Open Thread

Open thread.

4.5 2 votes
Article Rating
138 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
HeckSpawn
March 13, 2022 3:03 am

New sticker’s out…

BidenPutin2.jpg
Derg
Reply to  HeckSpawn
March 13, 2022 5:24 am

No kidding, the Biden administration doesn’t want to take responsibility for anything. Worst President and administration of all time and it’s not close.

Gregory Woods
Reply to  Derg
March 13, 2022 7:35 am

Wilson was worse…

Drake
Reply to  Gregory Woods
March 14, 2022 10:39 am

Yep, lots of bad things happened during Wilson’s administration, including the income tax. And Wilson, the “progressive” segregated the US military.

Steve Case
Reply to  Derg
March 13, 2022 8:27 am

Lyndon Baines Johnson gets my vote for worst president

badEnglish
Reply to  Steve Case
March 13, 2022 9:50 am

Biden has had barely a year, though…

badEnglish

Derg
Reply to  badEnglish
March 13, 2022 12:12 pm

And look what he has screwed up. Worst President EVER.

James Schrumpf
Reply to  Derg
March 13, 2022 8:14 pm

“Mister, we could a man like Hoibert Hoover agai-i-i-n”

Mark Blocker
Reply to  James Schrumpf
March 18, 2022 8:49 am

Hoover was an engineer. Of course, supposedly Carter was too. Did all right at the Naval Academy, hard to tell why such a promising start led to abject failure.

Reply to  HeckSpawn
March 13, 2022 12:00 pm

comment image (562×590) (substack.com)

Notanacademic
Reply to  Allan MacRae
March 13, 2022 4:42 pm

As always Allan you’ve hit the nail on the head, unfortunately turdeau is one of many and try as I do I find it hard to believe these nutters can be beaten. At the moment they seem to hold all the cards. Very depressing.

Reply to  Notanacademic
March 13, 2022 11:01 pm

The climate fraud is fading quickly as atmospheric CO2 continues to increase in a COOLING world. The CAGW scam is ending now.
Told you so, 20 years ago.
 
As the fraud of Covid-19 harmful and ineffective lockdowns and toxic and ineffective “vaccines’ becomes more and more obvious, Dr Robert Malone discusses his feelings of vindication.
 
Dr Paul Alexander, in a recent speech, has the solution:
ANY PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICIALS AND PHARMA WHO COSTED LIVES IN COVID: LOCK THEM ALL UP! March 11, 2022
 
Following is my post that discusses the twin frauds of Climate and Covid, promoted by the same scoundrels for their political and financial gain. 
 
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/01/25/ottawa-canada-is-following-germanys-failed-climate-goals/#comment-3439170
Nothing about our governments’ woke programs for Climate and Covid ever made any sense – then woke “world leaders” linked the two false crises – and everything they did made things much worse.
There is a powerful logic that says no rational person or group could be this wrong for this long – it’s not an error, it’s a Plan – the economic Roadmap to Venezuela – Poverty and Dictatorship – and it is happening in Canada, the USA, Britain, Australia, New Zealand, France, Germany and many other countries all over the world.
 
IS THIS LEAKED INFO REALLY TRUDEAU’S CRAZY COVID PLAN FOR 2021? YOU DECIDE … – THE CANADIAN REPORT
 
Excerpts:
 
“That it won’t just be Canada but in fact all nations will have similar roadmaps and agendas.”
It can’t be just a coincidence that so many countries have all adopted the same failed, nonsensical policies on Climate and Covid.
 
I think the leaked document is credible – it is consistent with the paper that I published in 2019 that I know is legitimate.

Last edited 3 months ago by Allan MacRae
Notanacademic
Reply to  Allan MacRae
March 14, 2022 6:09 am

Thanks Allan, that’s a hell of a lot of information. Much appreciated.
There’s a tsunami of information pushing back against the narrative now, I wonder how much longer our politicians and media can continue to ignore it. We are seeing ridiculous news stories about how breathing incorrectly or shaking your duvet to vigorously can cause heart attack, children exercising to much can be bad for their hearts. They are conditioning us for the avalanche of heart problems heading for the vaccinated. I’ve answered my own question, they intend to ignore all contrary information for a long time yet.

Thanks again Allan

Reply to  Allan MacRae
March 15, 2022 2:58 am

This information by Edward Dowd, Dr Bhakdi and others is consistent with other credible information that I have posted over the past year on the huge number of deaths and serious injuries caused by the toxic Covid-19 “vaccines”. I have worked full-time for the last 25+ months to fight the harmful and ineffective Covid-19 lockdowns and for the last 14 months to fight the toxic and ineffective Covid-19 “vaccines”, without much success. The government and media onslaught of false propaganda has succeeded in poisoning most of our citizens.
 
