Date: 09/03/19 Edwin Timmer, De Telegraaf
To tackle global climate change it is far more important that fast-growing developing countries do more than any well-intentioned steps in the Netherlands. “In fact, European emissions don’t matter,” says British climate scientist Nic Lewis.
“What really matters is: what happens in developing countries such as China, India, Indonesia, Brazil and Nigeria”, says Lewis, who gave a presentation at De Groene Rekenkamer Foundation this week in Amsterdam. According to him, it is much more important that developing countries quickly become richer and how rising CO2 emissions that this entails can be limited.
“We have a lot of knowledge and expertise in Europe. We can spend our money better than investing billions in subsidies and other climate policies that have virtually no effect on global emissions.”
Lewis would prefer to see investments in the development of clean nuclear energy or techniques to get CO2 out of the air and shut down coal-fired plants. “That could then be rolled out over the rest of the world.”
The sense of urgency that politicians and environmental organizations are promoting is unnecessary, says Lewis. Like the UN’s climate panel, the scientist assumes that global warming since 1850 is largely due to human CO2 emissions. Yet he is more optimistic than the IPCC. Based on his own research [and that of others] he concludes that the climate is much less sensitive to greenhouse gases than models predict.
“If you look at the observations since 1850, the global temperature has been rising less quickly than expected.” While the IPCC models estimate around 3 degrees of warming as a result of the doubling of CO2, Lewis actually sees only an increase of around 1.7 degrees Celsius. Climate modellers are not happy with Lewis’ criticism. “They attach less importance to what the global temperature has actually been doing.”
“While the IPCC models estimate around 3 degrees of warming as a result of the doubling of CO2, Lewis actually sees only an increase of around 1.7 degrees Celsius.”
Funny that this figure matches the predictions of classical greenhouse gas theory. Maybe the science is right all along… and the IPCC are putting out nonsense with their ‘feedbacks’.
“Funny that this figure matches the predictions of classical greenhouse gas theory.”
Maybe that’s just a coincidence. Does anyone have an explanation for the Woods’ experiment that found an enclosed box covered with a pane of salt (which is transparent to IR) became slightly warmer than an enclosed box covered with a pane of glass (which is opaque to IR). That’s the opposite of what would be expected per classical greenhouse gas theory. Never heard of this experiment until just recently.
Here are two takes on the problem:
link 1
link 2
The problem seems to be that the original experiment (as well as its attempted replications), because of its confounding variables, doesn’t measure what it’s supposed to measure correctly.
From what I could tell, those experiments didn’t duplicate Woods’ experiment. They used different materials. Not valid IMO. Use a halide cover like he did.
The favorite IR window is AgCl, Silver chloride because it is not very sensitive to water.
BUT: It is very sensitive to UV, blue and green light. These photons cause the Ag+ to reduce to Ag(metal), which turns jet black. The process is irreversible and your window is now opaque to *all* wavelengths. All you have to do is work under fluorescent light or sunlight and that is one expensive component you just wrecked.
Sodium Chloride (Halite): Very moisture sensitive. Humidity, the bane of the IR spectroscopist.
First: Dry your NaCl in an oven, cool in a dessicant chamber.
Second: Transfer the NaCl to your mold, seal, and apply vacuum.
Third: Pressure as much as you can. The NaCl will be plastic enough to deform and form a clear window. Hopefully, with few enough flaws to keep scattering down to a tolerable level.
How much pressure? In the lab, one plate maker is a steel mold with a mold cavity about 7 mm in dia. The ram is a bolt that screws in and you tighten it down with a big wrench as hard as you can. You get maybe 10,000 psi at the business end. No try that with a plate of any real size like 15cm X 15 cm. That is why this stuff is expensive.
You are right about the replications. The experiments are all mash ups, as apparently, was the original.
?????????
In the Woods’ experiment, the glass cover blocks a huge swath of the IR from the light source, preventing the largest share of the radiant energy from getting into the box in the first place. Of course the glass box will not heat up, because it is getting very little energy to start with.
I have to note that this experiment and others which mimic it, are all based on using an incandescent light source. All incandescent light sources have at least 80%-90% of their output in the IR. All that energy gets filtered out by the glass plate. Once you understand how much of the output of an incandescent source is IR, it all makes sense. If all you pay attention to is the 10% of visible that you can see, then you will be led astray.
“In the Woods’ experiment, the glass cover blocks a huge swath of the IR from the light source, preventing the largest share of the radiant energy from getting into the box in the first place.”
CO2 in the atmosphere should have the same effect. Besides I thought it was about UV reaching earth (the box), not IR.
“CO2 in the atmosphere should have the same effect.”
Ack! Nooooooo.
For all this back radiation, secondary radiation, downwelling/upwelling LWIR (Long Wavelength IR) stuff that everybody goes on about.
