Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DhEm1DKKj4
Please see the link above for the source video and text.
Video Interview - NASAs Big Mistake Exposed: Why Global Temperature Is Scientifically Meaningless
Jonathan Cohler
July 28, 2025
About Jonathan Cohler
Graduated in 1980 from Harvard in Physics. Phi Beta Kappa. David McCord Prize.
Since the 2010s, I have guest lectured occasionally in the physics department at Harvard.
Since the late 1990s, I have been keenly interested in the developing disinformation campaign often known as "climate science." I read extensively in this area.
In recent years, I have taken an interest in investigating so-called "AI" software, and the planned total take-over of public discourse by the big tech companies and their co-conspirators in our current government.
Dr. Willie Soon, an astrophysicist and geoscientist, is a leading authority on the relationship between solar phenomena and global climate. In this 32+ years of singular pursuit, he seeks to understand the Sun-Earth relations in terms of not only meteorology and climate, but also in terms of orbital dynamics of Sun-Earth-other planets interactions, magmatic (volcanoes) and tectonic (earthquakes) activities. His discoveries challenge computer
modelers and advocates who consistently underestimate solar influences on cloud formation, ocean currents, and wind that cause climate to change. He has faced and risen above unethical and often libelous attacks on his research and his character, becoming one of the world's most respected and influential voices for climate realism. In 2018, he founded the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES-science.com) in order to tackle a wider range of issues and topics without fears nor prejudices.
Transcript of video interview.
0:00
To really measure global warming, you have to measure the energy coming in
0:06
from the sun at the top of the atmosphere. Okay? And then the energy going out at the top
0:12 of the atmosphere. And if the energy coming in is greater, then you can say
0:18
confidently that the system inside of that ball cuz outside of it there's nothing right inside of that ball, what
0:24
we call the top of the atmosphere, which is like I don't know 100 kilometers up or something, right? If the energy in
0:30
minus the energy out is is greater than zero, right? Energy in minus out, then
0:36
we have warming. If the energy in minus out is less than zero, we have cooling.
0:42
If the energy in minus energy out equals zero, we have nothing, right? Well, let me tell you, it's not statistically
0:49 different from zero as far as we can measure it right now. Yeah. And anybody saying that it is is lying.
1:01
Jonathan, thank you for for joining me today. Uh we spoke a couple of months
1:06
ago and you went through some of your arguments. You'd written a paper with Grock 3 in order to explain your views
1:16 on climate change and your criticisms of some of the assumptions behind that. So can can you bring us up to date as to 1:23 where you are now and what you've been doing since that time? Well, I've been doing a lot of different
1:28
things, but um what I wanted to talk to you most about today is the subject of 1:36 what everybody thinks they know called global temperature. And the um the problem with it is that
1:45 it's what everybody thinks they know about global temperature is completely
1:50 wrong. Put it that way. I'm not so sure that people understand what temperature is anyway. I mean I I
1:57 was quite surprised. I mean I've done I've done physics. I've done an undergraduate and a post-graduate degree
2:03 in physics. And it was only at a certain point during that time that suddenly the light bulb went on that hey there's a 2:10 difference between temperature and heat. I think for for me that light bulb
2:16 moment was when someone told me, "You do realize there is more heat in an iceberg
2:23
than there is in a cup of coffee, right?" Um because there are more molecules
2:30
in the iceberg and you realize that oh yeah, the total amount of temperature is the total amount of jiggling of all the
2:37
all the atoms, all the molecules of in the ice cube and in the cup. But temperature is a different matter. It's
2:44 not the total amount of energy. No, temperature is not it's not energy. Amount of kinetic energy or related to
2:51
the average amount. It's related to the average amount of kinetic energy. And what people who
2:56 haven't taken thermodynamics which is 90.9% of the planet is it is not
3:04 people often say it's a measure of energy. No, it's not. No.
3:09
Okay. You can't get energy from temperature. Heat is a measure of energy. 3:14
Temperature is is a measure of the average speed or kinetic energy.
3:20
It's and even even there it's only defined in a system that is in equilibrium. In other words, if you have
3:27
a set of molecules that are rapidly changing in their speed distributions, 3:33 there is no temperature. Okay? People don't understand this. And furthermore, the kinetic definition of 3:39 temperature is not actually the definition of temperature. It's another thing people confuse, even physics
3:45
majors, even PhDs in physics, and virtually all climate scientists who don't understand any of this. Um, is
3:51 that temperature is only defined in equilibrium. So, what does that mean?
3:57
When you you everybody thinks they know what temperature is because they have a thermostat and they have a thermometer.
4:03
You can stick the thermometer up in the air and measure a temperature.
that only measures the temperature at this one 4:08 tiny little point in space where that little volume of space around the bulb
4:14 of the thermometer is in what we call a pseudo equilibrium. It's so small that you know unless you're in the middle of 4:20 the sun or something, it's probably not changing very much at all. In other words, it's in equilibrium. Okay. But 4:27 then the problem happens when you try to put together temperatures
4:33 that are from different parts of a non-equilibrium system. What's a nonequilibrium system? Like the room
4:39 you're in right now. Okay. If you take the temperature in your room next to the window and then 4:46 the temperature in the glass of ice water on your desk and the temperature
4:51 um next to the heat vent, they're wildly different.
4:57
Yeah. So there is no temperature. Even in your room, there's no temperature. Okay. There's there's no global average 5:03 temperature of a room. Uh well, let let me let me let me um unpack that a bit.
5:09 Now um there is a temperature
5:14 at each local position and the the 5:20 temperature which you measure in one place could be different to a temperature in another place and usually are because of different they're in 5:28 different locations. So the question then becomes 5:33 can't you just average those two temperatures say right and so that's the next question
5:38 which comes about from people again who don't know thermodynamics which is almost everybody in the world.
5:44
So the answer the short answer is no you absolutely cannot and here's why.
5:49
Temperature is what's called an intensive property. It's like pressure.
5:55
It's like um chemical potential and it's not additive. You can't say, "Well, it's
6:00
10 degrees over here and it's 10 degrees over here and therefore it's 20°." You
6:06 can't do that. Okay? It's not additive because it's not a measure of an amount.
6:11
It's a measure of a state. And people don't understand this. the state if you think of ideal gases the definition that
6:17
most people know of temperature is the one where we say it's an it's a a
6:23
measure of the average kinetic energy of the molecules. Okay, even that is an 6:29
imprecise incorrect definition because it doesn't measure energy. So we're not talking about the total
6:35
heat of the earth when we're talking about a temperature. No, we're talking about some other
6:43
abstract concept really correct which has some kind of a connection but 6:48
it's not very clear what that connection no it is it is very clear and it's very clear that an average temperature has no
6:55
connection but let me the the the way you get from temperature to energy is you have to know two other things you
7:01
have to know what's the mass and you have to know what is the what's called the heat capacity. Yeah.
7:08
The heat capacity of a substance tells you how much energy it takes to raise
7:14
the temperature of that thing in equil to an equilibrium by one degree, right?
7:20
And one degree Kelvin I think is usually what's done. So if you know and then you got to know the mass because as you pointed out the amount of energy is
7:26
proportional to how much of the stuff you have, right? Yeah. So, so to to calculate energy in
7:33
the Earth's system, you would have to at every point in space measure what's the
7:40
mass or the mass density if you were doing an integral. What's the heat capacity at that point and what is the
7:47
temperature at that point and then you could integrate that theoretically. Of course, there's no physical actual way
7:53
of doing this. We don't have instruments everywhere. Yeah, etc. But that that would be the mathematically correct
7:59
calculation of the energy in the atmosphere. Okay. Well, people don't don't bother with energy. They just bother with
8:05
temperature. And what they've got is a whole pile of thermometers, temperature
8:10
measuring devices, whatever they may be, scattered all around the surface
of the earth. They even have some satellites
8:16 which look down as well. And they say, "Oh, look, the temperature in Alaska at the moment is quite cold. The 8:22 temperature in the Sahara Desert is quite hot. Let's just average those together and we'll come up with a figure
8:29 which taken from all the way around the world will give us the temperature of 8:34 the earth. What's wrong with that? Okay, so people think if you have a set 8:40 of numbers, let's average them. That's a natural tendency. You know, if you got a lot of numbers, do statistics, right?
8:46
That's what you learned in statistics class. So numerically yes you can take the average of any set of numbers but 8:53 the the the the jump that people don't get is not all averages are meaningful 9:00 in the real world adding the clause in the real world. Now why is that? Let
me just give you a very simple example.
9:08
Telephone numbers are numbers. They're meaningful numbers. Okay? Each telephone
9:13
number if you dial it gets you right to a person. It's a perfectly meaningful number. If you take two two telephone
9:19 numbers and average them together, do you get another telephone number?
9:25
No. Okay. So, the exact same principle applies here. An average of two
9:30 temperatures in a non-equilibrium system is not a temperature. It's not I'm not
9:36 saying it's it's a category thing. It's logic. This is so fundamental that people don't
9:42 get it. It is a category error to call an average of two temperatures of a temperature because it's not.