Nobody is paying me to do this. All I wanted was for young people to have a good long life – and I have mostly failed.

We need treatments for the vaccine-injured – and soon. We’ve experienced some success with Ivermectin.
 
Regards, Allan MacRae
 
EDWARD DOWD ON FUTURE RECESSION, SHOCKING FINDINGS IN THE CDC COVID DATA AND DEMOCIDE – LEW ROCKWELL LEWROCKWELL.COM
 
Fresh off a 7-day suspension from Twitter, BlackRock Whistleblower Ed Dowd is back, with a horrifying report on Steve Bannon’s War Room.
Ed enlisted the help of an insurance industry expert to parse out the CDC Excess Deaths data. He says, “We were looking for other things but what we found was pretty shocking…He broke it down by age and he created a baselines for each age group to come up with excess mortality.
“And the money chart is really Chart 4, which shows that the Millennial age group, 25 to 44 experienced an 84% increase in excess mortality into the fall. It’s the worst-ever excess mortality, I think, in history…”
 
“So, just to put some numbers on this, starting in the summer into the fall, with the mandates and the boosters, there were 61,000 excess Millennial deaths.”
“Basically, Millennials experienced a Vietnam War in the second half of 2021. 58,000 people died in the Vietnam War, US troops [over the course of 10 years], so this generation just experienced a Vietnam War [in 6 months].
“I think this is the smoking gun: that the vaccines are causing excess mortality in all age groups and it’s no coincidence that Rochelle Walensky refuses to answer Senator Ron Johnson’s letters. They’re hiding. Fauci’s gone. She’s gone. They’re hiding.”
“So, I’m going to put a word out there. It’s an old word but it should be re-introduced into the conversation. It’s called democide: Death by government. So the government, through the mandates has killed people.”
_______________________________
 
DR SUCHARIT BHAKTI | INTENSE NEW MATERIAL
Dr Mark Trozzi March 14, 2022

In a concise new video, Dr Bhakti explains that the so-called “vaccines” are “agents that have no benefit whatsoever… but have the capacity over a million pathways to kill you… This looks premeditated.”
Video: Grand Jury Day 4 | Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi: “This Looks Premeditated” (rumble.com)
____________________________

NINE IN 10 COVID DEATHS ARE IN VACCINATED PEOPLE
Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola March 15, 2022

STORY AT-A-GLANCE
·   With all eyes on Russia and Ukraine, the U.K. quietly released a vaccine surveillance report that showed roughly 80% to 90% of COVID cases, hospitalizations and deaths were in people who were vaccinated
·   Although the U.K. has the same COVID variant and uses only one different vaccine, the U.S. data published by health agencies are vastly different. This is likely since the U.S. defines “vaccinated” differently and is reluctant to release accurate raw data
·   An ongoing study spearheaded by economist Mark Skidmore shows the number of injuries and deaths from the vaccine is many times greater than the number reported to VAERS. His data show how people perceive deaths and adverse events is colored by their biases, which likely has an impact on VAERS reporting
·   While experts do not agree on the number of adverse events and deaths from the COVID shots, the number of all-cause mortalities is a clear-cut statistic. A person is dead, or they aren’t. Multiple sources report the death rate in 2021 is 32% to 54% higher in 2021 than in 2020 at the height of the pandemic
_____________________________


NEW ‘LANCET’ STUDY SHOWS EXPERTS FAILED TO PREVENT COVID DEATHS WITH LOCKDOWNS AND MANDATES
by Kyle Becker ~ 2022-03-12

A new analysis published at the scientific journal “Lancet” has provided further evidence that Covid policies implemented by public health experts around the globe failed to substantially lower excess deaths.

Last edited 3 months ago by Allan MacRae
Notanacademic
Reply to  Allan MacRae
March 15, 2022 5:00 pm

Allan I have no training in science engineering or medicine and yet I have not fallen for the cagw scam or the covid scam, I read all I can and make my own mind up. I tell others what I believe especially when I think we are being lied to. I am not vaccinated, neither is my wife or my 28 year old son or his fiance, none of their friends are vaccinated either. I tell them the things I learn from people like dr Ryan Cole, dr Mike Yeadon and so many others including you. I know you haven’t had the success you wanted but you have not failed. More and more people are waking up, your success through your persistence may be greater than you realise.

