Dr. Michael Savage Ph.D.: Facts on global temperature



  • Lizzy Mack

    Thanks for the climate lecture today. It was a grand review, and worth hearing from start to finish, as well as succinct and salient. I was particularly keen on your analogy of the billions misappropriated on solar power during Obama’s tenure as it compares to the absolute and patent refusal of President Trump and citizens like myself to spend billions more on this treaty, which was never properly put forth for Senate ratification, and seems like just another huge swindle. You would be one heck of a professor…

    • Anonymous

      Who was he speaking to with that lecture? It wasn’t me. I know the facts he mentioned. I don’t believe the climate change hype.

  • Dean Corso

    Dr. Savage, thanks for the interview with VP Pence and reminding everyone that the notion of mankind significantly contributing to climate change and global warming is completely bogus and that CO2 is beneficial, and that surprise, surprise climate and weather have been changing since the dawn of time. Hopefully, President Trump and others will realize that, even if everyone paid equally to combat the effects of the alleged disaster of climate change/global warming, it’s all based on junk science and a gross waste of limited time, energy, and money, which irresponsibly keeps us from solving real problems, such as illegal alien immivasions and Mohammedan conquests through population Jihad.

  • Matlonc

    Hey Dr. Savage- please see the article I read on Freedom outpost that shows how the left arrived at their “consensus” . There was a professor at the university of Illinois that sent out a TWO question “questionnaire” to 10,257 scientists of which only 3,146 responded. Not content with such a distorted sample, the researchers then selected 79 of their sample and declared them “experts.” Of those 79 scientists, two were excluded from a second supplementary question. So 75 out of 77 made it through to the final round, and 97.4 per cent were found to agree with “the consensus”. That’s where the 97 per cent comes from. Yep. Out of the hundreds of thousands of scientists in the world, only 75 of them were selected to “count” for the climate change survey that every mainstream media news organization quotes as FACT. Not quite the “settled science” you’ve been told, is it?

    • Dave

      I wonder if the so called “scientists” aren’t really political scientists rather then meteorologists. Rather than dealing with facts (if not bonehead logic) they simply adhere to their agenda and supply (manufacture) facts as required.

  • Anonymous

    Great discussion. Not to change the subject but when is Hillary going to be indicted for proven espionage? When is Congress going to investigate Soros? The best defense is a good offense. Please ask these questions of your contacts in the WH.

  • William

    Facts: 1997 Global Warming Petition. 31,748 AMERICAN Scientist have signed this petition,including 9,029 with PhDs’s,rejecting the man made global warming petition.
    2009, U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works…More than 700 International Scientist Dissent over Man-Made Global Warming Claims vs the 52 U.N. Scientist who authored the 2007 summary.
    Earth’s Green House Gas envelope : CO2 is no more than 4% of the total, water vapor being over 90% followed by methane,sulfur,and nitrous oxides. Of the 4% man contributes only a little over 3%. Elementary math says 3% of 4% is 0.012%, and for that we are sentencing the planet to a wealth of damaging economic impacts.
    Why did early Mad Made Global Warming activist change the name to Climate Change?
    Well,who could deny Earth’s climate changes, always has always will,it’s a consequence of Nature.
    What happened to the 70’s and early 80’s Conservation movement and why did the namesake become Environmentalism?
    Relativist-Progressives-Redistribution schemes. Change the words,narrative,ends sought that further plunder,control and enslave the masses…

    Keep up the good work Dr. Savage,stay strong: From untruth lead to truth,from darkness lead to the light.

  • Susan Vue

    Thank you Dr. Savage.

  • chris

    THIS WILL disproof all – Global WARMING ..!!.. Deniers

    _Mars seem to be “coming out of an ice age” … / NASA

    Red Planet Heats Up: Ice Age Ending on Mars – Space.com

    • Also some climate changes detected on other planets

    Take heat : There are no/NO.. : “man made industrial / pollution ..” on Mars ..~!!* – but it is (just like Earth) , heating UP.. –NOT cooling down~!!!
    The heating UP is thus_NOT .. “man made” but , yes – the Real Reason for Earth-and Mars WARMING , is .. : “Nibiru” /.. incoming ..!!! (_PERIOD / Tank you very much).