9:49
Okay, let let me let me and they're not additive in the first place. Let let me give you an example, a 9:54 counter example which I think people might consider much more intuitive as to 10:00 why you should be able to do this. I've got a glass of water here and the 10:06 temperature of the water is 20°. I've got another glass of water here and 10:14 the temperature of the water is 40°. Now, as you say, it's an intensive 10:19 property. When I mix those together and put them together, I'm not going to get 60°,
10:25 but I am going to get the average. And the average will be halfway between. They'll be 30°. You mix the two glasses 10:32 of water, 20 and 40 makes a 30. So, isn't that exactly what's taking place
10:39 when you're averaging temperatures around the world? But what you just said was incorrect.
10:44
When you when you add two two glasses of water together, you do not get the 10:49 average temperature of the two. You don't. No, absolutely not. Point is that's not 10:55 the case with the earth. the earth is a system where when they first of all when
11:00 when NASA and IPCDC who created this fraud purposely created this fraud and 11:07
I'll show you that as well here. Um the fraud being the fraud being that global temperature
11:13 is physically totally meaningless. Yeah. And they and not only do they say 11:19 it's meaningful, they use it as the root element of every single one of the 11:27 conclusions that you know of. In other words, if you if I ask you anything, 11:32
tell me something you believe about climate change, I can show you that the root element of the proof of that
11:40
statement that you believe in, which is a a falsehood, is this global surface temperature fiction. May tell me
11:47
something you've heard that you well look look let let me let let me um let me put it this way to you that why
11:55 temperature becomes something which is intuitively um uh apprehended by people. We know
12:03 from historical records that the earth has gone through periods of cooling and
12:10 warming and cooling and warming. We've had, I believe, something like 11 ice ages where glacias moved south and then 12:17 they retreated again. Now, the the earth has gone through you you'd have to say 12:23 that the earth was colder in in an ice age and it was warmer in a in a warm 12:29
period like the middle ages. There were times when the temps in London would freeze over and they could hold a fair 12:36 on it and there were times today when you can't do that. So there must be some 12:41
number or some figure or some parameter which indicates the difference between 12:48 those two different times and that difference that that parameter we're we're using as a shorthand is 12:54 temperature. Yeah. But it's not temperature. That's the problem. That's the fraud. There is a number. There is a number. It's very 13:01
There is a real difference though. What what is the difference if it's not temperature? Because if if you do have
13:07 an ice age where it's much colder and you do have a warm period when it's much warmer, there is that difference and 13:13 there must be some way of describing it. There is some kind of numbers in a quantitative way.
13:18
There is it's very simple. Yeah. Yeah. It's called energy. Okay. So when there are they're not
13:27 actually ice ages, they're glaciations is what you're talking about. We're in an ice age right now. In fact, anytime
13:33 when there's ice at the poles, that's called an ice age in, you know, paleoclimatology.
13:39
Um, so we're in a 2 and a half million year old ice age right now. And during that ice age, we've had many glaciations
13:46
where, like you said, we've had ice come way down south and and then go way back up north and the sea level changes
13:53
dramatically because that ice is basically was seaater. It gets sucked out onto land and then etc. So, and what 14:00 causes that is a large change in the 14:06 energy that is coming into the earth system from the sun. All of the energy
14:14
virtually all of the I mean by many many or six or seven orders of magnitude larger than any other energy source that
14:22 drives the earth's climate system is from the sun. Okay, it's something like 10 to the 27th as I recall jewels. Okay,
14:31
it's a huge number. And if if you add up all the radiogenic and geothermal energy
14:36 that comes from inside the earth, it's, you know, a million times smaller. So maybe six, seven orders of magnitude
14:43
smaller. But the point is all of the energy comes from the sun. So what happens when those glaciations occur is
14:50
we we suddenly re and suddenly in geological terms you know means every 10,000 years or so right we suddenly get
14:58
a lot more energy coming from the sun and why is that well there's a a guy
15:03 named Milanovich who discovered and figured out the issue which is the earth
15:09
changes its angle towards the sun gradually not not by a huge amount but by a couple degrees it also wobbles It
15:16 has procession. In other words, it's like a top. It kind of wobbles around like this. And if you point the earth
15:23 more towards the sun, what happens? You get more heat because the sun the rays
15:28 of of shortwave energy are hit impacting the earth more directly. You think of it
15:34
this way. If if the rays are skimming across the top, you're not absorbing any of it, right? And as you tilt towards
15:39 it, you get more and more of it. So, a small change in the tilt of the Earth, which happens every 40,000 or every
15:46
100,000 years causes a massive difference in the amount of solar energy coming into the
15:53 Earth's system, which causes what you're talking about. Um, now, but that
that's 15:58 a whole separate issue. Temperature doesn't measure e even during glaciations, there are parts of 16:05 the earth that are still warm. So the question is and if you average together 16:12 for I'll give you an example how they calculate this fictitious global temperature average they average 16:17 together sea surface temperatures and they and then they average together 16:23 land air above land temperatures and then they average those two together. 16:28
Now think about this for a minute. If you wanted to claim, as they fraudulently do, that somehow this 16:34 magical average of temperatures, which is not a temperature, um, somehow 16:39 indicates energy in some way, which is what they claim fraudulently. Think about this. The density of water,
16:49
seawater, I'll just talk rough numbers here, right? is about 800 and something
16:54
30 40 times greater than the density of air near the surface of the earth. Okay.
17:00
And the heat capacity again rough numbers is about four times greater than 17:07 the heat capacity of air rough numbers. So four * 830 let's say is like 33 3,400
17:19
times 3,000. So it's more than three times greater energy in any given volume
17:27
of seawater than in the same volume of air. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So if you say I'm going to just
17:34
look at temperatures, I'm not going to look at their density or their mass or their heat capacity. You're now saying
17:43 a onederee rise in some seawater is weighted equally to a onederee rise
17:51 in air. It's off by a factor of 3,000. It's not even in the same universe. It's three orders of magnitude wrong. So it's
17:58 it can't possibly represent energy just by that one argument alone. I was at 18:04 this conference a couple of weeks ago with John Clauser who was the 2022 Nobel Prize winner in physics. Brilliant.
18:10
brilliant guy and I was sitting next to him and we were talking about a bunch of
18:15 different things and one of I used one of his quotes about the fact that you 18:20 know science is about observing nature seeing what's happening in the real 18:26
world that's what science is. Um and he said something even better when we were
18:32 sitting at the table together. So I said John I'm going to add this into my talk right now. Is that okay? He said yeah. So he said, "Theorists talk to each
18:40
other and experimentalists talk to God."
18:45
I love that line. So uh and so his point was um 18:52 that when you're a scient scientific theorist, you're saying, "I think the 18:58 world works this way." You come up with some hypothesis, as we call it in science, just a theory, right? Um, and 19:06 then you go out and you do experiments and see if you can disprove the theory.
19:11
Remember, you can never prove a theory in science. 19:16 In fact, if you could prove it, it's not science, right? A a hypothesis has to be 19:22 falsifiable in order for it to be a valid hypothesis. Right? That's the that's the basic element of science. So, 19:28 in science, we're never dealing with absolute truth. We're just trying to get
closer and closer and closer to truth,
19:34
which is why he said we're talking to God. You know, experimentalists are talking to God because we're trying to
19:39
figure out what God did in creating this universe, how he created it. And he God's given us science to try and figure
19:45 it out, but only he knows the total truth, right? So that that's kind of what he was saying, right? So where but
19:52
mathematics is different. Mathematics is in a way some people that's why some 19:58
mathematicians say it's it's kind of like God because it is absolute truth. It existed before we thought of it and 20:04 it will always exist. So what I'm saying about global 20:10 temperature is in that category. It's a mathematical proof. Now it's been known by people who understand thermodynamics 20:16
since the 1880s. So I did some research and said well why is it people haven't talked about this? Well there's a bunch
20:22 of reasons. Turns out that the smart physicists like Einstein and Boore and 20:28
Plonc and those guys, they were worried about much bigger, more complex problems. Quantum mechanics and building
20:34 nuclear bombs and you know difficult stuff, right? And nobody was interested in climate
20:40 science then. They just had weather reporters. There was no climate science. Okay. So the first so the first thing
20:47 they started doing was they put up thermometers everywhere and tide gauges
20:52 everywhere and that's what weather people did. They monitored thermometers and tide gauges and it's perfectly valid
20:58 to monitor thermometers and tie gauges and whatnot on a local basis, right? It's one place.