Kind regards
John.

les online
Reply to  Allan MacRae
March 13, 2022 11:03 pm

Is there one of these of the Australian PM, and the ‘opposition’ leader. They werent Klaus’ wunderkids but they certainly are implementing his program.

Reply to  les online
March 15, 2022 3:05 am

Question:
How did all these politicians and health professions become so insane?

Reply to  HeckSpawn
March 13, 2022 3:09 pm

I have a new essay up. It combines all my thoughts and measurements in one. Let me know what you think of it?
https://breadonthewater.co.za/2022/03/08/who-or-what-turned-up-the-heat/

Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
Reply to  HenryP
March 14, 2022 12:42 am

Ok, I read it.

Looking at the volcanic eruptions as a source of global heating – that is not going to fly. Let me explain why. The eruptions are highly localized. The loss of energy upon emergence of magma is rapid and vertical. The magma is very hot and loses massive amounts of heat as IR radiation. This heat is not “spread around” to the atmosphere in general. If there is any unsaturated absorption band left for CO2, it warms generally and evenly with a tiny Delta T. A high temperature source point simply can’t do that.

Further:

“Coal, wood and oil contain poisons and combustion often produces or leaves unacceptable soot, and poisonous ash- and dust levels. Oil spills cause serious problems for sea life.”

It should read “…and bad combustion often produces….”

For the toxic ask, this is easily dealt with. Heat the ask above the ash melting temperature and it will fuse into glass blocks. These are inert. Put them back in the mine.

Reply to  Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
March 15, 2022 2:26 am

Thanks Cruspin. The volcanic activity in the Arctic all took place on the seabed. Heat was captured by the ocean. That is what the results are showing. Just read it again.

March 13, 2022 3:12 am

This applies to a lot of wind development. Show us the engineering!

Dominion’s deception hits new high with offshore wind
By David Wojick
https://www.cfact.org/2022/03/11/dominions-deception-hits-new-high-with-offshore-wind/

The beginning: “I recently published a Study done for CFACT, titled “Dominion’s VCEA Compliance Plan is Disastrously Unreliable”. The study is summarized in my article “How and why Dominion and other utilities lie” at https ://www.cfact.org/2022/02/23/how-and-why-dominion-and-other-utilities-lie/ .

The great deception is that Dominion proposes to build a huge amount of wind and solar generating capacity, together with retiring all of its fossil fueled generators, with almost none of the enormous storage capacity that is required to make the renewables viable. This proposed long term Plan does not work and Dominion knows that, but in the short run they can make billions in profit by building the unreliable wind and solar. The disastrous unreliability only shows up in the long run

Now Dominion has topped that long term deception with a bigger short term one. They have applied for approval of a gigantic offshore wind power project. This is the beginning of the con described in my study.

The proposed project consists of 176 monster wind machines, each with a generating capacity of 14.7 MW, which is as big as giant windmills come. Each is over 1.5 times as high as the Washington monument. The total capacity is roughly 2,600 MW. As pointed out, there is no storage capacity to make this intermittent power reliably available, so the power will just come and go with the wind.

Dominion’s proposal has two very specific (and very big) deceptions. The engineering is secret and the published cost estimate is preposterously low.”

Lots more in the article.

Tom.1
March 13, 2022 3:34 am

Revisiting one of my favorite subjects, here is an article listing 20 reasons why you might not want to buy an electric car, and there are a lot of good reasons. However, one of them was not the risk of a battery fire. 20 Drawbacks Of Electric Vehicles Drivers Overlook (motor-junkie.com)

Megs
Reply to  Tom.1
March 13, 2022 4:01 am

Yeah, I must say that I’m a bit nervous about the three BESS backup storage they have planned less than ten kilometres from our town. The first one has been approved at 200MW, backing up a 400MW industrial solar plant. The other two are 500MW, to back up a 500MW industrial solar and 441MW to backup 63 7MW wind turbines each at 280m high. Theses are in the negotiation phase and even more are being planned.

Considering we are in a lightning corridor and massive grass fires occur from time to time in 40 plus degrees Celsius temperatures I think we’ve got good reason to be more than a little bit upset. Ah Australia, the lucky country.

Reply to  Megs
March 13, 2022 5:14 am

None of that storage will get you through a single low wind night. In fact quoting batteries in MW, as they do to make them look like generators, is deceptive. What is the storage capacity?

