Interview With Emeritus Professor Demetris Koutsoyiannis
Demetris Koutsoyiannis is Emeritus Professor of Hydrology and Hydrosystem Analysis at the National Technical University of Athens
He was Dean of the School of Civil Engineering, Head of the Department of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering, and Head of the Laboratory of Hydrology and Water Resources Development, Editor of Hydrological Sciences Journal, awarded the International Hydrology Prize-Dooge Medal (2014 ) from the International Association of Hydrological Sciences (IAHS), UNESCO and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), and the Henry Darcy Medal (2009) from the European Geosciences Union (EGU).
He was also Professor of Hydraulics at the Postgraduate School of Technical Education of Officers Engineers (Athens) of the Hellenic Army, Visiting Professor at Imperial College (London), Hydrologic Research Center (San Diego), Georgia Institute of Technology (Atlanta), the Sapienza University of Rome and University of Bologna.
During his last visit to Italy he was pushed and punched in the face.
Tell us about your last experience in Italy
In 2019 I was an academic visitor to two Italian universities, in Rome and Bologna. In Rome I gave a seminar on a technical issue, on irreversible processes over time, but interestingly enough, most of the questions I received were about climate.
In Bologna I also proposed a technical topic on stochastics, but the university asked for a topic suitable for a general audience. From the various alternatives I proposed, the university chose the one about climate.
The announcement of my lecture became known mainly thanks to Repubblica and an affiliated blog, Oca Sapiens. I had the honor of being labeled “ pro negazionista ” by Repubblica . And I enjoy this labeling, even though I know it is completely consistent with Goebbels’ Principles of Propaganda .
I also enjoyed Oca ‘s writings , which in addition to the usual nonsense we see in these types of blogs, contained several ‘revelations’ that were outright lies, such as that I received an award from ‘ Big Oil & Coal ‘, worth tens of thousands of euros.
In addition, during my lecture, Oca gave instructions to university professors and students to undertake activism.
Maybe the university was worried about all those people, maybe they wanted to protect me, the fact is that they canceled my lecture even though I told them that activist acts do not interest me because as dean of the School of Civil Engineering in Athens, during I was constantly dealing with student activists during the four years I was employed.
But I never stepped aside for them.
What do you have to say about the climate?
Let me start by telling you my latest result. Very recently, three co-authors and I were able to publish an article entitled “ On Hens, Eggs, Temperatures and CO2: Causal Links in Earth’s Atmosphere ” in the journal Sci .
This is a follow-up to two articles we published a year ago in the Proceeding of the Royal Society. In it, we studied existing theories of causality and found that they have problems. Therefore, we have developed a new stochastic methodology, which is robust and applicable to large geophysical systems.
We have also provided several applications, one of which was on the climate system. Because this last study attracted widespread interest, we delved deeper into the temperature versus CO2 problem.
Initially we posed it as a chicken-and-egg problem, in terms of causality (each is a cause of the other), but it eventually turned out that changes in CO₂ concentration cannot be a cause of temperature changes.
Instead, we identified a unidirectional, potentially causal relationship with temperature as the cause and CO₂ concentration as the effect. This direction of causality applies to the entire period covered by the modern instrumental observations (more than 60 years) on all time scales.
The discussion, sparked by our carbon balance considerations, highlighted the importance of the biosphere in the carbon cycle – with a 96 percent natural share versus four percent of human emissions.
We have shown that, compared to what happened in 1750, there are now additional emissions of about 60 Gt C/year, of which just under 10 Gt C/year are due to the combustion of fossil fuels.
Even without taking into account fossil fuel emissions, there is a surplus of about 50 Gt C/year compared to 1750 levels. This surplus is fully explained by the temperature increase.
What were the reactions?
Most colleagues were not enthusiastic about our papers, regardless of their general views on climate. Some climate Orthodox pressured the Royal Society to retract our articles.
Anything that contradicts the official narratives tends to be rejected or, if it has slipped through the cracks and been published, retracted.
I have published several articles on climate over the past twenty years, but so far there has been no repeal, despite intensive efforts. But we see that this tactic is also effective with other items.
We live in an age of decadence, where diversity in everything is encouraged and promoted – for example, we are informed of 68 different genders from which people should feel free to choose – but diversity in scientific opinion is strictly prohibited.
Science, which used to be the free search for new knowledge, is now considered “settled”.
So the climate change agenda is a political agenda.
