Reposted from Dr. Spencer’s Blog
January 15th, 2021 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
On Tuesday evening, January 19, at 8 p.m. CST there will be a 30 minute livestream presentation where I cover the most important reasons why there is no climate emergency. I just reviewed the video and I am very satisfied with it.
In only 1/2 hour I cover what I consider to be the most important science issues, the disinformation campaign that spreads climate hysteria, some of the harm that will be caused by forcing expensive and unreliable renewable energy upon humanity, and the benefits of more CO2 in the atmosphere.
You can go to the FoS website for more information. The tickets are $15, and I will be doing a live Q&A after the event.
Just suppose that CO2 strongly influences Climate Change. Perhaps it acts like a volatile organic compound which enhances cloud formation leading to global cooling stronger than its greenhouse effect.
One degree of warming over the ocean causes 7% more water vapor…causes 3.5% more clouds on about a 5000 km surface scale, assuming a simple parcels up=parcels down relationship….the albedo of one sq.m. of additional cloud reflects hundreds of watts of incoming sunlight compared minuscule CO2 IR forcing of a couple of watts. So effect of radiative but non-condensing CO2 is relatively close to nil. CLOUDS control the planet’s temperature, not CO2.
My very point I think. I supposed that CO2 causes clouds by being a nucleation agent like VOCs. To a greater degree than any radiative impact. Thus CO2 increase is a cooling effect.
The truth about co2 is evident in the paloe records. Contrary to popular belief temperatures drop when co2 levels peak and temperatures rise when co2 level are at a minimum.
Old George,
A CO2 molecule is orders of magnitude smaller than even the smallest aerosols that act as condensation nuclei. I think your hypothesis is likely to fail.
I signed up a couple months ago… looking forward to your presentation.
The price, seems to already be starting. Do not have an explain for this…
https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/propane
In preparation for stupid-Joe’s Green New Steal.
If the rich along with politicians want to keep energy for themselves while virtue signaling how much they care then why not create a climate change crisis?
They sign on for a global carbon tax which is meaningless to them and they still can travel whenever and however they want, heat and cool themselves at their discretion all while FELLING like they are saving the planet. The rest of us plebes will pay for it. Makes perfect sense.
Class war much? Not me. If Bill Gates wants to pay for the full costs of the extraction life cycle – AGW, political/military, asset retirement, environmental – that are now being largely communized onto the rest of us, so he can fuel up the biz jet he converted into a stable for his daughter to be able to go to horsie events worldwide, then he can KHSO.
I’m guessing that he would agree,
Bill Gates wants the poor to pay for him to feel good about himself. He is a 💩 of a human.
Bill and I want the actual costs of the hydrocarbon extraction life cycle to be borne by those who benefit from it. Shirking/communizing them onto the folks you claim to champion doesn’t make sense. Per every economist, left, right, center, price signals et. al. They are now being largely perverted for the hydrocarbon life cycle.
Love how whiny folks get about the diminishing green start up helps orders of magnitude smaller….
Yep you don’t care about the cost of energy, but the poor do. You don’t care if they struggle heating and cooling their homes. You don’t care if they have to choose mass transit or walk. The climate change is more important 😉
More than happy to help with those with real needs. Paying them what they are actually worth, for example. Better than making them (over) pay indirectly for a fuel source that would be MUCH less competitive than others if all of the shirked/external costs of it were passed on in the form of a real price. Milton Friedman would approve…
Who determines what a worker is actually worth? If not the free market, does some politician determine wages for each and every person?
Apparently one of the first things that Biden has promised to do is to raise the minimum wage to $15/hr, regardless of the cost of living of the area where people live. So, the greatest benefit will accrue to to those who are less needy. He’s definitely not a deep thinker.
Bill Gates owns massive amounts of farm land …. just in time for the migrant caravans headed to US, or as Trump recently called it the ‘gravy train’. Bill is tricking ya all.
Bigoilbob, you need to explain yourself better. As far as I can see everyone who buys a product that involves hydrocarbons already pays the entire cost.
What costs do you think are not being paid for? By the way AGW is not a cost as it does not exist.
All listed 2 posts ago. And if you think that AGW does not exist, you are doomed to continue to live in ever shrinking WUWT subterranea. With the anti-vaccers and the Biden “coup”ers….
Still waiting for empirical scientific proof of your little CULT FANTASY, big oily blob !!
Two simple questions to answer instead of your INCESSANT NON-SCIENCE CULT BLATHERING
1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?
2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human released CO2 causation?
Well, Bob, please explain why vote totals were changed on TV as people watched, with ChinaBiden taking votes from Trump’s totals?