Hans Erren
Reply to  David Wojick
March 13, 2022 5:32 am

At Eneco they claim for a 48 MW BESS a capacity of “> 50 MWh”
https://www.eneco.com/wat-we-doen/duurzame-bronnen/enspireme/

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Hans Erren
March 13, 2022 7:42 am

Exactly!

What’s more, catch this in Meg’s comment above “Theses are in the negotiation phase and even more are being planned.”

Wait until the purchasers of the BESS see the “bottom line” prices for those systems that were mentioned! Ka-ching!!! They’ll somehow have to sucker in either taxpayer or low-IQ investor dollars to pay the upfront costs, giving a 20-or-more year expected ROI period.

ghl
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
March 13, 2022 5:01 pm

Any sums work with 0% money.

whiten
Reply to  David Wojick
March 13, 2022 6:59 am

In the proposition of a smart SCADA grid, it is the core of the smart grid operation system that primarily responds, by tripping or disconnecting energy production as required for safety, prior and before the engagement of the safety protection systems of the said energy production sources.

Under this condition, no way a grid scale batteries system can offer a realistic utilized support for the failure of wind farms or solar in grid operations.

The said grid scale batteries storage systems is another completely different “animal”, as in the proposition of utility, completely a different configuration and a different protocol of connection to the grid… as hypothetically supposed… definitely impossible as matter of engineering realistic utilization… even as hypothetically in “paper”.

cheers

Gunga Din
Reply to  whiten
March 13, 2022 2:29 pm

For those who don’t know, “SCADA” is an acronym for “Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition”.
Basically, another type of automation.
Whether it’s RTUs (Remote Terminal Units) or PLCs (Programable Logic Controllers) or whatever else is out there, they still depend on a human to write the logic and decide what data is collected and stored.

oeman 50
Reply to  David Wojick
March 13, 2022 8:58 am

That is one of my pet peeves, not adding the “hours” to “MW”..I used to think it was just ignorance, but I agree with you about the deception.

Megs
Reply to  oeman 50
March 13, 2022 3:44 pm
Megs
Reply to  oeman 50
March 13, 2022 3:46 pm

Sorry about that, the wind project link was meant for David. 🙂

Megs
Reply to  David Wojick
March 13, 2022 3:40 pm
Megs
Reply to  David Wojick
March 14, 2022 4:13 am

David I sent you a link and from my understanding they are promising storage of 1000 MWh for the solar installation. They initially quoted 500MW of backup as though that meant something. From our experience these developers change the story to suit whomever they’re talking to. They seem to make it up as they go along and no matter the queries we raise the DPIE seem to trust whatever the developers tell them.

I truly think that the bureaucrats think that installed capacity is like for like when compared to traditional forms of energy. And they have no comprehension that there are differences of output between the different forms either. We raised issue with the DPIE about CO2 (this is supposed to be what it’s all about) payback for the solar project and the developer told them it was four and a half months! This is for a 400MW solar project shipped from China and transported 300 kilometers from the port. The solar manufacturers themselves quote a number of years, and even that is way off. And that’s without taking into consideration the 200MW backup batteries, whatever that means. Another developer told them that his solar project would last 50 years! We managed to quash that one but both these projects were approved. The whole industry is a farce, as are the bureaucrats that rubber stamp this disastrous infrastructure. The Ministers don’t even see any of the submissions, they leave it in the hands of the bureaucrats, who are totally ignorant.

Matt Kean is the NSW Minister for Environment. He is also NSW Treasurer. Among his climate advisers are the Climate Council, who call themselves an independent body and are lead by Tim Flannery. And I believe the leader of the Greens is in his ear too. No one seemed to question why Kean gave ten million dollars to China’s largest wind turbine manufacturer.

This man is proposing 12 GW of renewables for our region. There is a 180 kilometer transmission line being planned and starting not too far from our town. I assume the wind and solar will straddle this line for its length. Prime agricultural land, when Australia has only 6% arable land.

How is any of this allowed to happen?

Megs
Reply to  Sweet Old Bob
March 14, 2022 4:55 am

Thanks for the link Bob. How much hope do we have for an honest election? Best we can hope for is for the minority parties to wind up holding the balance of power. Both major parties have moved so far to the left they may as well be Greens. Many of them are already as good as, or should I say bad!

twobob
Reply to  Tom.1
March 13, 2022 7:06 am

Any one here got an order in for the new SKLep 100watt 12volt generator yet?
AC or DC,supplied.
1 watt in 100 watts out. Only$250

Last edited 3 months ago by twobob
Tombstone Gabby
Reply to  twobob
March 13, 2022 5:37 pm

G’Day twobob

Delivery of this product will occur only if Leonardo Corporation collects at least one million orders of the Ecat SKLep”

Good luck mate…..

twobob
Reply to  Tombstone Gabby
March 14, 2022 6:06 am

Thanks for that! He has only 800,000 plus orders to date.
That has been since December 2021,so stand a chance by next Christmas.
I may have to order the 1kW instead.