21:05
It wasn't until around 1930s when a guy named a guy named Guy 21:12
Calendarer who was a steam engineer decided to start averaging these 21:19 numbers. And he knew the physics of steam engines. But the problem is the 21:26
thermodynamics of steam engines is all equilibrium thermodynamics. It's not
21:33 non-equilibrium. So he had never thought about the problems of nonequilibrium
21:38
thermodynamics. The surface of the earth is wildly non-equilibrium. What does that mean? Well, you got temperatures
21:44 that range from negative 80 degrees in some places, I think, centigrade or uh
21:51
you could turn that to kel Kelvin if you want, but and as high as 40 something degrees, 45 50 degrees, I think. So,
21:59 right. So, that's what 130 degree range of temperature. Okay. And then
you've got
22:06 the difference between pressures of the air at different altitudes or the water, the mass density, the the density
22:13 difference and the heat capacity differences. And then you've got massive humidity differences. You know, at the
22:20 at the Antarctica, the air is like zero humidity and at the equator you got 22:26 heavy humidity, right? So let let's try and down a little bit more tightly so at least I can get it
22:33 clear in my head. Yeah, global temperature is fictitious. That's 22:39 okay. But people say, well, wait a minute. We've got temperature stations all around the world. If we add them 22:45 together and average them, they all measure temperature locally, right? 22:51 And if we average all the local temperatures, then the implication is or
22:57 the argument is we therefore get a global temperature. You're saying it's 23:02 not right. So what what's the key point? Temperature is an intensive property. It
23:07 is not additive and it is not averageable. When you add two temperatures together, you don't get a
23:13 temperature. If you add three temperatures together, you don't get a temperature. If you add three temperatures and divide by three, it's 23:19 not a temperature. It's it's nothing. It's a category error. It's a fictitious number that has no physical meaning
23:26 whatsoever. So So um wait a minute. The um I gave you the counter example earlier on. Two 23:33 glasses of water uh two different temperatures. Same in every other respect. When you mix them together, you
23:41 get some temperature which is in between the temperatures. Now it may not be
23:46
linear. It may not be a strict average. It may be a harmonic structure. But the 23:51
averaging of in some form takes place because those two temperatures convert 23:57
when you join them together. And presumably there's a mathematical formula which if you get it right will
24:03
tell you what the combined temperature would be. And that would be the equivalent of mixing together local 24:10
temperatures to make a a global temperature. What's wrong with the argument? Because it it's not the equivalent of 24:16
mixing local temperatures to make a global temperature. You're talking about an extremely simple limited system where 24:23
you mix two identical things together and you're going to get some temperature in between the two temperatures which 24:30 but even that will depend on the composition of the two substance
substances the heat capacity the heat
24:36
flow. So your point being is that what we've got when we're trying to to gauge temperatures around the world is a whole
24:42 pile of um non-homogeneous things. not only non sea water, uh gases, clouds, humidities,
24:51 all of them, they're nonhomogeneous. They're not the same kind of thing. They're not only non-homogeneous,
24:58 they're massively separated. There's no such thing as thermodynamics
25:04 at a distance, right? In quantum mechanics, entanglement tells us that there's quantum things that happen at a
25:10 distance. There's no temperature at a distance, and there's no thermodynamics at a distance. An I a piece of ice here
25:17 does not melt because it's hot over there.
25:22 The only thing that'll make a piece of ice melt here is if it's hot here.
25:28
But we don't have that kind of No, we have a we have a turbulent system
25:33 of a essentially a think of it as boiling not boiling in the sense of hot 25:38 but roing. Let's say we have a a turbulent roing atmosphere, a turbulent
25:44 roing ocean, okay? And the earth is spinning, right? Which causes things to 25:50 move. And then the energy from the sun is coming in and and and as the earth
25:57 spins, it hits this side, then it hits that side. When it's hitting this side, this side's getting energy. When it's
26:02 faced the other way, it's not getting energy. So the energy fluxes are going up and down by massive amounts and 26:08 everything is moving and that's why we have a climate system. Okay? It's because there's massive gradients all 26:15
over the globe. Okay? So you can't take a temperature if by the way what I'm
26:23
saying is obvious from first principles of thermodynamics. It was also 26:28
rigorously mathematically proven in a paper by a friend of mine, Christopher
26:34
Essex, who's a one of the most brilliant mathematicians in the world. and he and Ross McKitrich and another scientist
26:41
named um mathematician named Bjarn Andresen from the Neils Boore Institute in Copenhagen
26:47
uh wrote a paper in 2007 proving everything I'm telling you with 26:54
rigorous mathemat with rigorous mathematics. It's a 40page mathematical paper. Okay. First of all, they note
27:01 first of all the temperature is not additive and therefore there's no a not only is it not averable
27:08
if you there are occasions where you can take a
27:13 set of data and so you're not sure about the in this case we're totally sure that an average of temperatures is not
27:19 temperature. So if it's something else you've got to prove what the relationship is. Nobody's
27:25 even proposed a possible relationship because there is none. and this paper
27:30 goes through it. But the choice of averaging method is arbitrary. So in other words, if I'm averaging
27:38
resistance in a in a circuit for the electrical engineers out there and I've got a resistor R1 here and R2 here and I
27:46 put them in parallel and then have this circuit, what's the resistance of the circuit? The resistance of that circuit,
27:52 if you learn your electrical engineerings, is 1 over 1 / R1 + 1 / R2.
27:58
That's called the the minus one holder mean. There's a a whole a whole set
28:03
averages based on the power of the thing that you average. So x to the if you average the x to the minus one, that's 28:09
the this one I'm talking about. Um if you average other things like kinetic energy, you use a different type of
28:16
average. If you average um radiation energy, you use a different type of 28:22 average. So if there's a physical principle that dictates how you're 28:28
supposed to calculate something, then there's a particular averaging method. But in the case of this, since there is 28:34
no global temperature, there's no such thing as a global temperature for a non-equilibrium system. There's no 28:39 temperature of a any non-equilibrium system. Temperature is only defined in equilibrium. So there is no temperature.
28:48
Then h what's the chosen averaging method? And why did you choose that
averaging method? Since there is no 28:54
choice of averaging method, it's arbitrary. And therefore, if it and when you do when you actually take actual 29:01 data and use different averaging methods, you get different numbers with 29:07 different slopes. In fact, some averaging methods have the slope going up and some have it going down. Some 29:14 have it staying the same with the same data. Now, since the since the choice of 29:21
averaging method is arbitrary, the result you're getting is a is what's 29:26 known as a statistical artifact. It's just a madeup human choice. So, if you get a result that says 29:33 something's going up because you chose that method of averaging, it's meaningless because someone else could 29:38 choose another averaging method and you have no reason. you have no way
of proving that his averaging method is not
29:45 more correct than yours. So the averaging theorem that he proved 29:51 he proves a whole theorem about the averaging theorem. He then takes the actual data by the way. He takes data in
29:57 this paper from I forget seven or 10 or 12 uh weather uh station temperature stations and then averages them together
30:06 using four different methods of averaging and show or three different methods. I I forget but anyhow he does
30:12 it with different methods and shows that in one method it goes up and another method it goes down. So depending on how 30:18 you chose to calculate your average, you decide it's warming and another guy decides that it's cooling. And so the 30:25 question is, is it warming or is it cooling? And the answer is it's both. Yeah, 30:30 it's not determinable. In fact, and then he has another theorem that he
proves. And in this paper, there's about 10 different theorems that he proves which
30:37
says which is why it's called the overlap theorem. If you have a temperature field where any of the
30:43
temperatures overlap with any of the others that you want to compare it, you want to say is this thing colder than
30:49 that? The only way you can make a meaningful statement about whether something is colder is if there's no
30:56
overlap. So in other words, if all the temperatures in one set are greater than
31:02
all the temperatures in the other set, then you can say this temp this temperature set is warmer than this one.
31:10
But if the temperatures are not all greater, you can't say that because there's an overlap and because you're
31:17
only talking temperatures here, you don't know how much mass is associated and how much heat capacity is associated
31:23
with those temperatures. So even a small overlap, even if the overlap looks like it's going to the right, it might go to
31:30 the left depending on how you average it. Yeah. Okay. I can I can understand what what you're
31:36 saying there. But isn't there a way around that? No.
31:41
By by not taking absolute measurements of temperature, but differences,
31:47 anomalies, you average temperature anomalies. In other words, as the the temperature changes, you look at only
31:54 the changes over, you know, um, a week, a year, or whatever it may be. And it's
32:01
those differences in temperature which then get averaged. Isn't that what's taking place in when they're measuring
32:08 these these grand temperature differences? Again, you might think that if you don't
32:14 understand mathematics, but Essex thought of that and already proved it.
32:20
And so the answer is no. There's absolutely no difference in the theorems
32:25 as a result of using anomalies versus temperatures. The mathematics is exactly the same.
32:33
There are things called co there are these things called coordinate transformations technical terms in math
33:10
are seen against the variation of the global mean surface temperature? So they
33:17 look at the amount of carbon dioxide, they look at the global mean temperature, they say, "Oh, look, there's a there's a correlation between 33:24 those two." In fact, they go some further to say there's a there's a causation between the two that as the
33:30
global mean temperature varies or as the carbon dioxide varies, the 33:36 global mean temperature varies. And isn't the the correlation therefore a justification of the use of that value
33:44
no matter how obscure its origins might be? So first of all again the premise of
33:50 your question is wrong. So I'll start with that. There are no correlations.
33:55
Number one, uh no valid ones. Um now, uh all of 34:02
these arguments, by the way, I've been through and I've had actually both Grock and Gro for and Claude for write up
34:10 papers on this subject and do extensive research on it, which is why we're going to come out with a a paper. But but um
34:17 there are no published studies, none, zero, okay, that show any actual
34:26
correlation between this number and the other and and but let me take a step back from that.
34:34
There are correlation is not causation as everybody knows, right? But 34:40
speurious correlation is totally meaningless. Now what does spirious correlation mean? If you have a 34:48
grandfather clock that is completely dead, not moving. Okay, not moving. It tells 34:57 the correct time twice a day. You say, well, it it's not it it's not very 35:03 accurate, but you know, we know it's exactly right twice a day, so there must
be something there. No, there's nothing
35:08 there. So that correlation is a speurious correlation. So now if you 35:14 make up a number and by the way you engineer this fake statistic so that it 35:19 goes up very slightly which is exactly what they did right so it's an 35:24 engineered meaningless statistic and it goes up slightly and then you pick something else in the world that went up
35:31 slightly and now you say look it's correlated that's a speurious correlation first of all this is a
35:37 fiction so any correlation it has with anything is by definition spirious 35:43 because it doesn't exist. All right, there is and so I just throw this in.