The big CO2 line of interest is the 666 cm-1, or 15 um line. There is another, more intense line at 2350 cm-1, or 4.3 um. This one is too short for LWIR but will play a role for incoming SWIR. (Short Wavelength IR)
Glass: One the other hand, is a broad spectrum absorber. It starts in the Near IR, not far from the Visible, and absorbs *everything* all the way down. Plain glass is actually a good IR blocker for some applications. In short, it absorbs *way* more than CO2.
“Besides I thought it was about UV reaching earth”
It is really about the Visible. The UV is not really intense enough to cause a lot of heating. You get a sunburn from UV because the individual photons are energetic enough to cause a photochemical reaction. (We all know how that one works.) Sunburn is most emphatically *not* caused by thermal effects.
If you want to do the Woods’ Experiment correctly, get your light source and screen out *all* the IR. Then you have a beam of light consisting solely of UV and Vis. (This is called a “cold” light beam). Then you expose your two boxes to the “cold” source and see what happens.
Now you can run the Woods’ experiment without *huge* amounts of IR running around heating everything up and making a right proper mess of the whole project.
Oh that’s right, 15 microns. Forgot.
“There is another, more intense line at 2350 cm-1, or 4.3 um. This one is too short for LWIR but will play a role for incoming SWIR. (Short Wavelength IR)”
This is the v3 asymmetric stretch. It is impressively powerful absorption that barely applies as if falls between earth and solar intensity curves. Solar intensity at 2350 is something like .01 W/m2.
Did Woods use incandescent light? IMO that would make the whole experiment void if that’s the case.
No he didn’t. He used sunlight.
I was thinking more of some of the in-lab experiments I have seen.
Does not matter much, most of the sunlight is at least comparable to an incandescent source. After all, gasses heated to an incandescent temperature and all that.
As an aside: The solar spectrum looks like black body radiation with some pressure broadened lines superimposed. An incandescent lamp is an approximation of a black body source, so broadly similar.
At night the whole Woods apparatus would come to the same temperature, that is, local thermal equilibrium. In daylight the same tendency prevails, only one of the surfaces of the box is now absorbing shortwave, either the glass cover or the bottom of the box, which makes only a little difference, since the whole apparatus is still trying to come to local thermal equilibrium with its surroundings.
Icisil, if glass is “opaque” to infra red radiation, how come my bare legs feel very hot when the summer sun shines on them through the windscreen?
You need to consider that IR covers the frequency rang of 700nm to 1mm – that is a huge range, & my legs tell me that there is plenty of IR hitting them.
Isn’t much of the sensible IR just visible light slowed down?
Visible light contains the bulk of incoming solar.
When that light shines on your leg, it is converted to sensible heat.
And I do acknowledge the fact in Tonyl’s comment above, that quite a bit of the heat I feel is from visible light.
woods experiment could never measure the greenhouse effect because it misunderstands how the effect works.
to test the effect you need the ENTIRE atmospheric column.
The effect works by raising the ERL to a higher colder altitude and reducing the rate of cooling to space. period.
Folks who take the greenhouse metaphor literally ( like woods) dont really get the physics and cant test the physics.
same for the folks who over interpret “trapping heat” metaphors. they will never get it.
same for folks who dont get that downwelling IR is really an effect not a cause. they too will never understand the real physics of GW.
wanna understand it? stop reading the MSM, stop reading blog oversimplifications
stop taking the metaphors literally.
start here
https://www.amazon.com/Principles-Planetary-Climate-Raymond-Pierrehumbert/dp/0521865565
It also helps to understand what “heat” is, and what “temperature” is really a measure of. Many people have a fundamental misunderstanding of these terms. I’m not sure you’re an exception, Steven.
Some further details re Wood:
“Returning to Wood’s Experiment to Test Pouillet’s Backradiation Hypothesis & Arrhenius’ Greenhouse Effect
We may well ask if it is at all possible for backradiation to coexist as a significant process alongside contact transfer. It would certainly seem possible within the limitations of thermal gradients. However, if we revisit the experiment conducted by Robert Wood in 1909, an entirely different picture emerges. Wood constructed two miniature greenhouses identical in all but one respect. One used a plate of halite to transmit light into the interior, while the other used a plate of glass to transmit light into the interior (Wood, 1909). While glass absorbs more than 80% of infrared radiation above 2900nm, halite does not and is regarded as quite transparent to infrared. The point of the experiment was to test whether the halite’s lack of absorption and re-emission of infrared radiation relative to that of glass would have any effect on the temperature of the greenhouse.