    There is no denying that the atmospheres of Earth and Venus are responsible for a “greenhouse effect” that raises their surface temperatures significantly above their black body or effective temperatures. However, claims by anthropogenic global warming (AGW) alarmists about excess CO2 being responsible for temperature anomalies in the order of 1 °C are contradicted by the fact that Mars has more CO2 than Earth, but has no greenhouse effect.

    The Inner Planets Data
    Data is mostly sourced from NASA. The solar irradiance at 1 astronomical unit (AU) from the Sun is taken as 1,366 W/m2, from World Radiation Center measurements. For the other orbital radii of Mercury, Venus and Mars, an inverse square law adjustment is applied. Since we want to obtain the average solar flux received over the entire planet’s surface as opposed to at some point where the Sun is directly overhead, the figure is then divided by four, being the ratio of the surface area of a sphere to its cross-section.
    In order to obtain the absorbed radiation after allowing for reflected sunlight, the solar irradiance per square meter of the planet’s surface is multiplied by a factor of one minus its Bond albedo. The effective temperature, i.e., the temperature of a black body emitting the same flux as the absorbed radiation and hence in thermal equilibrium, is calculated from the Stefan Boltzmann law according to:

    T = [Pd / σ]1/4 where T is the absolute temperature (K), Pd is the flux or power density (W/m2), and σ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant of 5.6703×10-8 W/m2.K4.

    Mercury’s atmosphere is essentially a vacuum, and so the mean surface temperature equals the effective temperature, although there is of course a large difference between the sun-facing side and the regions experiencing a long night.

    For the next three planets, it may be seen that the excess temperature over the effective temperature is more strongly correlated with the quantity of all atmospheric gases, or with the nitrogen, rather than the so-called greenhouse gases CO2 or H2O. At 210 K, Mars has the same mean surface temperature as its effective or black body temperature. Yet it has 167.6 kg/m2 of CO2, which is 28.1 times the 5.96 kg/m2 for Earth, which has an excess temperature of some 34 K or 13.3% over its black body temperature. But Venus has 1,021,000 kg/m2 of CO2, which is 171,000 times the value for Earth, whilst the surface temperature of Venus is 737 K, which is 4 times its black body temperature.

    The proportions of each gas are generally quoted by volume, so these values were adjusted by a factor comparing the molecular mass of the gas with the molecular mass of the planet’s atmosphere, to find the mass quantity for each gas. Water vapor on Earth is reckoned to average about 1% by volume albeit highly variable, whereas H2O has a molecular weight of 20.04 compared to the average MW of 28.97 for Earth’s air, so the mass fraction is taken as 0.69%.
    Planet Mercury Venus Earth Mars
    Orbital radius
    Solar irradiance
    Bond albedo
    Absorbed radiation
    0.387 AU
    2280 W/m2
    2125 W/m2
    0.723 AU
    653.3 W/m2
    65.33 W/m2 1 AU
    341.5 W/m2
    237 W/m2 1.524 AU
    147 W/m2
    110.25 W/m2
    Effective temp. or
    black body temp.
    440 K 184.2 K 254.2 K 210 K
    Actual mean
    surface temp.
    440 K 737 K 288 K 210 K
    Surface temp. /
    black body temp.
    1.0 4.001 1.133 1.0
    Volumetric mean radius
    Total surface area 2,439,700 m
    7.48E13 m2 6,051,800 m
    4.602E14 m2 6,371,000 m
    5.1E14 m2 3.389,500 m
    1.444E14 m2
    Mass of
    <~1,000 kg
    <~1.3E-11 kg/m2;
    negligible ~4.8E20 kg
    1,043,000 kg/m2
    5.1E18 kg
    10,000 kg/m2 ~2.5E16 kg
    173 kg/m2
    Mass of CO2 Possible trace amounts; negligible 4.7E20 kg
    1,021,000 kg/m2
    3.04E15 kg
    5.96 kg/m2 2.42E16 kg
    167.6 kg/m2
    Mass of H2O Possible trace amounts; negligible 3.98E15 kg
    8.65 kg/m2 3.52E16 kg
    69 kg/m2 2.18E12 kg
    0.0151 kg/m2
    Mass of N2 Possible trace amounts; negligible 1.08E19 kg
    23,500 kg/m2 3.85E18 kg
    7,550 kg/m2 4.35E16 kg
    3.01 kg/m2
    Mass of O2 <~8.5E-12 kg/m2; negligible None 1.18E18 kg
    2310 kg/m2 2.4E13 kg
    0.166 kg/m2