35:49
There is a fantastic website out there. I think it's called Spurious Correlations, 35:54
right? Which just puts up many, you know, graphs of two things and showing a weird
36:00
un wonderful correlations that cannot exist like the amount of seaweed washed up on a beach compared to the number of 36:07 fashions that have been presented in in Paris. and and the correlations are 36:12
element very clearly displayed in the graph but you can and you can play with the various different settings but they
36:20
show speurious correlations which right so there's a mathematical correlation in the numbers this is where
36:26
I where you go back and forth from numbers to physical meaning right 36:31
numbers can have correlations with each other like you just said all kinds right that doesn't mean that one causes the 36:38 other doesn't mean they're even related in any And if one of the two things is a fictitious
36:44
imaginary thing that has no physical meaning in the physical world, any
36:50 correlation that it has is also meaningless. Now that said 36:56 um so these correlation when you see people talking about the correlations you can go search you can do a deep
37:03 search and then you'll find one or two or three papers over the last 50 years
37:08 that attempts to try and correlate GMST with something and when you read into
37:13 the paper further what you discover is is it's a circular argument
37:19 that the thing that they were correlating with was a model which was based on GMST.
37:26
Okay, tuned to GS GMST calculates GMST internally that drives other thing in in
37:33 the model and then they say look this modeled result correlates with GMST.
37:39
Oh, it's called circular reasoning. Okay, this global mean surface temperature
37:46 um GMST is being used quite heavily today to set targets 37:55 for countries and for governments to meet. So what's the what what's the 38:01 conclusions from that then? The most common ones you hear are global warming of 1.1° C above 1850 to 1900
38:10 baseline. In fact, that's their big number one conclusion. So, right away, that's purely the GMST number. So, that
38:17 statement global warming of 1.1°C, there's already four lies in that 38:23 phrase. Why? They defined global warming. IPCC 38:29 defined global warming as an increase in GMST.
38:34 Now, as we know, that's not what global warming is. Warming we know
from thermodynamics is an increase in
38:40
internal energy. Energy not temperature. So you can't say global warming and
38:48
temperature in the same sentence. Okay? If they if they wanted to talk energy, they could, but they didn't. They
38:55
specifically defined warming as in temperature. Then they said 1.1° C. But
39:01
wait a minute, the 1.1 is not a temperature. It's a change in GMST,
39:06
which is a statistic, which we know is not a temperature. Calling it degrees C is a category error, and it's a
39:12
purposeful lie because they want you to believe that it's a temperature. It's not. It's a change in this statistic
39:18
that they calculated. Okay? A change in a statistic, which we know does not represent either a temperature or an
39:25 energy or anything in the real world. So, they say global warming of 1.1° C.
39:32
It's not degrees C. It's not global warming because it's not energy and the 1.1 is a meaningless number. Okay, so
39:39
that's number one, right? I'll just give you a couple other ones quickly. Yeah, we we
39:44
temperature temperature attribution all temp all human attribution of of changes that's all based on GMST that all
39:51
falsified the projected scenarios. What you're talking about the Paris agreement, it's called 1.5 degrees C.
39:58
Again, degrees C is a lie. Everywhere where they use the terminology degrees C next to a GMSST number is a lie. And
40:05
it's not an accidental lie. It's a purposeful purposeful intentional lie because they
40:13
want you to believe and you do believe everyone believes that it has something to do with temperature and it it
40:18 doesn't. Okay. So it worked. It's it's propaganda at a scale never seen before.
40:24
Let me give you a few more and I'll point you to a paper I wrote about this. Um, rate of warming acceleration,
40:30 regional temperature change, climate sensitivity. Climate sensitivity is an entirely fictitious thing. Okay. Have
40:37 you heard of climate sensitivity? No. Okay. So, this is one of the parameters that they wanted to calculate in the
40:44 models and they said, look, if we double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, how
40:49 much will the global temperature go up, right? So they they made an assumption
40:56 that the global temperature change delta t should be equal to
41:04 the um the change in forcing due to the increase of the CO2
41:11 times this thing lambda which is the climate sensitivity. Okay.
41:16
Right. That's an assumption. Yeah. that but you can see in that
41:21 equation is delta t equals lambda time f the forcing or delta f right um and so
41:29 if gmsst is a fiction what does that tell you about lambda now delta f is 41:35 something that you can really calculate based on some real physics now the 41:40 so-called forcing number we know because we know if you add carbon dioxide molecules to the
41:46 atmosphere we know from radiation physics and there's lots of great measurements about this. These are real
41:53 measurements, right? You can calculate how much of the radiation of infrared
41:58 that comes up from the earth's surface gets uh reraiated back towards the earth
42:04 versus how much get gets sent out into space and we have very accurate
measurements and very accurate
42:10
experiments that confirm that. So that that delta F number while it's still fuzzy and we we can't
42:17
say what it is exactly, it's a long it's a nonlinear issue I should think here because I remember
42:24
Will Heer telling me that the more CO2 you put in you might reach um a um a
42:30
ceiling so that no matter how much more you keep adding it's not going to make any difference. It's like when you paint
42:35
a window with with a black paint, you know, if you paint it again with black paint or again with black paint, it
42:41
makes no difference. The light's still not going to come through, right? It's not that it makes no diff it's not that it makes no difference,
42:48 but it be it's diminishing returns. It's logarithmic. And Will Happer, by the way, is one of the most brilliant
42:53
scientists in the world. And everything he says, you know, I listen very 42:58 carefully. I've never heard him be incorrect about anything. And so he knows all about this. And he and by the 43:04
way he has the best model in the world for measuring the radiation of energy up
43:11 to the satellites and he measures them at the satellites and he has a a model for calculating it and when you look at
43:17 the output of his model and what the satellites measure it's like virtually ident it's unbelievably accurate. So he
43:23 understands radiative physics better than anyone in the world. And and what
43:29 he's saying is that the relationship is logarithmic, which means it doesn't cut
43:34 off, but it goes gets flatter and flatter. It's a curve that goes up rapidly at first, then gets less and 43:40
less. And so what it means is like what he's saying, you get a saturation point
43:46
where beyond a certain point, you you barely notice any difference. And we're already at that point. We're at the
43:51 point where if you double if you double the CO2, the forcing only goes up by a
43:58 small amount. Okay? And so, and the amount that that could possibly change
44:04 anything again is even smaller. So, uh but the but the point is if G GMS uh um
44:12 this number that they believe in called sensitivity is directly related to GMST.
44:19
So if GMST doesn't exist, the whole theory of of of
44:24 um climate sensitivity goes away, temperature extremes analysis, sea level 44:30
rise projections, Arctic warming, carbon budget calculations, literally all of the important conclusions that are used
44:37 in the media and the policies and the governments and the promotions and 44:43 everywhere for making laws and this and that and the other thing are all completely undermined by this one
44:50 absolute truth. Okay. Now, there are things in the in climate science that 44:57 are real like energy and direct measurements of stuff. But for example, you can say how many days was it over
45:05
90° this year and and versus other years or every year. Say each year, how many
45:12 days was it over 90 degrees? That's not an average. That's what we measure.
45:19
What's that? Would that be a better measure? Would that be a better way of doing it? Oh, absolutely. That's a very valid measure. And you know what it shows?
45:25
Yeah. It's going down. That's why they don't talk about it, right?
45:30
That's why they don't talk about it. Jonathan, we we've run out of time today, but um last question for you
45:37 would be what's your what's your attention being focused on next in in
45:42 this area? You've looked at um GMST. Have you got a different topic which 45:47 you're moving towards? Well, to really measure global warming, 45:53 you have to measure the energy coming in from the sun at the top of the atmosphere. Okay?
45:59
And then the energy going out at the top of the atmosphere. And if the energy 46:04 coming in is greater, then you can say confidently that the system inside of 46:10 that ball because outside of it there's nothing, right? inside of that ball what we call the top of the atmosphere which
46:15
is like I don't know 100 km up or something right if the energy in minus the energy out is is greater than zero
46:24
right energy in minus out then we have warming if the energy in minus out is
46:30
less than zero we have cooling if the energy in minus energy out equals zero we have nothing right well let me tell
46:37
you for we've had those satellites that do that top of atmosphere measurement Yeah,
46:42
they've been up for 20 years now, which is not very much time. They started in the late 90s. We have other satellites
46:48
that went up in 79, but the ones that are measuring top of atmosphere have only been around for about 20 years. And
46:55 if you look at their in-n-out measurements along with their um
47:00
uncertainty ranges because whenever you have a measurement, you have an uncertainty range due to the statistics,
47:05 but also due to the device that you're doing the measuring with. Okay, this the the uncertainty range for the outgoing
47:13 especially even more than the incoming is huge. It's like on the order of 10 to
47:19
15 watts per meter squared. And what the IPCC hypothetically says, and it's a
47:27 completely fictitious madeup number, but they claim that the energy imbalance is.7
47:33 watts per meter squared. But but we know the measurement in minus the measurement
47:38 out, okay, is plus or minus 10 to 15 watts. In other words, it's not
47:45
statistically different from zero as far as we can measure it right now. Yeah. And anybody saying that it is is lying.