Taking Pouillet (1838) and Arrhenius (1906a) into account, we may extend the backradiation hypothesis to this particular situation. In this case, the glass lets through the light of the sun but absorbs 85% of the terrestrial infrared radiation radiation returning to space – at least that emitted above 2900nm. We may suppose that this 85% is of the half of the radiation that is absorbed above 2900nm and is augmented by about 15% of the other half of the outgoing infrared radiation based on the numbers from Nicalau and Maluf (2001). That is a total absorption of 50% of the outgoing radiation. This radiation is subsequently emitted from the glass itself; half radiated outside and half radiated back inside the miniature greenhouse. The amount of radiation reaching the bottom of the greenhouse is equal to that directly received from the sun plus the 25% radiated back by the glass. Although halite is more transmissive than glass in the visible spectrum, this is offset by the fact that halite is much more reflective than glass in the visible spectrum (Lane & Christensen, 1998). The difference in light transmission is less than 5%. Thus in the case of this experiment, the glass greenhouse bottom can be said to have received at least 120% (100-5+25) of the radiation received by the halite greenhouse bottom according to the Arrhenius’ revision of Pouillet’s hypothesis. Thus we expect the temperatures of the respective greenhouses to reflect this significant difference in hypothetical radiation reaching the respective bases.
In Wood’s experiment, the halite greenhouse interior temperature rose to 65ºC or 338ºK (Wood, 1909). Applying the Stefan-Boltzmann equation as shown above, to the relationship between incident radiation and body temperature we may determine from:
Wm = σT4
That:
Wm = 0.000000056704 x 3384
Wm = 740 Wm-2
Now, according to the backradiation hypothesis and the measurable optical properties of glass and halite, this 740 Wm-2 should be supplemented, in the glass greenhouse, by 20% in backradiation from the glass. Thus we may surmise, via Arrhenius’ variation on Pouillet’s backradiation idea, that the radiation at the bottom of the glass greenhouse in the first stage of Wood’s experiment was 888 Wm-2. This predicts the temperature of the glass greenhouse as follows:
T = {Wm/σ}0.25
Given Wm = 888 Wm-2:
T = {888/0.000000056704}0.25 = 353.8ºK = 80.6ºC
As you can see, Arrhenius’ hypothetical backradiation should raise the glass greenhouse temperature 15ºC above the halite greenhouse temperature, in Wood’s experiment. In fact, the first stage of the Wood experiment resulted in the glass greenhouse being slightly cooler than the halite greenhouse. Considering the possibility that this could be due to the fact that the glass filters some of the sun’s radiation that is not filtered by the halite, Wood proceeded to conduct a second stage in his historic experiment. This time, he filtered the radiation entering both greenhouses with a sheet of glass. This had the effect of reducing the internal temperature of the halite greenhouse to 55ºC or 328ºK. Thus the radiation incident on the bottom of the halite greenhouse is as follows:
Wm = σT4
That:
Wm = 0.000000056704 x 3284
Wm = 656 Wm-2
Allowing for additional 20% of backradiation gives us Wm = 788 Wm-2 in the glass greenhouse, predicting:
T = {Wm/σ}0.25
Given Wm = 788 Wm-2:
T = {788/0.000000056704}0.25 = 343.3ºK = 70.2ºC
Once again, the backradiation hypothesis predicts a temperature difference of 15ºC but in this second stage of the Wood experiment no significant difference in temperature was recorded between the glass greenhouse and the halite greenhouse. From the recorded results of the Wood experiment, we can only conclude that the backradiation hypothesis of Arrhenius creates heat ex nihilo, but only in theory.”
http://geologist-1011.net/net/greenhouse/
“Funny that this figure matches the predictions of classical greenhouse gas theory.”
Well, consider the classical analysis: there are no negative feedbacks in there. Once the real world is considered, the “effect” can only be a maximum because of all the negative and moderating feedbacks, clouds being the obvious one.
There is no empirical support for a value as high as 1.7 deg per doubling. It has to be less to leave room for all the other contributing factors, especially solar once, almost ignored, is included in the analysis.
Check for news about the results of the CMIP6 sensitivities. With solar wind included (for the fires time) there is nearly no room for CO2 to do anything meaningful. If what happens is not meaningful, then it is much easier to roll with the punches, (or little jabs) than overthrow the energy system in a big rush.
The ECS for CO2 is probably not more than 0.2-0.3 C. There is still a possibility that it is negative, depending on the orbital forcings. Adding GHG’s to the atmosphere increases its ability to lose energy to space.
Crispin, you said ‘no empirical support for ECS 1.7. Wrong
You plainly have not read the several Lewis and Curry energy budget method papers. They are purely empirical.
Not purely empirical Rud.
all the quantities in Nic’s formulation require and depend on modelling of some form or other
(especially OHC)
Hint. There is no purely empirical anything.