And a LARGE AMOUNT extra.. called taxes.
Hydrocarbons are an IMMENSE BENEFIT to human life.
Civilisation would not exist without them
There is no problem with adding extra LIFE-GIVING CO2 to the atmosphere.
OK, Bob. I’ll play your game if you include all the external benefits of FFs. These “economic” analyses of external costs leave out every notion of true, unbiased cost/benefit determination that free markets naturally provide. Without free markets, all one gets is political policy-making.
Wut? The buyers know the benefits. They’re baked in. It’s the costs that are largely hidden. These are shirked/ communized on all of us, big hydrocarbon users and small, with no delineation as to how much we use. They certainly aren’t “naturally provided”.
If the price signals were passed on, then I’d be happy to lose this intentionally unspecified “political policy making”. I’m even happy to socialize the costs of all of the Trumpian YUGE, shirked CONUS asset retirement obligations that the extractors have incurred for over a century. As with most other extraction industries, it’s too late to go back on them.
You’ve certainly got your bafflegab shoes on.
No, Bob, buyers are not directly reaping all the benefits of FFs. There are significant societal monetary, ecological and health benefits of FF consumption. You can’t ignore them when performing a true cost/benefit analysis. Anyway, trying to monetize costs and benefits of any specific product is an exercise in mental masturbation; practitioners get the results they wanted when they first set out sell others on their pet theory.
Additionally, in functioning democratic societies polluters pay for the costs of remediation.
“Additionally, in functioning democratic societies polluters SHOULD pay for the costs of remediation.”
Fixed.
So, we find the long dead Montana copper mine owners and have them payback the costs of cleaning up after them? We make the coal companies restore all of their mines and surface facilities? We make the utilities clean up all of their coal ash pits? We make the oil and gas producers properly plug all of their neglected wells, and lock box CASH for the rest of them?
Cool with that. When do we start?
Coal ash is used in a huge number of building products
It is ALL AROUND you, big oily blob.
Cement, gypsum, road base….
And yes coal mines do get remediated at end of life
Pity you are SO IGNORANT about the HUGE BENEFITS that fossil fuels and their by-products have been to CREATING and MAINTAINING modern civilisation
But then, you think we should all go back to the stone age, don’t you, big oily blob.
“Coal ash is used in a huge number of building products”
Clue free as usual, fred…
https://environmentamerica.org/sites/environment/files/AccidentsFactsheet-CoalAsh.pdf
“Pity you are SO IGNORANT about the HUGE BENEFITS that fossil fuels and their by-products have been to CREATING and MAINTAINING modern civilisation”
Since I’ve prospered for almost 40 years as a petroleum engineer, not so ignorant. But these benefits should carry their costs long with them. Not hidden away by the unprecedented, generations old, lobbying/bribery of the oil and gas bizzes. You don’t seem to care for capitalism much….
YAWN.
Its called cost /BENEFIT analysis …greasy one.
The BENEFITS FAR OUTWEIGH any costs.
You RELY on those benefits every day, in every way.
You certainly appear IGNORANT, probably because you come across as a mindless AGW cultist.
Enjoy your FOSSIL FUEL EXISTENCE, moron.
Petroleum engineer? I thought that you previously claimed to be in marketing management or some related expendable position.
Nope, I always knew what I was/am, and have never claimed otherwise. Apparently you don’t remember the exchange I had with David Middleton where I poked holes in his wishful thinking on oil and gas asset retirement operations and concomitant costs.
I think you’ve muddled me with another poster..
No, you did not poke wholes in anything Dave Middleton said.
All you did with blather mindlessly.
No evidence of any kind.
The AGW apologist way !
I think big oily is commenting all all those rusty unused wind turbines, all all the HUGE masses of concrete left in the ground even if the tax-payer pays to get the rotting/rusting hulks removed
Just remember, big oily…. wind turbines and solar panels cannot be manufactured without using substantial amounts of fossil fuels.
Modern Civilisation would not exist without fossil fuels….
Human life span has been increased bya large numbers of years because of fossil fuels
I know your quality of life is worth NOTHING to you..
…. I can tell that from the way you rant..so much inner hatred,
…. but to most of us, we are happy to be alive in a modern society with all the huge BENEFITS obtained from the use of fossil fuels.
Fred, Bob is just distracting the Thread off onto one of his pet peeve rants. I’m just going to ignore him because he is not addressing the issue of CAGW. Maybe he could start a Blog of his own to address the socially responsible development of natural resources.