47:53
Jonathan Kler, thank you very much indeed for a very thorough explanation
47:58
of the climate issues today. Thank you. You're very welcome.
48:05
[Music]
All Watched
14:26
Bob Newhart’s German Impression Is Incredible | Carson Tonight Show
Johnny Carson
4.4M views•2 years ago
30:48
A New Way to Achieve Nuclear Fusion: Helion Real Engineering
7.9M views•2 years ago
15:43
Stop Blaming Water: THIS Is Why You're Waking Up at 2 AM
TopHealthTips
192K vie 0:00
To really measure global warming, you have to measure the energy coming in
0:06
from the sun at the top of the atmosphere. Okay? And then the energy going out at the top
0:12 of the atmosphere. And if the energy coming in is greater, then you can say
0:18
confidently that the system inside of that ball cuz outside of it there's nothing right inside of that ball, what
0:24
we call the top of the atmosphere, which is like I don't know 100 kilometers up or something, right? If the energy in
0:30
minus the energy out is is greater than zero, right? Energy in minus out, then
0:36
we have warming. If the energy in minus out is less than zero, we have cooling.
0:42
If the energy in minus energy out equals zero, we have nothing, right? Well, let me tell you, it's not statistically
0:49
different from zero as far as we can measure it right now. Yeah. And anybody saying that it is is lying.
1:01
Jonathan, thank you for for joining me today. Uh we spoke a couple of months
1:06 ago and you went through some of your arguments. You'd written a paper with Grock 3 in order to explain your views 1:16 on climate change and your criticisms of some of the assumptions behind that. So can can you bring us up to date as to
1:23 where you are now and what you've been doing since that time? Well, I've been doing a lot of different 1:28 things, but um what I wanted to talk to you most about today is the subject of 1:36 what everybody thinks they know called global temperature. And the um the problem with it is that 1:45 it's what everybody thinks they know about global temperature is completely
1:50
wrong. Put it that way. I'm not so sure that people understand what temperature is anyway. I mean I I
1:57 was quite surprised. I mean I've done I've done physics. I've done an undergraduate and a post-graduate degree
2:03 in physics. And it was only at a certain point during that time that suddenly the light bulb went on that hey there's a
2:10 difference between temperature and heat. I think for for me that light bulb
2:16 moment was when someone told me, "You do realize there is more heat in an iceberg
2:23 than there is in a cup of coffee, right?" Um because there are more molecules
2:30 in the iceberg and you realize that oh yeah, the total amount of temperature is the total amount of jiggling of all the
2:37 all the atoms, all the molecules of in the ice cube and in the cup. But temperature is a different matter. It's
2:44
not the total amount of energy. No, temperature is not it's not energy. Amount of kinetic energy or related to 2:51 the average amount. It's related to the average amount of kinetic energy. And what people who 2:56 haven't taken thermodynamics which is 90.9% of the planet is it is not
3:04 people often say it's a measure of energy. No, it's not. No.
3:09
Okay. You can't get energy from temperature. Heat is a measure of energy.
3:14
Temperature is is a measure of the average speed or kinetic energy.
3:20
It's and even even there it's only defined in a system that is in equilibrium. In other words, if you have 3:27 a set of molecules that are rapidly changing in their speed distributions, 3:33 there is no temperature. Okay? People don't understand this. And
furthermore, the kinetic definition of 3:39
temperature is not actually the definition of temperature. It's another thing people confuse, even physics
3:45
majors, even PhDs in physics, and virtually all climate scientists who don't understand any of this. Um, is
3:51 that temperature is only defined in equilibrium. So, what does that mean?
3:57
When you you everybody thinks they know what temperature is because they have a thermostat and they have a thermometer.
4:03
You can stick the thermometer up in the air and measure a temperature. that only measures the temperature at this one
4:08
tiny little point in space where that little volume of space around the bulb
4:14 of the thermometer is in what we call a pseudo equilibrium. It's so small that you know unless you're in the middle of
4:20 the sun or something, it's probably not changing very much at all. In other
words, it's in equilibrium. Okay. But
4:27 then the problem happens when you try to put together temperatures
4:33 that are from different parts of a non-equilibrium system. What's a nonequilibrium system? Like the room
4:39 you're in right now. Okay. If you take the temperature in your room next to the window and then
4:46 the temperature in the glass of ice water on your desk and the temperature
4:51 um next to the heat vent, they're wildly different.
4:57
Yeah. So there is no temperature. Even in your room, there's no temperature. Okay. There's there's no global average
5:03 temperature of a room. Uh well, let let me let me let me um unpack that a bit.
5:09
Now um there is a temperature
5:14 at each local position and the the
5:20
temperature which you measure in one place could be different to a temperature in another place and usually are because of different they're in
5:28 different locations. So the question then becomes
5:33 can't you just average those two temperatures say right and so that's the next question
5:38 which comes about from people again who don't know thermodynamics which is almost everybody in the world.
5:44
So the answer the short answer is no you absolutely cannot and here's why.
5:49
Temperature is what's called an intensive property. It's like pressure.
5:55
It's like um chemical potential and it's not additive. You can't say, "Well, it's 6:00 10 degrees over here and it's 10 degrees over here and therefore it's 20°."
6:06
can't do that. Okay? It's not additive because it's not a measure of an amount.
6:11
It's a measure of a state. And people don't understand this. the state if you think of ideal gases the definition that
6:17
most people know of temperature is the one where we say it's an it's a a
6:23 measure of the average kinetic energy of the molecules. Okay, even that is an
6:29
imprecise incorrect definition because it doesn't measure energy. So we're not talking about the total
6:35 heat of the earth when we're talking about a temperature. No, we're talking about some other
6:43
abstract concept really correct which has some kind of a connection but 6:48 it's not very clear what that connection no it is it is very clear and it's very
clear that an average temperature has no 6:55
connection but let me the the the way you get from temperature to energy is you have to know two other things you
7:01
have to know what's the mass and you have to know what is the what's called the heat capacity. Yeah.
7:08
The heat capacity of a substance tells you how much energy it takes to raise 7:14
the temperature of that thing in equil to an equilibrium by one degree, right?
7:20
And one degree Kelvin I think is usually what's done. So if you know and then you got to know the mass because as you pointed out the amount of energy is
7:26
proportional to how much of the stuff you have, right? Yeah. So, so to to calculate energy in
7:33
the Earth's system, you would have to at every point in space measure what's the
7:40
mass or the mass density if you were doing an integral. What's the heat capacity at that point and what is the
7:47 temperature at that point and then you could integrate that theoretically. Of course, there's no physical actual way
7:53 of doing this. We don't have instruments everywhere. Yeah, etc. But that that would be the mathematically correct
7:59 calculation of the energy in the atmosphere. Okay. Well, people don't don't bother with energy. They just bother with
8:05 temperature. And what they've got is a whole pile of thermometers, temperature
8:10 measuring devices, whatever they may be, scattered all around the surface of the earth. They even have some satellites
8:16 which look down as well. And they say, "Oh, look, the temperature in Alaska at the moment is quite cold. The 8:22 temperature in the Sahara Desert is quite hot. Let's just average those together and we'll come up with a figure
8:29 which taken from all the way around the world will give us the temperature of
8:34 the earth. What's wrong with that? Okay, so people think if you have a set 8:40 of numbers, let's average them. That's a natural tendency. You know, if you got a lot of numbers, do statistics, right?
8:46
That's what you learned in statistics class. So numerically yes you can take the average of any set of numbers but
8:53 the the the the jump that people don't get is not all averages are meaningful
9:00 in the real world adding the clause in the real world. Now why is that? Let me just give you a very simple example.
9:08
Telephone numbers are numbers. They're meaningful numbers. Okay? Each telephone
9:13 number if you dial it gets you right to a person. It's a perfectly meaningful number. If you take two two telephone
9:19 numbers and average them together, do you get another telephone number?
9:25
No. Okay. So, the exact same principle applies here. An average of two 9:30 temperatures in a non-equilibrium system is not a temperature. It's not I'm not
9:36 saying it's it's a category thing. It's logic. This is so fundamental that people don't
9:42 get it. It is a category error to call an average of two temperatures of a temperature because it's not.