Editor
March 13, 2022 3:54 am

Can you help me find a low-cost open-access journal?

I have written one paper, currently being reviewed by an acquaintance and not yet submitted for publication, and I am about to write another. Both are in the field of climate science, but are about the high-level patterns not the internal processes. As a self-funded retiree with no affiliations or grant sources, I need to find a low-cost journal for publication. It also needs to be open-access, as there’s not much point in publishing something that is then pay-walled.

Can anyone suggest – or recommend – a suitable journal?

The journal’s fees need to be modest, it has to offer open access, and it must be a journal that would consider publishing a paper that goes against the mainstream. I’m sure I read recently of a low-cost e-journal that actively encouraged papers that go against the mainstream, but I can’t find it again.

TIA

Reply to  Mike Jonas
March 13, 2022 5:41 am

What about that ?
https://journals.sagepub.com/description/eae

Energy & Environment

Last edited 3 months ago by Krishna Gans
Editor
Reply to  Krishna Gans
March 13, 2022 11:16 pm

Thx. It starts well – “There are no fees payable to submit or publish in this journal.” – but the article isn’t open access. For that, it says you have to use SAGE Choice: “Standard article processing charges (APC) for SAGE Choice range from 3,000 USD to 4000, …“. Way outside my range unfortunately

Burl Henry
Reply to  Mike Jonas
March 13, 2022 11:35 am

Mike Jonas:

World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews

https://wjarr.com/

Editor
Reply to  Burl Henry
March 13, 2022 11:21 pm

Thx. This could well work. It says it covers Earth and Planetary Science, it has very low fees, and it’s peer-reviewed and it’s open access. It is based in India, which is fine (one or two other countries not so welcome!).

Geoff Sherrington
March 13, 2022 4:06 am

When you see satellite maps of CO2 in the air around the globe, there are some high CO2 regions and some low ones.
A lot of people then say that high areas are above sources and low are above sinks.
But, this is only the case if CO2 is flowing from the surface upward where there is a high and downwards flow over a sink.
However, the opposite might be happening. A high CO2 region might exist because the gas is being drawn towards a sink and piles up in a queue waiting to get into the land sink. And the reverse over a source .

Surely one has to measure the rate and direction of flow in each case, be it up or down in an anomalous region. Otherwise, it is probably safe to say that not much can be deduced about the distribution of sinks and sources. Geoff S

Peta of Newark
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
March 13, 2022 4:26 am

The rather more obvious question;
Why are the ‘mouthparts’ Stomata of all plants on the underside of their leaves?

Couldn’t possibly be because they’re expecting their food (food – not fertiliser## btw) to be coming up at them and not down?

## The fertiliser also comes from below them – from out of the soil and hence why they ‘need’ water – after it has been processed by soil bacteria.
The man ‘Liebig‘ had words to say on that subject
The water is needed to transport the micro-nutrients and trace elements.
No More.
They do not use/need it for cooling. If a Cooling Requirement actually arises, they use water to blot out the sun.

Soil is the ‘stomach’ for plants and water is their blood and just like us, those things are constantly re-used and recycled. The water. obviously, via ‘rain’ as what happens in a properly functioning Rain Forest.
We do not flush our stomachs down the pan after every meal and- what are veins all about, as opposed to arteries?
Yet when we see ‘floods’ of brown water, everyone imagines that that is The Norm and how it has always been

Bill Everett
Reply to  Peta of Newark
March 13, 2022 7:50 am

Yes and don’t the root systems and leaves of plants and trees provide a natural pathway for carbon to leave the soil and enter the atmosphere? This might explain why OCO-2 satellite mapping has shown CO2 levels to be highest where vegetation is most prevalent.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Bill Everett
March 13, 2022 2:21 pm

It is a combination of factors. Respiration from leaves at night and from roots in the Winter. Respiration from soil bacteria and fungi all the time, but a net outgassing when photosynthesis is shut down.

Reply to  Peta of Newark
March 13, 2022 8:22 am

Tops of leaves are to receive sunlight and rain so the stomata are underneath. Algae are a different story.