Yes. It was initiated and developed by the Rockefellers – yes, those who used to personify what is called ‘ Big Oil ‘. It was launched into international politics in 1974 by their diplomat Henry Kissinger.
It is currently coordinated by Kissinger’s disciple Klaus Schwab through the World Economic Forum and the United Nations.
One of the most ironic facts is that the agenda’s most fervent supporters consider themselves left-wing. I imagine that Antonio Gramsci, whom I read and admired when I was a student, would be shocked to see these ‘leftists’ of today…
How did you react to the Italian experience?
I experienced these events very positively – as a source of inspiration. First, I studied the history of related developments in Italy and worldwide, focusing on the intersection of science with politics and in particular on the totalitarian facets of politics.
The University of Bologna allowed me to present my initial findings from this research at an event that I organized myself and was not advertised. (I uploaded my presentation here .)
In it I compared historical fascist practices with modern activism, which apparently contradicts the Italian Constitution, Article 33 of which states that art and science are free and that education therein is free.
I compared the consensus of professors in Mussolini’s time, achieved through an oath of allegiance to the fascist regime, with modern scientific consensus on the climate, achieved through more modern methods, which still include the traditional practices of silencing or eliminating of opinions that are inconsistent with official views: the official narrative.
I continued this research, focusing on the history of the climate change agenda, and I was able to find its historical roots, which I later presented in Athens in a lecture entitled “The Political Origins of the Climate Change Agenda”.
Since the cancellation of my lecture in Bologna, I have produced, alone or in collaboration with other colleagues, ten articles on climate.
Do you still have any resentment towards Italy?
On the contrary: I admire the hydrological community in Italy. I believe it is the most advanced in Europe. Professionally, I have more good friends in Italy than in Greece. And of course I love Italian food and drinks, the best in the world.
If I didn’t live in Greece and if I had the choice of where else to live, it would be Italy.
But beware: both Italy and Greece have been hit hard by modern intellectual and moral decadence. Moreover, it is difficult for us to say that our countries are sovereign.
Rather, I see them as vassal states and currently intellectually hegemonized by a low-level culture developed elsewhere. I imagine Gramsci wouldn’t like this either…
I believe that the peoples of our two countries have a greater responsibility than other peoples to resist decadence and promote once again the classical ethical and intellectual values that our ancestors developed and which have been the basis of modern civilization.
See more here climategate.nl
Bold emphasis added
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Richard Greene
| #
The professor is a climate science crackpot but I have no idea why that would lead to violence. Like most climate science crackpots, he dismisses at least 99.9% of the world’s scientists who believe there is a greenhouse effect that significantly affects Earth’s climate and manmade CO2 emissions are a part of it. The 99.9% includes all consensus scientists and almost all “skeptic” scientists too. But there are always crackpots with one of a kind theories who want to pretend that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas and does not affect Earth’s ability to cool itself. That is a correct consensus.
There is no consensus on how much CO2 affects the climate, or even whether global warming is bad news or good news. But the infrared energy absorption effect of CO2 is accurately measured by spectroscopy in labs and CO2 does not behave completely differently outdoors.
Changes in ocean temperature do cause outgassing or absorption of CO2 but the effect is small and slow. based on ice core proxies, +/- 1 degree c. of ocean temperature changes caused +/- 17ppm of atmospheric CO2 changes. Atmospheric CO2increased +140ppm since 1850, so the +1 degree warming of the oceans since then are far from the main cause of the +140ppm increase of CO2.
(1) CO2 outgassing from oceans warming is a positive feedback to any cause of ocean warming
(2) Adding manmade CO2 to the atmosphere from burning hydrocarbon fuels is a climate forcing. A forcing amplifies by a water vapor positive feedback.
(1) and (2) are two different processes.
The professor seems confused by that fact.
Reply
D. Boss
| #
You sir are the delusional one. Scientific method has absolutely nothing to do with “consensus”. Rather it is based on a method which does empirical observation and measurement, forms an hypothesis which can be tested, tests for a positive or negative result of that hypothesis and if even one negative result occurs and is repeatable, that hypothesis is either discarded or revised to account for the negative result.
In short, science is about being skeptical of claims. Consensus has no relation to actual science.
This professor and his chicken/egg paper provides a serious negative outcome of the CO2 as driver of climate change/warming hypothesis. As such this is serious proof that the consensus hypothesis is incorrect and must be either discarded or revised.