    When faced with the example of Mars, the global warming alarmist will typically reply that Mars has no greenhouse effect because it has only about one-hundredth the atmosphere of the Earth. Yes, but it still has around 28 times as much CO2 per square meter column of its atmosphere compared to Earth!

    It is interesting that the warming effect on Venus raises its temperature to four times its black body temperature, but this is probably mere coincidence. If Venus is so saturated with CO2 that increases in levels had stopped leading to any further temperature rise long ago, a fourfold limit on the absolute temperature rise would not derive from a geometric effect, such as compensating for the fourfold reduction in flux over the surface area of a sphere compared to the incident flux on the cross-sectional area of the planet facing the Sun. A four-fold increase in black body temperature corresponds to a 44 times or 256 times increase in flux.

    And the four-fold temperature increase on Venus is after allowing for its Bond albedo being much higher than the other planets at 0.9, so that only 10% of the incoming radiation is assumed to be absorbed for purposes of calculating Venus's black body temperature. If Venus had the same Bond albedo of Earth, say, at 0.306, then its absorbed radiation before any greenhouse effect increases from 65.33 to 453.4 W/m2, raising its black body temperature from 184.2 to 327.6 K. So in this case the warming to 737 K is a temperature rise of 2.25 times instead of 4 times, and again with 171,000 times as much CO2 as on Earth.

    Analysis of how much warming is caused by each gas, based on above data
    A model that attempts to quantify how much of each gas would lead to a rise of, say, 10% in absolute temperature works best when CO2 is deemed to be relatively insignificant as a greenhouse gas.

    A simple program was written in which various values for CO2, H2O, N2 and O2 were inputted as the assumed amount in kg/m2 that would lead to a 10% increase in temperature (corresponding to a 46.41% increase in net flux absorbed). For each planet, the actual values (kg/m2 ) of each gas from the above table were assigned, with the final predicted increase being the product of four factors: 1.1 raised to the power of each assigned value divided by the inputted value assumed to produce a 10% temperature rise.
    For example, if the actual CO2 level was twice the assumed amount necessary for a 10% temperature rise, the increase would be a factor of 21% for that gas, and if another gas was at the level assumed to give a 10% increase, the overall increase would be 1.21 times 1.1 times whatever factors were obtained for the other two gases.

    In all cases the values of each gas on Mercury was taken as sufficiently low in relation to that required for any greenhouse effect that a value of zero could be assigned for each gas, with the predicted surface temperature to black body temperature being a ratio of 1.0. The first result in agreement with the observed values for the other planets assumed 89,208 kg/m2 for the amount of CO2 required to raise the temperature by 10%, and 7,577 kg/m2 for each of H2O, N2 and O2 to raise the temperature by 10%. With these inputted values, the predicted increase was 4.0010 for Venus, 1.1330 for Earth, and 1.000219 for Mars.

    If we suppose that the "correct", pre-industrial level for CO2 on Earth is 284 ppm by volume, and 2011 is up to 392 ppm, then that is multiplied by 44.01 / 28.97 (the ratio of the molecular weights of CO2 and air) to get the mass fractions of 431 ppm and 596 ppm respectively. Thus, the man-made increase is 165 ppm by mass, which taking Earth's atmosphere as 5.1E18 kg is an increase of 8.415E14 kg or 1.65 kg/m2 of CO2. If 89,208 kg/m2 of CO2 is required for a 10% rise in temperature, then 1.65 kg/m2 of CO2 would lead to a temperature rise of 1.11.65/89208 = 1.000001763 times, or an increase of 0.0005077 K on Earth's 288 K.

