I hope they will make a point of listing the team's names as it will lend credibility to this debate. There was a letter in April 2012 sent by a team of about 50 retired NASA scientists and astronauts to NASA asking them to stop disseminating unsubstantiated claims about human induced global warming. They included their names on that letter.

    They really need to do the same on therightclimatestuff.com website to help us trust that the info coming from this site is from whom it says it is.

  2. Thank you,Anonymous. Good points. I will add a cautionary note to the post.

    The Science of Doom site, by the way, looks to be a place for serious technical analysis of climate issues, especially physics-related. It just has an unfortunate name. Wikipedia on the other hand has been fiddled with so much on climate topics that extraordinary care is required with it.