9:49
Okay, let let me let me and they're not additive in the first place. Let let me give you an example, a 9:54 counter example which I think people might consider much more intuitive as to 10:00 why you should be able to do this. I've got a glass of water here and the
10:06 temperature of the water is 20°. I've got another glass of water here and 10:14 the temperature of the water is 40°. Now, as you say, it's an intensive 10:19 property. When I mix those together and put them together, I'm not going to get 60°, 10:25 but I am going to get the average. And the average will be halfway between. They'll be 30°. You mix the two glasses
10:32 of water, 20 and 40 makes a 30. So, isn't that exactly what's taking place 10:39 when you're averaging temperatures around the world? But what you just said was incorrect. 10:44
When you when you add two two glasses of water together, you do not get the 10:49 average temperature of the two. You don't. No, absolutely not. Point is that's not 10:55
the case with the earth. the earth is a system where when they first of all when 11:00 when NASA and IPCDC who created this fraud purposely created this fraud and 11:07
I'll show you that as well here. Um the fraud being the fraud being that global temperature
11:13 is physically totally meaningless. Yeah. And they and not only do they say 11:19 it's meaningful, they use it as the root element of every single one of the 11:27
conclusions that you know of. In other words, if you if I ask you anything, 11:32 tell me something you believe about climate change, I can show you that the root element of the proof of that 11:40 statement that you believe in, which is a a falsehood, is this global surface temperature fiction. May tell me 11:47 something you've heard that you well look look let let me let let me um let
me put it this way to you that why 11:55 temperature becomes something which is intuitively um uh apprehended by people. We know 12:03 from historical records that the earth has gone through periods of cooling and 12:10 warming and cooling and warming. We've had, I believe, something like 11 ice ages where glacias moved south and then 12:17 they retreated again. Now, the the earth has gone through you you'd have to say 12:23 that the earth was colder in in an ice age and it was warmer in a in a warm 12:29 period like the middle ages. There were times when the temps in London would freeze over and they could hold a fair 12:36 on it and there were times today when you can't do that. So there must be some 12:41
number or some figure or some parameter which indicates the difference between 12:48
those two different times and that difference that that parameter we're we're using as a shorthand is 12:54 temperature. Yeah. But it's not temperature. That's the problem. That's the fraud. There is a number. There is a number. It's very 13:01
There is a real difference though. What what is the difference if it's not temperature? Because if if you do have
13:07
an ice age where it's much colder and you do have a warm period when it's much warmer, there is that difference and 13:13
there must be some way of describing it. There is some kind of numbers in a quantitative way. 13:18
There is it's very simple. Yeah. Yeah. It's called energy. Okay. So when there are they're not 13:27 actually ice ages, they're glaciations is what you're talking about. We're in an ice age right now. In fact, anytime
13:33
when there's ice at the poles, that's called an ice age in, you know, paleoclimatology.
13:39
Um, so we're in a 2 and a half million year old ice age right now. And during that ice age, we've had many glaciations
13:46
where, like you said, we've had ice come way down south and and then go way back up north and the sea level changes
13:53
dramatically because that ice is basically was seaater. It gets sucked out onto land and then etc. So, and what
14:00 causes that is a large change in the 14:06
energy that is coming into the earth system from the sun. All of the energy 14:14
virtually all of the I mean by many many or six or seven orders of magnitude larger than any other energy source that 14:22 drives the earth's climate system is from the sun. Okay, it's something like 10 to the 27th as I recall jewels. Okay,
14:31 it's a huge number. And if if you add up all the radiogenic and geothermal energy
14:36 that comes from inside the earth, it's, you know, a million times smaller. So maybe six, seven orders of magnitude
14:43 smaller. But the point is all of the energy comes from the sun. So what happens when those glaciations occur is
14:50 we we suddenly re and suddenly in geological terms you know means every 10,000 years or so right we suddenly get 14:58 a lot more energy coming from the sun and why is that well there's a a guy
15:03
named Milanovich who discovered and figured out the issue which is the earth
15:09 changes its angle towards the sun gradually not not by a huge amount but by a couple degrees it also wobbles It
15:16 has procession. In other words, it's like a top. It kind of wobbles around like this. And if you point the earth
15:23
more towards the sun, what happens? You get more heat because the sun the rays
15:28 of of shortwave energy are hit impacting the earth more directly. You think of it
15:34 this way. If if the rays are skimming across the top, you're not absorbing any of it, right? And as you tilt towards
15:39 it, you get more and more of it. So, a small change in the tilt of the Earth, which happens every 40,000 or every
15:46
100,000 years causes a massive difference in the amount of solar energy coming into the
15:53
Earth's system, which causes what you're talking about. Um, now, but that that's
15:58 a whole separate issue. Temperature doesn't measure e even during glaciations, there are parts of
16:05 the earth that are still warm. So the question is and if you average together
16:12
for I'll give you an example how they calculate this fictitious global temperature average they average
16:17 together sea surface temperatures and they and then they average together 16:23 land air above land temperatures and then they average those two together. 16:28
Now think about this for a minute. If you wanted to claim, as they fraudulently do, that somehow this
16:34 magical average of temperatures, which is not a temperature, um, somehow 16:39 indicates energy in some way, which is what they claim fraudulently. Think about this. The density of water, 16:49
seawater, I'll just talk rough numbers here, right? is about 800 and something 16:54
30 40 times greater than the density of air near the surface of the earth. Okay.
17:00
And the heat capacity again rough numbers is about four times greater than 17:07 the heat capacity of air rough numbers. So four * 830 let's say is like 33 3,400
17:19 times 3,000. So it's more than three times greater energy in any given volume
17:27 of seawater than in the same volume of air. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So if you say I'm going to just
17:34
look at temperatures, I'm not going to look at their density or their mass or their heat capacity. You're now saying
17:43 a onederee rise in some seawater is weighted equally to a onederee rise 17:51 in air. It's off by a factor of 3,000. It's not even in the same universe. It's three orders of magnitude wrong. So it's 17:58 it can't possibly represent energy just by that one argument alone. I was at 18:04 this conference a couple of weeks ago with John Clauser who was the 2022
Nobel Prize winner in physics. Brilliant.
18:10
brilliant guy and I was sitting next to him and we were talking about a bunch of 18:15
different things and one of I used one of his quotes about the fact that you 18:20 know science is about observing nature seeing what's happening in the real 18:26 world that's what science is. Um and he said something even better when we were 18:32
sitting at the table together. So I said John I'm going to add this into my talk right now. Is that okay? He said yeah. So he said, "Theorists talk to each 18:40
other and experimentalists talk to God."
18:45
I love that line. So uh and so his point was um 18:52 that when you're a scient scientific theorist, you're saying, "I think the
18:58 world works this way." You come up with some hypothesis, as we call it in science, just a theory, right? Um, and 19:06 then you go out and you do experiments and see if you can disprove the theory.
19:11
Remember, you can never prove a theory in science.
19:16 In fact, if you could prove it, it's not science, right? A a hypothesis has to be
19:22 falsifiable in order for it to be a valid hypothesis. Right? That's the that's the basic element of science. So,
19:28 in science, we're never dealing with absolute truth. We're just trying to get closer and closer and closer to truth, 19:34 which is why he said we're talking to God. You know, experimentalists are talking to God because we're trying to 19:39 figure out what God did in creating this universe, how he created it. And he God's given us science to try and figure
19:45
it out, but only he knows the total truth, right? So that that's kind of what he was saying, right? So where but 19:52 mathematics is different. Mathematics is in a way some people that's why some 19:58
mathematicians say it's it's kind of like God because it is absolute truth. It existed before we thought of it and
20:04 it will always exist. So what I'm saying about global 20:10 temperature is in that category. It's a mathematical proof. Now it's been known by people who understand thermodynamics
20:16
since the 1880s. So I did some research and said well why is it people haven't talked about this? Well there's a bunch 20:22 of reasons. Turns out that the smart physicists like Einstein and Boore and 20:28
Plonc and those guys, they were worried about much bigger, more complex problems. Quantum mechanics and building
20:34
nuclear bombs and you know difficult stuff, right? And nobody was interested in climate
20:40 science then. They just had weather reporters. There was no climate science. Okay. So the first so the first thing
20:47 they started doing was they put up thermometers everywhere and tide gauges
20:52 everywhere and that's what weather people did. They monitored thermometers and tide gauges and it's perfectly valid
20:58 to monitor thermometers and tie gauges and whatnot on a local basis, right? It's one place.
21:05
It wasn't until around 1930s when a guy named a guy named Guy
21:12
Calendarer who was a steam engineer decided to start averaging these 21:19 numbers. And he knew the physics of steam engines. But the problem is the 21:26
thermodynamics of steam engines is all equilibrium thermodynamics. It's not
21:33
non-equilibrium. So he had never thought about the problems of nonequilibrium
21:38
thermodynamics. The surface of the earth is wildly non-equilibrium. What does that mean? Well, you got temperatures
21:44 that range from negative 80 degrees in some places, I think, centigrade or uh
21:51
you could turn that to kel Kelvin if you want, but and as high as 40 something degrees, 45 50 degrees, I think. So,
21:59
right. So, that's what 130 degree range of temperature. Okay. And then you've got
22:06
the difference between pressures of the air at different altitudes or the water, the mass density, the the density
22:13
difference and the heat capacity differences. And then you've got massive humidity differences. You know, at the
22:20 at the Antarctica, the air is like zero humidity and at the equator you got 22:26 heavy humidity, right? So let let's try and down a little bit more tightly so at least I can get it
22:33 clear in my head. Yeah, global temperature is fictitious. That's 22:39 okay. But people say, well, wait a minute. We've got temperature stations all around the world. If we add them
22:45 together and average them, they all measure temperature locally, right?
