‘Man-made warming’ demolished in 500 words

“CO2 is innocent; it has no climate effect; the simultaneous rise in temperature and CO2 is pure accident. The Sun was by far the main driver of global temperature for the last 10,000 years.”
– Dr Roger Higgs, geologist and sedimentologist

“The United Nations IPCC says ongoing warming is due to man’s CO2 emissions, hence ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’ (AGW). The 3 pillars on which they base this claim are unscientific and quickly disproved.”

‘Man-made warming’ demolished in 500 words

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) three pillars of man-made global warming: collapsed

Dr Roger Higgs

Here are the three pillars and the disproofs:

Pillar I. Earth’s average surface temperature and man’s CO2 emissions have both risen since 1850, so CO2 must have caused the warming

Five disproofs …

(1) What else has risen? The Sun’s magnetic output, affecting cloudiness (Svensmark), more than doubled from 1901 to 1991 (Lockwood), to its highest peak in 10,000 years (Higgs 1).

In those last 10,000 years …
(2) simple visual cross-correlation shows changes in temperature lagged 60-160 years behind solar-output changes, due to the ocean’s vast heat capacity and slow mixing (Higgs 1, 2)

(3) … temperature and CO2 were uncorrelated, until their joint rise from the late 1800s.

(4) CO2 is still rising (NOAA), but Earth has cooled since 2016 (Met. Office). Every passing day not ‘warmest ever’ for that date, at multiple sites worldwide, embarrasses the IPCC.

(5) Warming since 1910 paused 1945-75 (30 years) and 1998-2012 but CO2 kept rising.

Pillar II. Global warming’s continuance despite the Sun’s weakening after 1991 absolves the Sun and incriminates CO2

Disproof …

This mismatch is simply due to the oceanic time-lag, currently about 60 years. Thus global warming will continue (with ups and downs, mainly due to the Sun’s 11-year cycles) until around 2050, about 60 years after the Sun’s 1991 grand peak (Higgs 2).

Pillar II was asserted in IPCC’s 2013 ‘Fifth Assessment Report’, Chapter 10 (IPCC 1 p.887, co-author Lockwood [see (1) above], citing 4 of his own papers). But IPPC already knew about the lag, Chapter 3 having stated the “ocean’s huge heat capacity and slow circulation lend it significant thermal inertia” (IPCC 2 p.266).

Pillar III. Sea level (SL) for the last few thousand years varied less than 25cm, so the 30cm SL rise since 1850 proves abnormal warming
by CO2

Disproof …

The 25 cm claim (only “medium confidence”; IPCC 3 p.385) is based on selected evidence (Higgs 3) and on dismissal of the famed 1961 SL curve (Fairbridge; Wiki) with SL oscillations of 2 to 5 metres in the last 6,000 years, confirmed by dozens of later geologists worldwide, and lately with very strong archaeological support (Higgs 4, 5, 6).


1. That’s it. That’s all they have. Be surprised.

2. The Sun was by far the main driver of global temperature for the last 10,000 years.

3. CO2 is innocent; it has no climate effect; the simultaneous rise in temperature and CO2 is pure accident; CO2’s residual ‘greenhouse effect’ is effectively nil (Higgs 7, 8).

4. The IPCC urgently needs to consult geologists (Higgs 9, 10).

5. Another Sun-driven large sea-level rise is predictable (Higgs 11).

Dr Roger Higgs (DPhil Oxford, geology, 1982-86)
Geoclastica Ltd Technical Note 2020-7
25th May 2020, amended 26-5-2020

All contributions by Higgs (me) are very brief

Fairbridge 1961 sea-level curve, latest revision 1977, fig. 2c: https://www.nature.com/articles/268413a0
Higgs 1 2020: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340869622
Higgs 2 2020: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341078096
Higgs 3 2019: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336414520
Higgs 4 2020: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339875642
Higgs 5 2020: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338556345
Higgs 6 2017: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316601390
Higgs 7 2019: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332245803
Higgs 8 2020: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340869622
Higgs 9 2018: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331928229
Higgs 10 2019: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331974185
Higgs 11 2020 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341597747
IPCC 1 2013: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter10_FINAL.pdf
IPCC 2 2013: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter03_FINAL.pdf
IPCC 3 2013: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter05_FINAL.pdf
Lockwood 1999: http://www.personal.reading.ac.uk/~ym901336/pdfs/170_Lockwoodetal_nature.pdf
Meteorological Office UK 2020: https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/monitoring/index.html
NOAA 2020: https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/index.html
Svensmark 2007: https://academic.oup.com/astrogeo/article/48/1/1.18/220765
Wiki 2020: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhodes_Fairbridge