He does not deny CO2 as an infrared absorber/emitter, he merely points out if a causative factor does not precede the effect, it cannot be causative! And does so convincingly.
Water vapor concentration is orders of magnitude higher than is CO2 concentration, and water vapor is 2-3x larger “greenhouse” effect than is CO2. No one can argue convincingly that the songbird smashing into the grill of a large truck doing 100 km/hr can alter the truck’s velocity by any meaningful value, where the bird is 0.45 kg and the truck is 20,000 kg.
Right now at my location with 75 F and 74% RH the absolute humidity is 22,063 ppm of water vapor while CO2 is ~420 ppm. And water vapor is 2-3 times more effective per molecule than CO2. (check it out yourself for your location with the following link to determine absolute humidity)
https://www.aqua-calc.com/calculate/humidity
That makes the so called back radiation from the water vapor is 225 W/m²; while the IPCC says CO2 has about 2 W/m². Two orders of magnitude difference bubba!
Furthermore, the following video provides another absolute refutation of the CO2 as thermostat narrative by providing empirical proof that convection and conduction of the atmosphere is 99+% of the heat transfer mechanism of the surface to an altitude of 250,000 feet in altitude, while radiative emission is the remainder.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NS55lXf4LZk&t=1827s (Tom Shula: A Novel Perspective on the Greenhouse Effect)
This Pirani gauge measurement, which anyone can repeat and has, shows the utter fallacy of the CO2 as driver of climate change narrative – which it has become a political narrative rather than a serious scientific hypothesis. It’s been refuted as a serious hypothesis numerous times, but the narrative remains due to useful idiots arguing nonsense.
Reply
Richard Greene
| #
The “skeptic” scientists have had since the 1979 Charney Report to refute claims that CO2 emissions are dangerous. They have been effective in my opinion. But they do not make the false claim that CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas and does NOT affect the climate. In fact, they rely on lab spectroscopy data in MODTRAN and HITRAN databases to predict the effect of doubling the atmospheric CO2 level. Their consensus is in the range of +0.75 to +1.5 degrees C., (harmless) while the IPCC mainstream consensus is in the +2.5 to +4.0 degrees C. range (+4.0 could be dangerous in the long run).
Those of us trying to refute CO2 scaremongering have to learn that we will not be taken seriously is we claim 100% of IPCC consensus climate science is wrong. Because that is false. That’s why the best “skepti” scientists ON OUR SIDE never do that.
There is no need to come up with silly theories that completely rewrite climate science. What ACTUAL climate science tells us is that CO2 above 420ppm is a weak greenhouse gas, and even if its effect is amplified by a water vapor positive feedback, doubling the atmospheric CO2 level will not harm anyone.
In fact, more CO2 in the atmosphere will improve plant growth and moderate the climate in colder nations, mainly at night, and mainly in the winter. All good news.
The author and you just don’t get it sp I will type slower this time so you can follow.
(1) CO2 can be a feedback to changes in ocean temperature, The ocean temperature changes first and the dissolved CO2 level gradually changes later.
(2) CO2 can be a forcing when directly added to the atmosphere and will impede Earth’s ability to cool itself. That will cause the land surface temperature to increase, and the ocean surface temperature too. Because of its high thermal inertia, the ocean temperature takes longer to change than the land. or forcing. For that process, the CO2 level changes first and the temperature changes later.
Both (1) and (2) happen at the same time, but (1) is a smaller, slower moving process, while (2) has been a larger, faster moving process,
Your understanding of climate politics is as low as yoir understanding of climate science.
YOU SAY
“CO2 as driver of climate change narrative – which it has become a political narrative” (that has been refuted)
CO2 is one of many causes of climate change. The leftist politics is claiming the future climate can be accurately predicted, can only get worse, and that future global warming will be dangerous. The politics is based on a prediction of climate doom that began with the 1979 Charney Report and has not changed much since then. Obviously wrong since 1979.
Unfortunately, predictions can not be easily refuted. A prediction of the climate in 2100 may require 40 to 50 years before enough temperature data can be collected to refute the prediction. Especially when the mainstream media will not report that EVERY prediction of environmental doom in the past century has been wrong.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Richard,
Radiative transfer of energy in the troposphere is insignificant (.4% at sea level). The surface loses heat by convection where collisions between molecules transfer energy to the molecule with less energy. With convection there is no difference between the ability of different types of molecules to transfer heat, it strictly depends on their mass. There are no “greenhouse gases” blocking radiated energy because there is very little radiation occurring.