22:51 And if we average all the local temperatures, then the implication is or 22:57 the argument is we therefore get a global temperature. You're saying it's 23:02 not right. So what what's the key point? Temperature is an intensive property. It
23:07 is not additive and it is not averageable. When you add two temperatures
together, you don't get a 23:13 temperature. If you add three temperatures together, you don't get a temperature. If you add three temperatures and divide by three, it's 23:19 not a temperature. It's it's nothing. It's a category error. It's a fictitious number that has no physical meaning
23:26 whatsoever. So So um wait a minute. The um I gave you the counter example earlier on. Two
23:33 glasses of water uh two different temperatures. Same in every other respect. When you mix them together, you
23:41 get some temperature which is in between the temperatures. Now it may not be 23:46
linear. It may not be a strict average. It may be a harmonic structure. But the 23:51 averaging of in some form takes place because those two temperatures convert 23:57
when you join them together. And presumably there's a mathematical formula which if you get it right will
24:03
tell you what the combined temperature would be. And that would be the equivalent of mixing together local
24:10
temperatures to make a a global temperature. What's wrong with the argument? Because it it's not the equivalent of
24:16
mixing local temperatures to make a global temperature. You're talking about an extremely simple limited system where
24:23 you mix two identical things together and you're going to get some temperature in between the two temperatures which
24:30 but even that will depend on the composition of the two substance substances the heat capacity the heat
24:36
flow. So your point being is that what we've got when we're trying to to gauge temperatures around the world is a whole
24:42
pile of um non-homogeneous things. not only non sea water, uh gases, clouds, humidities,
24:51
all of them, they're nonhomogeneous. They're not the same kind of thing. They're not only non-homogeneous, 24:58 they're massively separated. There's no such thing as thermodynamics
25:04 at a distance, right? In quantum mechanics, entanglement tells us that there's quantum things that happen at a
25:10
distance. There's no temperature at a distance, and there's no thermodynamics at a distance. An I a piece of ice here
25:17 does not melt because it's hot over there.
25:22
The only thing that'll make a piece of ice melt here is if it's hot here.
25:28
But we don't have that kind of No, we have a we have a turbulent system
25:33 of a essentially a think of it as boiling not boiling in the sense of hot 25:38 but roing. Let's say we have a a turbulent roing atmosphere, a turbulent
25:44
roing ocean, okay? And the earth is spinning, right? Which causes things to 25:50
move. And then the energy from the sun is coming in and and and as the earth
25:57
spins, it hits this side, then it hits that side. When it's hitting this side, this side's getting energy. When it's
26:02
faced the other way, it's not getting energy. So the energy fluxes are going up and down by massive amounts and
26:08 everything is moving and that's why we have a climate system. Okay? It's because there's massive gradients all
26:15
over the globe. Okay? So you can't take a temperature if by the way what I'm
26:23 saying is obvious from first principles of thermodynamics. It was also 26:28
rigorously mathematically proven in a paper by a friend of mine, Christopher
26:34
Essex, who's a one of the most brilliant mathematicians in the world. and he and Ross McKitrich and another scientist
26:41 named um mathematician named Bjarn Andresen from the Neils Boore Institute in Copenhagen
26:47 uh wrote a paper in 2007 proving everything I'm telling you with 26:54
rigorous mathemat with rigorous mathematics. It's a 40page mathematical paper. Okay. First of all, they note
27:01 first of all the temperature is not additive and therefore there's no a not only is it not averable
27:08
if you there are occasions where you can take a 27:13 set of data and so you're not sure about the in this case we're totally sure that an average of temperatures is not 27:19 temperature. So if it's something else you've got to prove what the relationship is. Nobody's
27:25 even proposed a possible relationship because there is none. and this paper
27:30 goes through it. But the choice of averaging method is arbitrary. So in other words, if I'm averaging
27:38 resistance in a in a circuit for the electrical engineers out there and I've got a resistor R1 here and R2 here and I
27:46 put them in parallel and then have this circuit, what's the resistance of the circuit? The resistance of that circuit,
27:52 if you learn your electrical engineerings, is 1 over 1 / R1 + 1 / R2.
27:58
That's called the the minus one holder mean. There's a a whole a whole set of 28:03 averages based on the power of the thing that you average. So x to the if you average the x to the minus one, that's 28:09 the this one I'm talking about. Um if you average other things like kinetic energy, you use a different type of
28:16
average. If you average um radiation energy, you use a different type of 28:22 average. So if there's a physical principle that dictates how you're 28:28 supposed to calculate something, then there's a particular averaging method. But in the case of this, since there is 28:34 no global temperature, there's no such thing as a global temperature for a non-equilibrium system. There's no
28:39 temperature of a any non-equilibrium system. Temperature is only defined in equilibrium. So there is no temperature.
28:48
Then h what's the chosen averaging method? And why did you choose that averaging method? Since there is no
28:54
choice of averaging method, it's arbitrary. And therefore, if it and when you do when you actually take actual
29:01 data and use different averaging methods, you get different numbers with 29:07
different slopes. In fact, some averaging methods have the slope going up and some have it going down. Some 29:14 have it staying the same with the same data. Now, since the since the choice of 29:21 averaging method is arbitrary, the result you're getting is a is what's 29:26 known as a statistical artifact. It's just a madeup human choice. So, if you get a result that says
29:33 something's going up because you chose that method of averaging, it's meaningless because someone else could
29:38 choose another averaging method and you have no reason. you have no way of proving that his averaging method is not 29:45 more correct than yours. So the averaging theorem that he proved 29:51 he proves a whole theorem about the averaging theorem. He then takes the actual data by the way. He takes data in 29:57
this paper from I forget seven or 10 or 12 uh weather uh station temperature stations and then averages them together
30:06 using four different methods of averaging and show or three different methods. I I forget but anyhow he does
30:12 it with different methods and shows that in one method it goes up and another method it goes down. So depending on how
30:18 you chose to calculate your average, you decide it's warming and another guy decides that it's cooling. And so the
30:25 question is, is it warming or is it cooling? And the answer is it's both. Yeah,
30:30 it's not determinable. In fact, and then he has another theorem that he proves. And in this paper, there's about 10 different theorems that he proves which
30:37 says which is why it's called the overlap theorem. If you have a temperature field where any of the
30:43 temperatures overlap with any of the others that you want to compare it, you want to say is this thing colder than
30:49
that? The only way you can make a meaningful statement about whether something is colder is if there's no
30:56 overlap. So in other words, if all the temperatures in one set are greater than 31:02
all the temperatures in the other set, then you can say this temp this temperature set is warmer than this one.
31:10
But if the temperatures are not all greater, you can't say that because there's an overlap and because you're
31:17
only talking temperatures here, you don't know how much mass is associated and how much heat capacity is associated
31:23
with those temperatures. So even a small overlap, even if the overlap looks like it's going to the right, it might go to 31:30 the left depending on how you average it. Yeah. Okay. I can I can understand what what you're
31:36 saying there. But isn't there a way around that? No.
31:41
By by not taking absolute measurements of temperature, but differences,
31:47
anomalies, you average temperature anomalies. In other words, as the the temperature changes, you look at only
31:54 the changes over, you know, um, a week, a year, or whatever it may be. And it's
32:01 those differences in temperature which then get averaged. Isn't that what's taking place in when they're measuring
32:08 these these grand temperature differences? Again, you might think that if you don't
32:14 understand mathematics, but Essex thought of that and already proved it.
32:20
And so the answer is no. There's absolutely no difference in the theorems
32:25 as a result of using anomalies versus temperatures. The mathematics is exactly the same.
32:33
There are things called co there are these things called coordinate transformations technical terms in math
32:39 but anyhow the short answer is no the anomalies does not change the 32:44
fundamental math at all none let let me let me put another thing to 32:51 you then and that is this um global mean
32:56
surface temperature value which is commonly used now
33:03
Is it not justified by the fact that correlations
33:10 are seen against the variation of the global mean surface temperature? So they
33:17
look at the amount of carbon dioxide, they look at the global mean temperature, they say, "Oh, look, there's a there's a correlation between
33:24 those two." In fact, they go some further to say there's a there's a causation between the two that as the
33:30
global mean temperature varies or as the carbon dioxide varies, the 33:36
global mean temperature varies. And isn't the the correlation therefore a justification of the use of that value
33:44 no matter how obscure its origins might be? So first of all again the premise of
33:50 your question is wrong. So I'll start with that. There are no correlations.
33:55
Number one, uh no valid ones. Um now, uh all of 34:02
these arguments, by the way, I've been through and I've had actually both Grock and Gro for and Claude for write up
34:10
papers on this subject and do extensive research on it, which is why we're going to come out with a a paper. But but um
34:17 there are no published studies, none, zero, okay, that show any actual 34:26
correlation between this number and the other and and but let me take a step back from that.
34:34
There are correlation is not causation as everybody knows, right? But 34:40
speurious correlation is totally meaningless. Now what does spirious correlation mean? If you have a
34:48
grandfather clock that is completely dead, not moving. Okay, not moving. It tells
34:57 the correct time twice a day. You say, well, it it's not it it's not very
35:03
accurate, but you know, we know it's exactly right twice a day, so there must be something there. No, there's nothing
35:08 there. So that correlation is a speurious correlation. So now if you
35:14 make up a number and by the way you engineer this fake statistic so that it
35:19 goes up very slightly which is exactly what they did right so it's an
35:24
engineered meaningless statistic and it goes up slightly and then you pick something else in the world that went up
35:31
slightly and now you say look it's correlated that's a speurious correlation first of all this is a
35:37
fiction so any correlation it has with anything is by definition spirious
35:43 because it doesn't exist. All right, there is and so I just throw this in.