Please email for copies of any the above, rogerhiggs@hotmail.com

Question everything

Posted by permission of Dr Roger Higgs

23 thoughts on “‘Man-made warming’ demolished in 500 words”

  1. There is only one statement I disagree with in the article. There is a relationship between warming and Carbon Dioxide and it is not pure accident.
    When Oceans cool they absorb Carbon Dioxide and when they warm they give it back up to the atmosphere because they simply can’t hold it any more much like an iced soft drink. The warmer it gets the less capacity for holding the fizz that it has.
    Oceans take a while to heat and then to cool again, many years. That is the major reason that increases in Carbon Dioxide follows by many years increases in temperature.
    Cold water, before it turns to ice can hold a lot of C02 and when it then freezes that C02 is locked away. In the last ice age the C02 levels were dangerously low for plant life. Plants are now thriving, a good thing.

    • He did make note in the article that there was a lag due to oceanic warming and cooling. He said 60 years, but I remember clearly that there is a very well established lag of something like 100 years between onset of oceanic warming and increase of atmospheric CO2. The two sort of corroborate each other. Clearly, the oceanic warming, due mostly to undersea vulcanism as per Robert’s work, is causing the lagging increase in CO2.

  2. How can an ocean upwelling feedback loop affect the thermal inertia of the warm surface layer of the ocean? According to cosmic ray theory, there will be more storms which imply more wind. There are frequent ocean cooling anomily areas in the north Atlantic. If these areas increase, how will the climate be affected? Note : Ocean wind shear is not linear.

  3. This article is unfair.

    It wants us to read and study science, which involves thinking and hard work.

    It is much easier (and lazier) to simply listen to the global warming gurus who do not ask (or allow) you to think.

    • this sounds a whole lot like the current scene “caused” by a virus. Don’t study, research or even think. Just shut up and do what we tell you to.

      To which I respond in similar fashion as I do to the AGW panic: NO!!!

    • I agree! Am I seriously supposed to start thinking now? I bought a TV just so I could avoid that and its working just fine. My own theory is that global warming is caused by too much thinking.

  4. It will be interesting to have a look of the CO2 in the air after six months of low human activity.

  5. Truth wields no power.
    Only perception and physical force count for anything in the human experience.

    • John the 1st,
      Insistence upon acquiring truth is joyous. Guiding one’s actions by it is the mark of human success, virtue. Life does not come with a written guarantee, but each of us has morality and the pursuit of truth within his compass. Perhaps that is power enough. Is not a wish for more power akin to the power for which our destroyers yearn?

      Their idea of truth, of a proper polity, is Plato’s Republic with themselves as the philosopher-kings. I would if I could deny to that idea of truth every vestige of power save that won by persuasion. Perhaps that’s their Achille’s heel– that so few follow it from belief, that its power depends mostly on connivance at theft and other low motives.
      Ah well, I am sure we are not arguing.

    • I agree, John the 1st. And, unfortunately, the enemies of good and decent people everywhere are, in large measure, able to greatly shape the perceptions of the masses.

  6. I’m not a scientist but I have a degree in applied science, a degree I used daily in my work for 30 years before retiring in 2013. While I don’t pretend to be as erudite as Dr Higgs in these things, I’ve made a study of the global warming scare since 2009 and I have a pretty good understanding of it. I also agree with almost everything Dr Higgs says.
    There is one aspect of it, though, which I would question, and that’s the time lag in temperature change he mentions above (Pillar II) in relation to the heat capacity of the oceans. He says global warming will continue until 2050 despite us reaching Dalton Minimum levels of solar activity in the next solar cycle. This is because of a 60-year lag since the solar grand peak of 1991, he says.
    But that isn’t what happened during the actual Dalton Minimum of 1790-1830. Temperatures dropped much more quickly with the decrease in solar activity. There wasn’t a 60-160-year delay. In fact, the drop in temperature almost coincided with the drop in sunspot numbers.
    From this I would argue that changes in solar activity have a much stronger and more immediate effect on Earth’s temperatures than Dr Higgs suggests, but no doubt the oceans do temper that effect considerably (they’d be much worse without the oceans).
    Consequently, I tend to disagree with his prediction that global warming will continue until 2050 before the effects of this Grand Solar Minimum are felt. We’re already 30 years past the previous solar peak and I think significant cooling will occur quite soon now.
    Nevertheless, I’m grateful to Dr Higgs for his work and for his courage in speaking out against the ‘climate change’ deception.
    Long live geologists!

  7. Not many geologists, in my observation, agree with the climate agenda, if any. Possibly due to actual knowledge of the paleo history of the planet and reasonable knowledge of chemistry.
    the Sun controls everything!