Wrong Rud
‘As in previous energy budget studies, AOGCM simulation-derived estimates of heat
uptake are used for the base periods, since OHC was not measured then. The heat uptake
values used in LC15, which were derived from simulations by CCSM4 starting in AD 850
(Gregory et al. 2013), scaled by 0.60, were 0.15, 0.10 and 0.20 W m−2 respectively for the
1859−1882, 1850−1900 and 1930−1950 base periods. The unscaled CCSM4-derived values
were consistent with the value derived by Gregory et al. (2002) from a different AOGCM.
The LC15 values are adopted (taking the 1859−1882 value for 1869−1882), as are the LC15
standard error estimates, being in each case 50% of the heat uptake estimate.
The variability in total heat uptake of 0.045 Wm−2 for all base and final periods used
in LC15, derived from the ultra-long HadCM3 (Gordon et al. 2000) control run, is also
adopted. Investigation showed this to be adequate for each of the base and final periods used
here.”
“Adding GHG’s to the atmosphere increases its ability to lose energy to space.”
Crispin, would you be so kind to work this statement out?
“There is no empirical support for a value as high as 1.7 deg per doubling.”
Read this: https://niclewis.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/lewis_and_curry_jcli-d-17-0667_accepted.pdf
There you’ll find two lines of evidence pointing to about 1.7 °C/doubling CO2: The observations of the GMST and the effective radiative forcing since about 1870 and the transition from the last glacial maximum to the pre-industrial state of global climate.
Both calculations are empirical!
Plase let us know your progress.
“The observations of the GMST”
There are no observations of GMST. It is a physically meaningless, derived number.
Yeah I don’t get it. Make up data and call it empirical evidence.
There are no observations of GMST back in the MWP.
the average temperature of the earth during the MWP and during ice ages and during the LIA are all physically measningless.
Therefore, we cant say the earth is warmer now than when it was covered with ice.
and we cant say the earth has an average temperature less than the suns average temperature. because its physically meaningless.
heck, all the average numbers are physically meaningless since we never directly observe averages. we only compute them.
there can be no climate change since climate is simply the average of things over time.
Hey! you just denied climate change. I thought nobody denies climate change
“Hey! you just denied climate change. I thought nobody denies climate change”
Long-winded strawman.
Averages of intensive properties are meaningless. You know that, but never admit it. Any time I see a single line representing global, or even regional, temperature, I call BS.
When will climate scientists learn that
the Earth is not a greenhouse ?
Never.
But the science of global warming and climate change is settled in the most part, and the parts where it isn’t are almost entirely a matter of degree not of kind. The relatively minor uncertainty is picked up by the ‘skeptics’ who claim that they are defending science
https://medium.com/the-future-is-electric/global-warming-is-settled-science-but-what-does-that-mean-c452d49820e9
They stretch it calling themselves scientists.
SINOs. They remind me of heirs living off of their inheritance, who have no ability to replicate the success of their father who created that wealth.
A most astute observation, IMHO.
Barnard starts with three relatively uncontroversial “settled” statements and then runs off the rails on all of the rest. The only thing that is settled is that he is tangled in a belief system that is not supported by any science at all.
Rex, you are being too literal. Of course you are correct technically, but don’t leap to the conclision that that means “GHGs” have no effect. The effect, however is ceteris paribus because so many pesky agents arise (in response to the heating however caused – chiefly phase changes in H2O and convection – google Le Chatelier’s Principle for the idea) interefere with its freedom to create a result.
Hi Gary,
Unfortunately the purpose of the term, is that it is taken literally. It is meant to appeal to the emotions of the uneducated.
Of course we don’t live in a Greenhouse, but if we refuse to accept such an erroneous term, it makes the GAGW argument more difficult to frame.
The Earth is about 0.8 C warmer after a century. In that time, CO2 supposedly increased from 280 to 410 ppm.
Wattage from CO2 back radiation is supposed to be proportional to the LOGARITHM of (CO2/CO2 original)
ln (410/280)=.381
ln(2)=.693
.381/.693 =.550
So being 55% of the way to a doubling of CO2, 0.8C warming from 55% of a doubling implies doubled CO2 would increase temperatures by (100/55)*.8C= 1.45 C.
And that’s if ALL of the warming over the last century was from CO2, and NONE from natural causes-> highly unlikely.
+1.7 degrees C. is nonsense.
That means Lewis can’t be trusted.
The correct answer is no one knows.
A worst case estimate,
by attributing all warming
since 1950 to CO2, is about
+1.0 degrees C. per Co2 doubling.
They attach less importance to reality, in other words. They live in their models, they might as well be playing video games.
they might as well be playing with themselves…
What does Nic Lewis have grants to research? He cannot say anything in public that contradicts the underpinning of his funding streams.
He is therefore conflicted and an inappropriate witness for balanced testimony. He is a prosecution witness, not a defence witness.
Incoherent slander or sarcasm?