If you’d bother to look at what a Pineti gauge measures you’d see the the whole concept of the GHGT is false.
Reply
Richard Greene
| #
“Radiative transfer of energy in the troposphere is insignificant (.4% at sea level). ”
In the Pirani gauge the material of the Wire is deliberately chosen so as to have a very low emissivity (0.05) to minimize radiation loss. The Earth however has a surface with an emissivity of about 0.95.
Also in the Pirani gauge the wire is surrounded with a solid surface which is back radiating to the wire. Not a good model to the Earth’s surface radiation.
The whole point of the Pirani gauge is to measure gas pressure by making the gas the means of heat transport. Thus, one tries to make radiation transport as small as possible, done by using a filament with a vanishingly small emissivity at IR wavelengths. To then conclude from this device that radiation is an unimportant transport mechanism on Earth is circular logic. Earth materials have emissivities that are all near 1.0, maybe some are 0.9 but most are above 0.95, and MODTRAN uses a value of 0.97.
Those who believe the heat loss by radiation from a hot wire in a chamber with a surrounding is low that must be the case for the Earth transferring heat to outer space are wrong: You can’t use the structure of the Pirani gauge as a model for the atmosphere.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
You’re wrong again Richard. The gauge is determining how good the vacuum is by how much power is needed to maintain the temperature of the filament. It doesn’t matter what the filament is made of only that it be heated above the surrounding temperature. The more molecules that collide with the filament and absorb energy. from then transfer the energy to the body of the gauge, the more power is needed to maintain the temperature. As the vacuum increases the power necessary to maintain the temperature decreases as convection decreases while radiation remains the same (constant temperature). The vacuum can be compared to the density of the atmosphere and the same balance of convection to radiation will be occurring in the atmosphere as in the gauge.
Reply
sunsettommy
| #
You call him a crackpot but then YOU fail make your case against him as for me CO2 effect on the Temperature change is negligible at the 440 ppm level.
Prating consensus claims doesn’t advance understanding or make something valid after all the many PAST consensus claims failed badly because it was based on popular beliefs and not on hard evidence.
The current understanding is that CO2 at the 440 ppm level has little warm forcing to produce and the doubling from 280 ppm to the 560 ppm is postulated to produce about a 3.7 W m/2 hardly anything to worry about since it is a trivial increase against the measured 508 W m/2 of the total downwelling forcing.
The GISP2 ice core data destroys the CO2 effect on long term temperature swings are well shown by this chart from c3headlines:
https://www.c3headlines.com/2009/12/are-modern-temperatures-unprecedented-us-govt-greenland-ice-core-research-finds-theyre-not-even-clos.html
Reply
Alan
| #
There are only two ways known to man by which temperatures can be increased and every mechanical engineer knows this. We can add thermal energy to a system or do work on a system. Adding carbon dioxide does not do either.
Reply
Richard Greene
| #
Energy input to Earth’s surface:
(1) 99.9% incoming solar energy
(2) 0.1% coming up from Earth’s core
Energy output to space:
(1) Upwelling radiation, moved by convection, that reaches the infinite heat sink of space, less the upwelling radiation that got deflected back down to Earth’s surface by the greenhouse effect (water vapor, CO2 and clouds)
If incoming energy exceeds outgoing energy, the planet gets warmer. Earth has been getting warmer since 1975.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Richard,
You do not understand the difference between the transfer of energy by radiation and convection. All objects with energy radiate energy and all objects absorb radiated energy. (including the O2 and N2 in the atmosphere)
The energy radiated by an object decreases with distance from the object, so the radiated energy reaching an object will be less than the energy being radiated by the source object. It is this lower level of energy that the absorbing object will equalize with. The absorbing object will absorb energy until the energy it radiates is equal to the energy it receives from the source object. At this point it will gain no more energy and stasis will be achieved (not equilibrium. The energy of the receiving object is less than the energy of the radiating object.).
The rate of this energy transfer decreases as the energy level approaches stasis. The radiating object radiates energy depending on its temperature. It doesn’t matter if the energy is being absorbed by another object or just part of the energy field and continues to flow until it meets an energy field radiated by another object that is equal to its strength.
As the absorbing objects gains energy the amount of energy it radiates increases until stasis slowing the rate at which it gains energy.