  8. If the claim that the experiments of Aarhenius have demonstrated that 85% of the impact of CO2 influence has already been experienced is true, why would we choose to continue to discriminate against low cost energy sourcesby way of policy?

  9. Global warming is caused by overpopulation, the direct cause of which is excessive human farting. On the other hand were we able to capture the escaping methane it could become a valuable energy source.

  10. I agree with the idea that CO2 has no effect on earth temperature, the entire fiasco is a media generated hoax just like this coronahoax. The media can convince anyone of anything.

    I actually don’t care what people believe, I do get concerned when public policies are being based on media generated hysteria. Many, like Robert, are warning that shutting down coal fired plants while we are STILL in an ice age may be a bad idea. I concur. Just our opinion, so go ahead and worship Elon Musk who farms electric car subsidies.

    I have blogged every which way to Sunday to defeat the global warming argument and the one that seems to have some traction is that all the heat from all the burned fossil fuel has disappeared into space.

    It is a good argument to wrap your mind around. What happened to all that heat of all that coal and gasoline we burned? Something like a TRILLION barrels of oil combusted so far. Wow, you’d think that would warm the planet, right?

    Nope, all that heat from our cars went into the air then radiated out to space, and is gone forever. That was stored solar energy that we used up in the most frivolous way, driving internal combustion gas guzzlers around just for fun.

    I tell this story to my family and friends, if you are out for a hike in the wide open space like high elevation in the desert you better be prepared for when the sun sets. The blazing heat then becomes freezing cold in a hurry, and I have been caught out in it and I will tell you something important, increased CO2 concentrations in the air will not stop you from freezing to death.

    It gets really cold in a hurry on a cloudless night. So where did all that heat of the day go to? Out to space. All the rocks cool off and by morning everything has cooled off regardless of how much CO2 happens to be in the air. So imagine if the sun didn’t come out the next day, what would happen? The cooling would continue until the earth froze solid.

    That thought experiment is what you must ponder to realize that the sun is keeping us warm, not a trace gas. CO2 may slow radiation coming and going, but what is the net effect? A big fat zero and the greenhouse idea is wrong, the earth is not inside a glass aquarium.

    I am no climate scientist or physicist, but the atmosphere is blocking or slowly much of the incoming solar radiation, and these greenhouse kooks are talking about the down rays, only the up rays.

    Bottom line? When I see palm trees growing in Minnesota then I will worry about planetary warming. But that ain’t going to happen is it?

  11. I really like this quote:
    “… with SL oscillations of 2 to 5 metres in the last 6,000 years, confirmed by dozens of later geologists worldwide, and lately with very strong archaeological support.”
    Note 6XXX years. That’s the frequency that our Solar System passes through the Milky Way’s Galactic Plane, resulting in a Polar Axis Shift:

    • Hi William,
      According to this article at Science Daily: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080502092145.htm
      … based on research out of Cardiff University in the U.K., our solar system bobs up and down on its way around the centre of our galaxy (the Milky Way), as you rightly say. But we pass through the galactic plane once every 35-40 million years, not every 6000 years.
      The researchers argue that passing through the more crowded and therefore gravitationally denser plane of the Milky Way causes disturbance of the comets orbiting in the ‘Oort Cloud’ (the enormous cloud of comets way out beyond the Kuiper Belt). Their argument is that, as a result, we get an increase in the number of these comets spiralling in toward the inner solar system and striking the rocky planets, including Earth. They say they have a near-perfectly-synchronous match between this 35-million-year galactic oscillation and the number of eroded impact craters found in Earth’s geological record.
      But they don’t mention shifts in Earth’s axis.

      • Thank you Interested for your reply and the link! I rarely get any feedback, so this is a welcome change.
        Yes, we passed through the Galactic Plane 35-40 million years ago, as we pass through every 6XXX years. Perhaps when we passed through that time(s), there were an abnormally high number of comets/asteroids in the path/Galactic plane that impacted the Earth – an abnormally high density of matter.
        They incorrectly attribute the gravitational forces to “giant gas and dust clouds”, but these forces result from the two Supermassive, spinning, “Black HoleS” that created the Milky Way Galaxy. “Gas and Dust Clouds” can not keep the Milky Way’s matter in a plane – you must have massive, systematic, equal and opposite opposing forces (provided by this pair of Black HoleS).
        They did get the “bounces up and down through the plane of the Galaxy” part correct, but they just got the frequency incorrect, because they were looking only at one piece of evidence – the increased number of comets/asteroids impacting the Earth. And yes, more impacts hit the southern hemisphere than the northern, because the Galactic gravitational forces always act in a S-N direction.
        The evidence that I have provided proves that we pass through this Galactic Plane once every 6XXX years.

Comments are closed.