The functioning democratic republic of the United States, at all its various levels, has already started and it is continuing. Get a grip on your fearmongering; past practices are not present and future practices. Referring to “long dead Montana copper mine owners” is a tipoff that you are not a serious commentator. BTW, there has never been and will never be a lock box of cash in governmental accounts and accounting practices.
Bob, you appear to be letting your transitory political passions interfere with your ability to communicate with others on WUWT about CAGW. The topic of this thread relates to proof (or lack of) for the assertions of an immediate “climate emergency.”
I was responding to post. The discussion ensued.
But glad you agree that when threads get jacked with whines about nonexistent election fraud, you make a similar objection. I’m sure I’d find them if I clicked your name. Right? Right…..?
Poor big oily blob,
Your HATRED of humanity in wanting to DENY the world’s population of HUGELY BENEFICIAL use of fossil fuels indicates a deep seated mental wound of some sort.
Did you get sacked for Dunning-Krugger style incompetence or something ??
Made your living from the fossil fuel industry,
Now your WHOLE EXISTENCE depends on upon it ..
Why such self-hatred ??
Wrong-o, Buffalo Bob! I have no truck with election fraud conspiracies. Not being a ‘Thread Cop,’ I only respond when a individual challenges me on my reasoning.
I am constantly amazed how often people look at any issue through political and ideological lenses. I try to start with analyzing the individual issue, then working back to see which political approach leads to the overall most desirable outcome(s). Keep in mind: There are always tradeoffs involved in any decision; optimising only one aspect of the decision’s tradeoff results in suboptimal results for society as a whole.
Politicians and politically-driven bureaucrats can never achieve the optimal balance of a free market, regulated by a representative democracy which recognizes individual rights. Politics is always involved where big money and clashing ideologies are at stake. Our job is to minimize the harm caused by politicians and ideologs. The trick is to try to recognize our own biases; ‘the easiest person to fool is yourself.’
Nonexistent election fraud? You sound like a classical liberal. I know that journalists frequently make unsupported claims that claims of election fraud are baseless. How is it that you are so certain that fraud wasn’t committed? Are you privy to some grand jury investigations or bi-partisan committee investigations that the MSM suppressed? The courts have refused to consider evidence. Without investigation, there can be no acceptable evidence and ‘conclusions’ depend on personal bias, which you have no shortage of. Your position is like a woman who has been raped, reporting the crime to police, who ask if she has evidence of who committed the crime. She responds, “No, it was a stranger.” The police then respond, well, we can’t investigate if you don’t have all the evidence necessary to arrest and convict someone. Now, I realize there have been instances where a woman has made a false accusation. But, there are penalties for making false claims. However, without a thorough investigation, nobody can be sure if the crime was committed or not!
There is a cloud hanging over the legitimacy of Biden’s election. Yet, there has been no attempt to clear that cloud by the Democrats. Perhaps they are afraid of what they might find during any open and transparent investigation. It’s easiest to just claim that the fraud is nonexistent.
>> The tickets are $15,
Ah,one of those money hungry climate scientists.
Running an internet, live-feed presentation costs money, the hosting service is not free.
$15 for an half hour on line event sounds steep to me. What are the costs?
Keep in mind its C$15, so already a bargain. FSS does great work – visit their website and see the volume and quality of material generated by them on a shoestring budget!
Canadian $15? That’s like 5 cents.. 😉
That’s 10 euros, about the price of a cinema ticket. So C$ 3.75 would be more appropriate.
On the other hand, I’d like to support FoS for bravely supporting such discussions.
The climate scammers like Mini-Mike Bloomberg and Tiny-Tom Steyer are certainly willing to put their money where their mouth is. My small contribution to put my money where my mouth is necessary, where none of us individually can match the funding Bloomberg gives to destroy the middle class, all of us acting to together can send him back to his playpen.
Some of us cherish a bargain but most people don’t value something they didn’t pay for. The more they pay, the better they think it is.
I remember this: http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,944914,00.html
That was published about 2 years after I left North Dakota and 4-5 years after I was out in a blizzard with -90ºF “wind chill”. There was a strong popular belief that this was going to happen.
How Not To Be Popular Part n of n+1
where n is tending to super massive.(Don’t most things these days….)
yes there is a Climate Emergency, but sadly Doc Spencer, you are part of it.
1) just for a trivial starter….
You blame a “hysterical media”
Apart from appealing your own authority as some sort of aloof superhero, you are passing the buck.
By doing this thing, you become part of that crazy media circus.
There’s no such thing as Bad Publicity.
Media Moguls everywhere will love you to bits
They do already while making a useful idiot muppet of you, hence the $15
2) I’ve been through the sums here recently.