While energy is radiated in all directions the flow of energy is always to the lower energy level. The energy never flows beck to the object with more energy.. There is no “reflection” adding energy to the source.
With convection there is contact between the objects and the energy flows from the object with greater energy/unit mass (velocity) to the object with less energy/unit mass according to the law of conservation of momentum. Equalization occurs instantaneously the energy/unit mass of both object become the same.
Since in elastic collisions there is no transfer of mass (only energy) in this means of transfer it is quite possible for an object with less kinetic energy (heat) to transfer energy to an object with greater kinetic energy (hotter) if there is a greater mass and the energy/unit mass of the hotter (radiating more energy) object is less than the energy/unit mass of the cooler object. It is the volume (mass) of an object that determines how much energy it contains, while it is the surface area of the object that determines how much energy it radiates.
Reply
JaKo
| #
Hi Herb,
Is there any sense in attempting to convince any product of this (as this Greek Prof eloquently defined): “modern intellectual and moral decadence” of reality???
His (prof’s) comparison of “historical fascist practices with modern activism” is a particularly eye-opening confirmation.
OTOH: I must thank you, Herb, for persisting in implementation the real world scientific findings to prove that despicable political decay of our society can’t and should not even be permitted to present their sickening lies as a kind of some “consensus.”
Cheers, JaKo
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi JaKo.
I have a preference that Herb did not feed the troll.
Greene is a serial abuser and liberally spraying abuse at those who do not fit his dystopia is a recurring theme, a common practice of those weak on debating science.
Of course, Herb is a good man and evil can prevail when good men do nothing.
Richard Greene
| #
Herb Rose comment sets a new website record” Largest burst of verbal flatulence on record.
Subject: Herb Rose ThermoDUMBnamics
Perfesser: Herb Rose (a legend in his own mind)
Only Student: Herb Rose
Analysis: Total Confusion Stage IV, from la la land
How does radiation cool the earth?
At night there is no incoming solar energy and the ground continues to radiate away heat, so its temperature falls. This night-time cooling is called “radiation cooling.”
Is Earth warmed by radiation?
Radiation from the warmed upper atmosphere, along with a small amount from the Earth’s surface, radiates out to space. Most of the emitted longwave radiation warms the lower atmosphere, which in turn warms our planet’s surface.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Richard,
What is warming the upper atmosphere? Since it is composed of oxygen, nitrogen, and oxygen-nitrogen molecules (no argon, CO2, or H2O) and according to the GHGT these do not absorb radiated energy from the sun, how does the energy from the Earth skip over the atmosphere between and warm the upper atmosphere? it is the same problem as having the snow covered Earth raise the temperature of the air over freezing. The atmosphere is equivalent to a layer of water 33 feet deep covering the Earth. How is the Earth able to radiate energy to the top into space without that energy affecting the intermediate matter?
The Earth is heated by the radiated energy of the sun. Specifically the visible spectrum which is not absorbed by the gases in the atmosphere. The atmosphere is heated by the radiated energy from the sun. Specifically by absorbing 95% of the UV light and converting it into IR radiation.
Before the surface of the Earth can transfer energy into space the molecules in the atmosphere must become cooler (by radiating energy into space) so the lower molecules can transfer energy to them to be then radiated into space. This is why the Earth remains warm at night while the moon goes from + 200+ degrees during the day to -200+ degrees at night.
The radiation of heat into space occurs in the thermosphere while the rest of the atmosphere is transferring heat by convection. This is what Tom Shula showed. The loss of heat by radiation does not equal the loss of heat by convection until an altitude of 250,000 ft. It is the thermosphere that expands during the day (PV=nrt As long as the temperature is above the boiling point of O2 and N2 the number of molecules in the atmosphere will remain fairly constant) and contracts at night.
You seem to know nothing about how energy flows.
sunsettommy
| #
Administrator request:
Richard Greene,
Let’s cool down these personal attacks and stick to the debate which is the better way to go.
Moffin
| #
Bite ‘im Sunset. You rip his leg off.
Good boy.
models
| #
I’m not sure exactly why but this site is loading incredibly slow for me.
Is anyone else having this issue or is it a problem on my
end? I’ll check back later and see if the
problem still exists.
Reply
Moffin
| #
i am in NZ and I am loading fine.
Reply
sunsettommy
| #
Administrator message:
It was under some maintenance for a short time which caused some disruptions, it is fine now.
Reply