“He cannot say anything in public that contradicts the underpinning of his funding streams.”
You just incriminated every climate scientist.
He condemmed the “97%” but not Nic Lewis who is an independent researcher. NOT subject to the constraints of seeking funding.
True. Should have said “every government-funded climate scientist”
Exactly, icisil. The press releases of publicly-funded scientists are all aimed at preserving the river of grants that they drink from.
“He cannot say anything in public that contradicts the underpinning of his funding streams.”
Taken this as right: Nic is not funded at all. In the terms of elementary logics: He can say anything in public that has credibility.
cheers
Ah Rhys, you do know how the rigged system works after all. Yes it is the gravy train for “right thinking” researchers! Yes gatekeeping is rife, yet the ones ‘conflicted’ are those very much on ‘defence’.
“He cannot say anything in public that contradicts the underpinning of his funding streams.”
Did you get this claim from one of the smear sites? If so, please cite it.
He proved he was uninformed when he said all coal fired power plants need to be shut down. If you want to see a rapid reduction in CO2 emissions, one of the coal plants that has already decided to cease operation should try my process and when it works, they can continue to operate and we can license our process to all of the underdeveloped countries burning coal to better their society. That is because a coal burning plant with our technology will be less expensive that on not using our technology.
Hmmm. 1.7C, eh? According to GISP2, Greenland was at -31.8C in 1852, add 1.7 to make his projection -30.1C. According to GISP2, it was -29.6 in 71BC, .7C hotter than his prediction. World didn’t end. Also says it was -28.7C in 1300BC, 1.4C hotter. World didn’t end. Wait. How did it get hotter than today when CO2 levels were far lower? I thought CO2 was the control knob.
Polar amplification is well known. GISP2 is expected to warm faster than the global average.
One can not apply the global average CO2 temperature sensivity to a regional temp change. Most especially to a high latitude region.
In any GHG forcing scenario the tropics temps should rise very little, while rhe more pole-ward gets progressively warmer.
Those are the scenarios that all have the tropical tropospheric hotspot that doesn’t exist. So you know you can trust them with the economy of the world?
It has never been about the emissions. We keep looking at what the magician is showing us instead of concentrating on what he is trying to hide from us.
It is all about money and power, as always.
Yep. At the rate of current “heating”, there is no problem. Nights/winters get a little warmer and there’s warmer water swishing around in the Arctic. AGW/Climate Change/whatever is without any real consequences inside multiple generations of people.
The people pushing this are total frauds and will say anything for a buck.
As for Lewis, it’s really disappointing. Focusing on a singular number like that is literally not seeing the trees for the forest. There are a lot of other metrics than average temperature that indicate warming is not a problem at all (crop yields, drought measurements, Max temperature analysis, etc.).
‘“What really matters is: what happens in developing countries such as China, India, Indonesia, Brazil and Nigeria”, says Lewis, who gave a presentation at De Groene Rekenkamer Foundation this week in Amsterdam. According to him, it is much more important that developing countries quickly become richer and how rising CO2 emissions that this entails can be limited.’
Wut?
Characterizing China, India, Indonesia, Brazil and Nigeria as ‘developing countries’ is outrageous!
They rate as the number 2, 7, 16, 9 and 30 economies in the world!
Developing, as opposed to retrogressing countries like the US, Japan, or the EU.
Divide by population.
Energy consumption in those countries is still rapidly growing.
Not so for the US or EU.
That isn’t his definition that is what the IPCC deemed them. Yes it has been the problem from the start and why emission control was born doomed. I think most but the crazy left have realized that it is basically dead.
Characterizing China, India, Indonesia, Brazil and Nigeria as ‘developing countries’ is outrageous!
GDP per capita (PPP)($US)
Norway 70,590
Hong Kong 61,016
United States 59,495
Sweden 51,264
Germany 50,206
Australia 49,882
Canada 48,141
United Kingdom 43,620
France 43,550
Japan 42,659
…
China 16,624
Brazil 15,500
Indonesia 12,378
India 7,174
Nigeria 5,927
CapitalistRoader….. so GDP per capita is the measurement? A country can land a vehicle on the moon and it’s still considered “developing” by you standard? Your list looks more like an indictment of the poorly governed and corrupt.
A country can land a vehicle on the moon and it’s still considered “developing” by you standard?
Of course. Just because a relatively poor country like China decides to spend an outsized amount of resources on a first-world space program doesn’t mean other aspects of its economy are developed to first-world standards. Obviously China, whose citizens individually generate only about 1/4 of gross domestic product (purchasing power parity) as US citizens means that it is much less developed than than the US. Or Germany, Japan, etc.