    In order to increase CO2's potency as a "dangerous" greenhouse gas, it is necessary to start ignoring the predictions for Venus by the addition of a postulate about carbon dioxide levels being saturated or close to saturation there. Given this proviso, when we assume 7,583 kg/m2 is required for each of the four gases to bring about a 10% increase in absolute temperature, the predicted increase for Venus is an absurd 503,006 (but limited to 4 by the additional postulate), with 1.13300 for Earth and 1.00215 for Mars. So in this case, the extra 1.65 kg/m2 of CO2 would lead to a temperature rise of 1.11.65/7583 = 1.000020739 times, or an increase of 0.005973 K on Earth's 288 K.

    By the time Venus has warmed up to a surface temperature of 737 K, its peak emission wavelength has shifted down to 3.93 μm, from 15.73 μm (at the 184.2 K effective temperature with no global warming). At 737 K the intensity radiated at 15 μm, around CO2's broadest peak absorption wavelength, is 58.641 W/m2/sr/µm compared to the 890.589 W/m2/sr/µm at the peak wavelength.

    But even if CO2 absorption was zero at shorter wavelengths – which it isn't, as can be seen in the plot below, a reduction of around 15 times would not account for Venus having a temperature rise of only eleven times greater than Earth whilst having 171,000 times a much CO2. Thus, the postulate about saturation is still required. On the other hand, in the case of Mars, at 210 K its peak emission wavelength is 13.7988 µm compared to Earth's 10.0616 µm at 288 K. With Mars' infra-red emission being closer to CO2's main absorption band, not only does Mars have 28 times as much CO2 for each column of air compared to Earth, but the greenhouse effect per kg of CO2 should be greater on Mars than on Earth.

    Source: spectralcalc.com
    When CO2 and H2O are assumed to be ten times as important as nitrogen and oxygen in the greenhouse effect, then setting the CO2 and H2O requirement for a 10% temperature rise at 810 kg/m2 and the corresponding N2 and O2 levels at 8,100 kg/m2 predicts an even more absurd increase of 1.98E52 for Venus, 1.13297 for Earth and 1.01996 for Mars. The increase for Mars is only a few K, so is probably acceptably low. In this case, then, the extra 1.65 kg/m2 of CO2 would lead to a temperature rise of 1.11.65/810 = 1.000194169 times, or an increase of 0.05592 K on Earth's 288 K.

    If CO2 and H2O are assumed to be a hundred times as important greenhouse gases as nitrogen and oxygen, then values of 132 kg/m2 for CO2 and H2O to cause a 10% temperature rise, and 13,200 kg/m2 as the corresponding values for N2 and O2, predicts 1.75E320 as the unadjusted increase for Venus, 1.13351 for Earth, and 1.12868 for Mars. So this can be safely ruled out since the predicted increase on Mars is inconsistent with observations.

    When CO2 is ten times as important as N2 and O2, and H2O is ten times as important as CO2, then taking 1,280 kg/m2 of CO2 to produce a 10% rise in temperature, 128 kg/m2 as the requirement for H2O, and 12,800 kg/m2 for N2 and O2 predicts an increase of 1.2E33 times for Venus, 1.3342 for Earth, and 1.01259 for Mars. In this case the extra 1.65 kg/m2 of CO2 would lead to a temperature rise of 1.11.65/1280 = 1.000122868 times, or an increase of 0.03539 K on Earth's 288 K.

    Oxygen and nitrogen are "greenhouse" gases, since their main absorption bands are 6-7 μm and 4-5 μm respectively, which is closer to the 288 K Earth's peak infra-red emissions of 10 μm than to the Sun's 0.5 μm.

    Source: spectralcalc.com
    In contrast, the absorption of CO2 covers a wide band extending almost to the optical range (see the first plot).
    Given that Earth's atmosphere has much more nitrogen and oxygen than CO2, and Mars has much more CO2 than Earth but not even the slightest greenhouse effect, it is obvious that the vast majority of Earth's greenhouse effect derives from N2 and O2 rather than CO2.