CO2 can not heat the Earth’s surface – it has Zero Emissivity at the temperatures involved and, cold things do not radiatively force warm things
Your scientific credentials hit Rock Bottom when you told us, armed with a Cheap & Nasty Chinese-made IR Thermometer, that A Cloud you spied in the sky near your home, had a temperature of 42 Celsius.
Possibly maybe and you wrote about the fact.
Fine. I admire the effort you went to, the spirit of adventure and honesty.
You truly genuinely tried. Big respect
But, why did you not mention that while you were outdoors, the air-temperature had to have been nudging 60 Celsius. Was that not newsworthy?
Lapse Rate says the surface air-temp had to be that high for The Cloud to have been so warm.
Hello hello, Lapse Rate. You do know what it is….
3) Benefits of CO2
Are what?
Benign Warming you say. Definition of same please…
Beneficial Global Greening perchance?
Based on what? The train-wreck that is contemporary NASA science?
Judging from their their gobsmackingly childish explanation of the Green House Gas Effect – the thing that creates Trapped Heat – I wouldn’t trust NASA to light a barbecue.
just as desperately poor as the BBC’s explanation on their climate pages, and complete thermodynamic nonsense.
Global Greening is based on Kindergarten Science – science that is massively simplified, science that has to be simplified for 5 & 6 year olds,
So simplified in fact that it becomes Flat Out Wrong
Yes plants use CO2 to grow ..
BUT
For something/anything to be a Plant Fertiliser and thus promote extra growth, that ‘something’ has to be in short supply.
Technically, the Liebig Limiter
Out in the wild, aka: The Real World, CO2 is NOT the Liebig Limiter
(water soluble) nitrogen is.
Ask Any Farmer
[Not this one tho…
https://www.fwi.co.uk/news/farmer-counts-cost-after-walkers-stray-from-footpath
And this follows The Warmest Year Evah – when the UK wheat harvest made 10 million tonnes instead of the more normal 15 million tonnes
And the price of UK made Biofuel skyrockets, even beyond Obarmy’s wildest dreams
Ahhhh, that’ll be the Beneficial CO2 and Benign Warming wot did that..
Beneficial. Benign. On which planet?
BS on this one]
Thus, when extra nitrogen is added plants grow better until sulphur becomes the limiter, followed by potassium, then phosphorus then then then….
CO2 is a long way down the list APART from inside commercial greenhouses
Nobody, (apart from Governments and their Climate Scientists) is/are going to go to the time, trouble and (ongoing) expenses of running a commercial greenhouse if they are going to deprive their plants of the things I just listed.
So they don’t. All those nutrients are supplied in abundance.
Then, and only then, does CO2 become the limiter and adding more has a beneficial effect on growth rate
Your kindergarten teacher was, in a truly well-intentioned way, being mendacious = Liying By Omission.
but just look at the complete disaster it is turned into. sigh
Could they not have waited a few years and explained it properly then?
Maybe that is where the Climate Emergency is. schools
That somebody advertising themselves as a Climate Scientist, while bragging about their achievements in said field and so so totally unaware of those things is:
The Real Emergency
No arguments about emergencies from this quarter, but Doc, it is a little closer to home than you think.
like in your mirror.
sorry
Ignore the insult to your academic qualifications, Dr. Spencer. Peta seems to be having a bad day. He’s probably been at the sugar again. It’s an occupational hazard when you live in Newark (centre of the UK sugar-beet industry).
Peta = I hope you can take this comment in the light hearted spirit in which it was made.
Okay rant-meister,
Explain the greening of the earth as observed from space. Just a coincidence that it correlates with increasing atmospheric CO2.
Climate emergency is an oxymoron.
Consider source: morons, all of them. And then it all makes sense.
I’m guessing Big Data, at the behest of the Biden-Harris camp, will throw a digital wrench into that livestream. Any bets?
I’ve had to install ADGuard on my iMac and Safari to stop all the annoying ads and now a new pop-up malware as well. All those annoying ads are now gone. 🙂
Dear Sirs,
Please, could you help me? I´d like to attend the event from Germany. The silly question: What would be the time in Germany (GMT+1) at 7pm “Mountain-Time”? What would be “Mountain-Time”?
Many THX in advance.
If you are able to DuckDuckGo, try ‘mountain time usa’. Google may also work.
I join Ken Gregory who posted as follows on Roy Spencer’s website that “I was surprised that you [Roy] chose latitude 51 N as the southern extent of the area block used to represent Canada. The southern border of Canada’s four western provinces is 49 N. Much of the population of eastern Canada is south of 49 N. Note that Canada’s population centroid is at latitude 46.4 N, longitude 87.0 W, which is located south of Lake Superior in Michigan, USA.