Its about how big your army, navy and air force is and how big your nuclear arsenal is. How big your population is only matters in terms of how many troops you can afford to lose in a war. And if you’re communist you can afford to lose a lot. co2 is the control knob that controls your opponent’s economy. Has zero to do with climate.
What an absurd view of reality?
Which countries on your list are developing and rapidly expanding their energy production facilities and grid?
China,
India,
Vietnam,
etc. etc. etc.
All these countries rapidly expanding their industrial and consumer energy usage along with concurrent emissions score badly in your version of measurement.
Whereas, the countries you list as highest GDP per Capita producers are minimally developing or expanding their energy production and usage.
Indeed, a number of these countries are negatively affecting their energy grids; e.g. removing hydroelectric, nuclear, fossil fuel generating facilities in favor of unreliable sporadic energy producers that themselves require constant full time backup by hydroelectric, nuclear or fossil fuel energy sources.
Energy and consequently emissions growth are all in the developing low GDP per Capita countries.
All who object to India being classified as a developing country can take your complaints to the UN. It is their designation, as well.
I’m comfortable with the term “developing” for any nation where 50% of its citizens still defecate in the open. India might have a small nuclear arsenal, but many of the people there are still waiting to be introduced to the 19th century.
Per Capita CO2 emissions of India are less than 40% of the World average Per Capita emissions. More than 300 Million Indians are without basic Electricity.
The rate of cost increases imposed on producers in the developed, virtue signaled countries determines the rate of growth in the low-cost, developing countries. This is not rocket science Nic.
“Lewis would prefer to see investments in the development of clean nuclear energy …” Again, PROOF that any logically thinking person realizes that AGW is being used to achieve a different goal.
Add up the money spent on new Computer Climate Models, Wind turbines, Solar Systems, including wasted investment in these fake solutions, Divide that total amount by the typical cost of the present generation NPP being built. If that many NPPs had been built, CO2 would be decreasing. So why are we still playing games? Only one reason CO2 is not as big a problem as they claim.
In a recent Jonova post there was a link to a report about the Chinese energy giant CEEC (apparently they want to build coal power stations in Australia which has got the Australians all fired up) . In a brief aside in that link it said that CEEC had just built a nuclear power plant in Pakistan – just like that .
Came in , did the business, left with no doubt loads of cash donated by the US and UK as foreign aid and lots of political favours in their pockets for if or when debates at the UN about Chinese expansion turn nasty.
Yet in “developed” UK we spend 20 years debating and planning for new nuclear power plants , one gets started at colossal cost and 2 are abandoned . This in a country that had the first domestic nuclear power stations. We should copy Australia and call on China to come in and build everything that is now clearly totally beyond our technical competence.
It is part of China’s Belt and Road Initiative imperilislism.
The Chinese will of course need their colony to have electricity if it is to send resources to China without having to pay a market rate as world energy resources become more scarce in 40 years.
Why parrot Pence and Rubio – these nuts want war.
The US must join up with the BRI and put the dead globalist financial looting cabal out of business.
This is what the fight is all about – time to dump the decayed old jaded jingoism.
What is so pure about the Chinese that the BRI will bring paradise and not be another globalist financial looting cabal?
“The US must join up with the BRI” I think a democrat administration might just go for that. Whether that would be a good idea is another question. Unless you want the US to become a full communist dictatorship.
Anyone who doesn’t believe the west should immediately capitulate is nothing but an evil war monger.
Mikewaite
I think you will find it is regulatory incompetence that is the issue in UK. The regulations on nuclear power in UK are set up to ensure that there is no new nuclear power. They are very successful.
Nic Lewis has done well here: he’s reached the right solution.
Indeed, the poorer nations must be allowed & encouraged to become richer: then they will have the ability to take care of their environment.
CO2 is NOT a climate driver, it’s plant food, & man’s contribution to global CO2 is less than 4%. Over 95% is produced by nature: warm oceans 57%; decaying vegetation, a huge %; animals alone, exhaling, produce 25 times more than man.
Over 95% of the greenhouse effect is by water, H2O, invisible as vapour or visible as clouds. The fraud factory UN IPCC ignores this: their charter demands they investigate only human causes of global warming, which the fraud factory IPCC & the fake news MSM diverted to climate change when the warming stopped, 1998, 21 years ago.
Climatologist Dr. Tim Ball sums up the fraud in only 121 pages, in his book:
Human Caused Global Warming, The Biggest Deception In History.
He names names: the multi-billionaire Bankster Rockefellers & their crony fellow 1%s multi-billionaires like George Soros & Ted Turner. He also names bent politicians like Al Gore & Tim Wirth & bent “scientists” like James Hansen, John Holdren & Paul Ehrlich. & many more. Written in easy to understand laymans’ terms. No ref’s or index, but a list of further reading. A must read.