35:49
There is a fantastic website out there. I think it's called Spurious Correlations,
35:54
right? Which just puts up many, you know, graphs of two things and showing a weird
36:00
un wonderful correlations that cannot exist like the amount of seaweed washed up on a beach compared to the number of 36:07 fashions that have been presented in in Paris. and and the correlations are 36:12
element very clearly displayed in the graph but you can and you can play with the various different settings but they
36:20 show speurious correlations which right so there's a mathematical correlation in the numbers this is where
36:26
I where you go back and forth from numbers to physical meaning right 36:31
numbers can have correlations with each other like you just said all kinds right that doesn't mean that one causes the
36:38 other doesn't mean they're even related in any And if one of the two things is a fictitious
36:44 imaginary thing that has no physical meaning in the physical world, any 36:50 correlation that it has is also meaningless. Now that said 36:56
um so these correlation when you see people talking about the correlations you can go search you can do a deep
37:03 search and then you'll find one or two or three papers over the last 50 years
37:08
that attempts to try and correlate GMST with something and when you read into
37:13 the paper further what you discover is is it's a circular argument
37:19 that the thing that they were correlating with was a model which was based on GMST.
37:26
Okay, tuned to GS GMST calculates GMST internally that drives other thing in in
37:33 the model and then they say look this modeled result correlates with GMST.
37:39
Oh, it's called circular reasoning. Okay, this global mean surface temperature
37:46 um GMST is being used quite heavily today to set targets
37:55 for countries and for governments to meet. So what's the what what's the
38:01
conclusions from that then? The most common ones you hear are global warming of 1.1° C above 1850 to 1900
38:10
baseline. In fact, that's their big number one conclusion. So, right away, that's purely the GMST number. So, that
38:17 statement global warming of 1.1°C, there's already four lies in that
38:23
phrase. Why? They defined global warming. IPCC
38:29 defined global warming as an increase in GMST.
38:34
Now, as we know, that's not what global warming is. Warming we know from thermodynamics is an increase in
38:40
internal energy. Energy not temperature. So you can't say global warming and 38:48 temperature in the same sentence. Okay? If they if they wanted to talk energy, they could, but they didn't. They
38:55 specifically defined warming as in temperature. Then they said 1.1° C. But
39:01
wait a minute, the 1.1 is not a temperature. It's a change in GMST, 39:06
which is a statistic, which we know is not a temperature. Calling it degrees C is a category error, and it's a 39:12
purposeful lie because they want you to believe that it's a temperature. It's not. It's a change in this statistic
39:18 that they calculated. Okay? A change in a statistic, which we know does not represent either a temperature or an
39:25 energy or anything in the real world. So, they say global warming of 1.1° C.
39:32
It's not degrees C. It's not global warming because it's not energy and the 1.1 is a meaningless number. Okay, so
39:39
that's number one, right? I'll just give you a couple other ones quickly. Yeah, we we
39:44
temperature temperature attribution all temp all human attribution of of changes that's all based on GMST that all
39:51
falsified the projected scenarios. What you're talking about the Paris agreement, it's called 1.5 degrees C.
39:58
Again, degrees C is a lie. Everywhere where they use the terminology degrees C next to a GMSST number is a lie. And
40:05 it's not an accidental lie. It's a purposeful purposeful intentional lie because they
40:13
want you to believe and you do believe everyone believes that it has something to do with temperature and it it
40:18 doesn't. Okay. So it worked. It's it's propaganda at a scale never seen before.
40:24
Let me give you a few more and I'll point you to a paper I wrote about this. Um, rate of warming acceleration,
40:30 regional temperature change, climate sensitivity. Climate sensitivity is an entirely fictitious thing. Okay. Have
40:37 you heard of climate sensitivity? No. Okay. So, this is one of the parameters that they wanted to calculate in the
40:44
models and they said, look, if we double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, how
40:49
much will the global temperature go up, right? So they they made an assumption
40:56 that the global temperature change delta t should be equal to 41:04 the um the change in forcing due to the increase of the CO2
41:11 times this thing lambda which is the climate sensitivity. Okay.
41:16 Right. That's an assumption. Yeah. that but you can see in that 41:21
equation is delta t equals lambda time f the forcing or delta f right um and so 41:29 if gmsst is a fiction what does that tell you about lambda now delta f is 41:35 something that you can really calculate based on some real physics now the
41:40
so-called forcing number we know because we know if you add carbon dioxide molecules to the
41:46
atmosphere we know from radiation physics and there's lots of great measurements about this. These are real
41:53
measurements, right? You can calculate how much of the radiation of infrared
41:58 that comes up from the earth's surface gets uh reraiated back towards the earth
42:04
versus how much get gets sent out into space and we have very accurate measurements and very accurate
42:10
experiments that confirm that. So that that delta F number while it's still fuzzy and we we can't
42:17
say what it is exactly, it's a long it's a nonlinear issue I should think here because I remember
42:24
Will Heer telling me that the more CO2 you put in you might reach um a
um a
42:30
ceiling so that no matter how much more you keep adding it's not going to make any difference. It's like when you paint
42:35 a window with with a black paint, you know, if you paint it again with black paint or again with black paint, it
42:41 makes no difference. The light's still not going to come through, right? It's not that it makes no diff it's not that it makes no difference,
42:48 but it be it's diminishing returns. It's logarithmic. And Will Happer, by the way, is one of the most brilliant
42:53 scientists in the world. And everything he says, you know, I listen very 42:58 carefully. I've never heard him be incorrect about anything. And so he knows all about this. And he and by the 43:04 way he has the best model in the world for measuring the radiation of energy up
43:11
to the satellites and he measures them at the satellites and he has a a model for calculating it and when you look at
43:17 the output of his model and what the satellites measure it's like virtually ident it's unbelievably accurate. So he
43:23 understands radiative physics better than anyone in the world. And and what
43:29 he's saying is that the relationship is logarithmic, which means it doesn't cut
43:34 off, but it goes gets flatter and flatter. It's a curve that goes up rapidly at first, then gets less and 43:40 less. And so what it means is like what he's saying, you get a saturation point
43:46 where beyond a certain point, you you barely notice any difference. And we're already at that point. We're at the 43:51 point where if you double if you double the CO2, the forcing only goes up by a
43:58
small amount. Okay? And so, and the amount that that could possibly change
44:04 anything again is even smaller. So, uh but the but the point is if G GMS uh um
44:12 this number that they believe in called sensitivity is directly related to GMST.
44:19
So if GMST doesn't exist, the whole theory of of of
44:24
um climate sensitivity goes away, temperature extremes analysis, sea level
44:30 rise projections, Arctic warming, carbon budget calculations, literally all of the important conclusions that are used
44:37 in the media and the policies and the governments and the promotions and
44:43 everywhere for making laws and this and that and the other thing are all completely undermined by this one
44:50
absolute truth. Okay. Now, there are things in the in climate science that 44:57 are real like energy and direct measurements of stuff. But for example, you can say how many days was it over 45:05
90° this year and and versus other years or every year. Say each year, how many
45:12 days was it over 90 degrees? That's not an average. That's what we measure.
45:19
What's that? Would that be a better measure? Would that be a better way of doing it? Oh, absolutely. That's a very valid measure. And you know what it shows?
45:25
Yeah. It's going down. That's why they don't talk about it, right?
45:30
That's why they don't talk about it. Jonathan, we we've run out of time today, but um last question for you
45:37 would be what's your what's your attention being focused on next in in 45:42
this area? You've looked at um GMST. Have you got a different topic which
45:47 you're moving towards? Well, to really measure global warming,
45:53 you have to measure the energy coming in from the sun at the top of the atmosphere. Okay?
45:59 And then the energy going out at the top of the atmosphere. And if the energy
46:04 coming in is greater, then you can say confidently that the system inside of
46:10
that ball because outside of it there's nothing, right? inside of that ball what we call the top of the atmosphere which
46:15 is like I don't know 100 km up or something right if the energy in minus the energy out is is greater than zero
46:24 right energy in minus out then we have warming if the energy in minus out is
46:30 less than zero we have cooling if the energy in minus energy out equals zero
we have nothing right well let me tell
46:37 you for we've had those satellites that do that top of atmosphere measurement Yeah,
46:42 they've been up for 20 years now, which is not very much time. They started in the late 90s. We have other satellites
46:48 that went up in 79, but the ones that are measuring top of atmosphere have only been around for about 20 years. And
46:55 if you look at their in-n-out measurements along with their um
47:00
uncertainty ranges because whenever you have a measurement, you have an uncertainty range due to the statistics,
47:05 but also due to the device that you're doing the measuring with. Okay, this the the uncertainty range for the outgoing
47:13 especially even more than the incoming is huge. It's like on the order of 10 to 47:19
15 watts per meter squared. And what the IPCC hypothetically says, and it's a
47:27
completely fictitious madeup number, but they claim that the energy imbalance is.7
47:33
watts per meter squared. But but we know the measurement in minus the measurement
47:38 out, okay, is plus or minus 10 to 15 watts. In other words, it's not
47:45
statistically different from zero as far as we can measure it right now. Yeah. And anybody saying that it is is lying.
47:53
Jonathan Kler, thank you very much indeed for a very thorough explanation
47:58 of the climate issues today. Thank you. You're very welcome.
48:05