    The doom-mongers' claims of man-made global warming in the order of 1 K are a combination of over-hyped hysteria and blatant lies, which have been concocted and whipped up in order to benefit politicians in the short-term via pretexts for raising taxes, certain scientists in the short-term who promote the hoax and so are likely to receive plenty of funding, and to benefit bankers in the long-term by the interest on the inexorably rising massive levels of debt as the world economy is damaged by the shameful waste of countless trillions of dollars. The effect is to hit the world's poor disproportionately, with the winners being the rich, powerful, and the false prophets.

    Any honest, independent researcher who is not being funded by those with ulterior business or political interests will soon find that so-called "anthropogenic global warming" is junk 'science', like homeopathy. For example, Al Gore's movie on "global warming" has already been proven to be riddled with dozens of errors whilst being short on facts. Historic CO2 levels lag global air temperatures, and so cannot be a primary driver of climate change.

    Amusingly, the IPCC's bogus "scientists" have proposed a novel ad hoc 'theory' that is supposed to account for the slowdown in increasing surface temperatures since 1998 whilst CO2 levels continue to increase. They claim that the heat is not missing, but it's hiding deep beneath the sea. Thus, if schoolchildren are going to be taught about "man-made global warming", they will have to stop teaching them about convection currents and about water's high heat capacity relative to air.

    It is time to stop the climate change alarmists' preposterous political agenda and business scam before the damage incurred is sufficient to impoverish humankind for hundreds of years.

  • James Manuse

    on explaining CO2 rise after temp increase I wish Dr Savage would address this newer research: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ice-core-data-help-solve/

  • Irv Spielberg

    Re Dr. Savage’s “Facts on global temperature,” readers are invited to check out “The Great Climate Change Cover-up” which can be found on a British blog “Wolves in Sheep’s Cothing” hosted by notable British writer Treena Gisborn. What’s astounding is the existence of an ancient work which predicted, in great detail, what would happen in the atmosphere and on earth before the END would come about!

  • Anonymous

    Could we have a written transcript for those of us who like to read in the late evening hours?

  • Tere Mohr

    On one of his show Dr. Savage had a list of failed solar energy companies Obama gave millions to during his reign which have gone broke. Does anyone have that list or can you tell me where to find it?

    • Judi Land

      I don’t have Dr. Savage’s list but I have an article from Newsmax.com (all this info is from the article; I’m not good with the internet but I will type the link and the name of article at the end of all this info) that talks about the Global Warming scam and how certain businessmen(including Al Gore) and gov’t. people are profiting in the millions and billions.
      One company Obama gave $500 million in taxpayer money was Solyndra(much of that money went to finance his re-election campaign). In 2010, another
      $400 million dollars went to Abound Solar.
      First Solar received $646 million in gov’t. loan guarantees, and has since contributed more than $180,000 to Democrat campaigns.
      GE is notorious for spending tens of millions of dollars a year to “buy” green energy credits for it’s wind turbines and other green technologies-credits which helped the firm pay ZERO taxes in 2011.
      You can see why green energy is such a profitable business-CEOs and executives get to rake in millions of dollars, while politicians get lucrative donations for their campaigns…and scientists get all the funding they need to keep them going…all on your dime.
      The real cost is $1.75 Trillion when you add in the EPA regulations that shackle free enterprise and force us to rely on foreign energy.
      The info above is from a newsmax.com article from Monday, November 17, 2014 1:20PM titled; Scientist Confesses: “Global Warming a $22 Billion Scam” Here’s the link; http://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/607827
      I hope it works. It’s a great article. It has much more info than what I included here. It does work. I just checked. enjoy.

  • Peter Gumaer Ogden

    For the most part it has been unseasonably cool here in the communist hotbed of Ithaca, NY, which I hope to leave for more common sense “all American” climes ASAP. Mohawk Valley is far, far more patriotic, beautiful and rational than Ithaca, aka: Berkeley East!