Tim Ball sums up the 1%s endgame, entirely correctly IMHO, as the elimination of capitalism & its industrial engine, a vast depopulation & a world totalitarian govt.
http://www.drtimball.ca
John Doran.
Don’t let facts get in the way of a good scare.
“the multi-billionaire Bankster Rockefellers & their crony fellow 1%s multi-billionaires like George Soros & Ted Turner.”
Bankster? What is that, shorthand for Jew?
1%?
Doran, you sound like a fine socialist.
Bankster? What is that, shorthand for Jew?
Well the Rockefellers aren’t Jewish, as far as I’m aware (they’re of English, German, and Scots-Irish descent)and David Rockefeller (grandson of oil tycoon John Rockefeller) was a banker. And while Old John was mainly known for oil, his wealth including significant interests in banking, shipping, mining, railroads, and other industries. So referring to the Rockefellers as “multi-billionaire Bankster” is probably a fair descriptor.
Sounds like you are looking for something to be offended by.
Doran, you sound like a fine socialist.
One does not need to be a socialist to acknowledge that the people with the most money have the most power and consequentially drive the political discourse. That would include the politics of CAGW. And Since Doran sees the “1%s endgame” being “the elimination of capitalism” with a “world totalitarian govt” replacement. I don’t think one can honestly conclude he’s a socialist, as he would be touting “the elimination of capitalism” as a noble goal if he were and he does not seem to be doing so.
Bankster and 1% are socialist terms.
They’re terms used by socialists, but they’re also terms that have migrated into the main stream. Just because one uses those terms does not automagically make one a socialist. Reading the context of the post in question, where being anti-capitalist is implied to be a negative, you would have to be suffering from a lack of reading comprehension to come to the conclusion the writer was a socialist based on being triggered by the use of two particular terms without considering the whole context of the post.
India and China may lead the world in increasing CO2 emissions, but they are also leading the world in soil carbon sequestration on cropland.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-019-0220-7
That paper from last month isn’t free, but figures are. Click on the link, then blow up each of the figures. Absolutely amazing.
There’s a decent summary art about the paper at:
https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/nasa-says-earth-is-greener-than-ever-thanks-to-china-and-india/
If there is more forest cover now, that means formerly agricultural land was allowed to revert to forest. Trees typically will reseed by themselves, so those countries planting trees just tells me that they are trying to maximize future profits from planting desirable species.
Amazing not. China is #1 emitter.
Persuading India to get rid of the farting cows may prove a tad difficult.
The latest science is that if you use adaptive multi-paddock (AMP) grazing the cows love yet to get to eat nutritious mature grass / forage and it also triggers increased growth rates in the grass/forage.
The increased growth rate means more photosynthesis. More photosynthesis means more plant sap (50% carbon by weight). Grasses exude up to 50% of the sap they make into the soil for long term sequestration.
Per peer-reviewed trials, the net result from a GHG perspective is pasture/cattle managed with AMP have an overall negative emission rate.
Thus when AMP is used over the full life-cycle of the cattle the net result is negative GHG emissions.
The reported global temperature increase, or global warming as they call it, has apparently occurred since the commonly quoted temperature reference point of 1850. I note with some interest that the little ice age ended around 1860. Why would anyone not expect that global temperatures would increase by a degree or two after a little ice age? I’m not a scientist therefore I understand that I’m not entitled to ask such an obvious question.
Was Einstein a scientist or a clerk?
Most of the present ones are clerks.
Most of the present ones are clucks .
FIFY.
Ha that was a good one.
Gary, that’s very insulting, you owe clerks an apology.
Boil it down and this is what I get from Lewis:
My response? Screw you Lewis!
Agreed, CCS is bonkers, sad to see Nic Lewis give it credence.
“…climate policies that have virtually no effect on global emissions.”
He recognized the second step in the logical failure, but is still unable (unwilling?) to recognize the first step…
… global emissions that have virtually no effect on natural global response.
From the article: “Lewis would prefer to see investments in the development of clean nuclear energy or techniques to get CO2 out of the air and shut down coal-fired plants. “That could then be rolled out over the rest of the world.”
U.S. Senator Barrasso of Wyoming suggested we do just that this morning on Fox News.
He got one solution right, the nuclear part. I don’t think we need any carbon capture. That’s probably just a sop (as in: a conciliatory or propitiatory bribe, gift, or gesture) to the Democrats.
If nuclear is cheaper than coal then yes, otherwise no. The cheaper the energy the better off the economy, (and every person) will be.
Fiddling around with IR and all that is a waste of time once water comes on the scene.
Water, at phase change gobbles up IR and converts it to Latent Heat at CONSTANT temperature. It then pumps this energy up into the clouds and beyond to space. The process is a strong NEGATIVE feedback to any purported GHE and that is why the IPCC has got it wrong.
In trite terms: The Earth sweats to keep cool; just like you and I.
Just think: You can pump as much of this greenhouse energy as you like into your kettle and it will still just boil at 100 C at sea level (or 68 C on top of Everest, for that matter).
Engineers can explain this; but these scientists seem to have got their statistical proverbials in a twist .
Sure, there is a 1.7 deg figure. Then we have some calculations. However, we have ZERO measurements to determine what part of the 1.7deg is due to CO2.
Yes it is shown in the Lewis and Curry paper, it would help if you read that first.
Also ours don’t stink.
Ah, the old ‘we got it and you cant have it’ attitude.
European, Chinese, Indian, and so on CO2 emissions do not matter if the below is correct. If the below is correct we can burn hydrocarbons without worry of temperature rise or ocean acidification.
We are stuck in the CAGW paradigm, stuck in the ‘box’ of assumptions that were required to create the so-called Bern model of CO2 sources and sinks and resident times that was created to enable there to be AGW/CAGW. There is unequivocal evidence that the Bern model is wrong and hence no CAGW or AGW.
A dozen peer reviewed papers (different authors, independent observations C13 fraction, phase analysis, mass balance analysis, C14 resident time, planetary temperature vs CO2 recent, and so on) have all unequivocally ‘proved’ that human CO2 emission is only responsible for roughly 5% of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2. The remainder is caused by the increase in planetary temperature.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/05/13/is-murry-salby-right/
An Australian atmospheric scientist Murry Salby has shown, the multiple mathematical proofs that humans are only responsible for 5% of the recent increase finding, is only possible if there is a large unaccounted-for source of CO2 coming into the biosphere and much logically larger natural sinks of CO2.
There is unequivocal geological physical evidence (more than 50 observations, evidence that can be presented in pictures) to support the assertion that the ‘unknown’ source is CH4 that is extruded from the liquid core of the planet when it crystallizes.
Based on seismic analysis the liquid core of the planet contents roughly 7% to 15% CH4 (Papers presented at the Sloan deep carbon seminar by authors, roughly 10 years ago).
Based on seismic analysis (the computer analysis of the timing of reflected seismic waves, the CH4 tubes reflect as they are full of methane which is much lighter than the mantel material) it has been shown in the last couple of years that it is a fact that there are crisscrossing tubes in the mantel.
The tubes carry super-high pressure, liquid methane that is extruded from the liquid core of the planet when the core crystallizes. The methane is transported up to the surface of the planet in tubes. The liquid core of the planet started to crystallize roughly a billion years ago.
CH4 that enters the atmosphere is unstable. Ultraviolet radiation in the upper atmosphere breaks the CH4 bond, resulting in the formation of two molecules of H2O and one of CO2.
A mechanism that pushes CH4 into the biosphere starting a billion years ago in force tubes, explains the timing of the Cambrian explosion of life, the layered nature of the continents, the force that moves tectonic plates, the reason for the appearance of deep oceans on the earth roughly 600 million years ago, and so on.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/11/181114132013.htm
Seismic study reveals 3 times more water dragged into Earth’s interior
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/12/181212134354.htm
Why deep oceans gave life to the first big, complex organisms
https://www.yahoo.com/news/500-champagne-methane-seeps-discovered-114400702.html
500 new methane discovered off the Pacific Northwest coast.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/08/numerous-methane-leaks-found-atlantic-sea-floor
“In fact, European emissions don’t matter,”
I agree. I also believe that the sum total of human emissions don’t matter either, when you consider that human emissions would be dwarfed by 2 or 3 major volcanic eruptions. Do the “settled science” climate models account for volcanic activity? Hmmm….
Nick Lewis is a clever bloke, however this is eploooooosive finding
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/brexit-voters-are-less-bright-than-remainers-7nk8s3272
The Times is a brexetiers’ paper.
The study is bollocks, of course, poorly executed with myriad of confounding issues, but regardless, completely irrelevant in a Democracy. I could do a study of volumteers showing that most remainers have been mentally institutionalized in their life. Just depends on where I get my volunteers.
At least he seems about half way to sanity on the myth of climate change.
MJE
Why does he not simply say it straight that CO2 emissions, from whatever source, DON’T matter to the climate. It seems evident to me that as CO2 increased from ~280ppm/v to ~410ppm/v nothing has changed in weather and/or climate!
Because he knows that GHG matter! He calculates a climate sensitivity from CO2 doubling which is NOT zero!! And no, it seems NOT evident that the CO2 increase nothing changed in climate, the GMST are increasing!
Is that after adjustments?
It seems as if Nic Lewis himself believes in the fairytale of CO2 as dangerous to the environment and mankind. Is he a true follower of the party line or a heretic in disguise?
Is Nic Lewis in fact Ian McKellen’s long lost son?
/revision/latest?cb=20160530122045