Jim Steele
Reply to  Peta of Newark
March 13, 2022 9:28 am

Learn some botany Peta! Stomata location and abundance is a function of promoting transpiration while minimizing water loss. Water lily’s stomata aree all on the upper surface. Where water is abundant such as stream-side, the species there – willows or poplars – have abundant stomata on both sides. In drier habitat, stomata are fewer and only on the underside to minimize water loss.

Last edited 3 months ago by Jim Steele
Meab
Reply to  Peta of Newark
March 13, 2022 10:00 am

Another post that would have benefited from a few minutes of research on the web or maybe even reading a children’s book on plants. Sap is the blood of plants. There are two types of sap and, just like blood, sap is made up mostly of water. Stomata are mostly on the underside of dicot leaves (flat leaves, needle-like leaves have no underside) to reduce evapo-transpiration. Dicot plants hold their leaves horizontal thus shading their undersides which is where they release oxygen and take in CO2. Plants try to hold in as much water as possible so their leaf openings are on the shaded part.

Rain forests do recycle some water but the water that leaves via rivers (think Amazon) is replaced by atmospheric rivers bringing their rain in from the ocean. That’s what makes a rain forest, prevailing moisture-laden winds moving in from the ocean reaching topography that causes rain. Your theory that deserts are caused by nutrient-free soil and all we would have to do to turn deserts into rainforests would be to spread minerals and fertilizer is wacky. Serious nutcase stuff.

Erosion has always happened. Where did you think river deltas come from?

You’ve been schooled on most of this stuff before but you never seem to learn. Referring to one of your other fixations, maybe you need to cut back on sugar?

Editor
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
March 13, 2022 7:17 am

Geoff

Having made a study of this co2 level for the last 12 months (using inexpensive co2 meters-not state of the art) and had it tested in the UK, Australia and France. I can say the co2 level is a variable 510 to 590ppm.depending on season and time of day

Looking at how places such as mauna loa calculate it, for some reason there is a very convoluted process which includes extreme drying of the air, so it is not ‘normal’ Humidity (whatever that might be)

I have asked various scientists but none know why this is done and why it is supposed to represent a real world figure.

Come on Nick, lets have your explanation again and what others say

tonyb

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  tonyb
March 13, 2022 2:31 pm

Looking at how places such as mauna loa calculate it, …

Further, they assume that after the ocean air is uplifted from sea level to the summit of Mauna Loa, passing over extensive vegetation (and increasing urbanization), that it represents typical 4 km uncontaminated Pacific air.

whiten
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
March 13, 2022 3:51 pm

Guys, have you ever heard of Gravity?
Really asking here, as you seem to be in bizarro physics!

Last edited 3 months ago by whiten
Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  whiten
March 13, 2022 5:42 pm

Whiten,
If you took a simple view of gravity, CO2 has a molecular weight of 44, bulk air at STP is about 28, so the CO2 should fall to the ground or sea surface under gravity. It does not. Please advance our understanding of what gravity does. Geoff S

whiten
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
March 13, 2022 9:01 pm

Is air an element?
Last time I checked it was not in the table of elements.
Good luck with your physics..

Wondering about the molecular weight of H2O…
Well, plants sink that too, init?

Besides air sinks too, due solely to gravity.
Everything of mass sinks, due to gravity… the rest is simply a spin.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  whiten
March 14, 2022 4:45 pm

You aren’t making any sense.

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  tonyb
March 13, 2022 5:40 pm

tonyb,
While I have never criticised the methods and instruments used to measure atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa, I do criticise those who interpret the measurements wrongly. For a start, the number need to be put is context with long time series from other locations lie Alaska, Cape Grim, South Pole etc as some have done.
Most of the highlighted CO2 measuring stations are chosen to minimise “stray” CO2 in the air. But, it exist; and it has the same physics as the ML CO2.
Your own measurements show that the “average” CO2 in some places is way higher than the “global” CO2 values from ML. This affects both the radiative physics (when will the full story ever be understood?) and it affects the interpretation of sinks and sources as I started to mention in the thinking aloud comment I made above.
Thanks to comments here, I can rephrase what I said about interpretation of sinks and sources of CO2.
One cannot interpret the designation of sinks and sources of atmospheric CO2 as from satellite mapping, without measurements of the directions of flow of CO2. In my reading, I do not recall any studies of whether CO2 is flowing into or out of a proposed sink or source. For all that is known, the air around your home where you measure 510-590 ppm should be regarded by authors to date, as a massive source of CO2 in the air. Myself, I do not know what it means, except it is part of a bigger picture that has not yet been painted.. Geoff S

Scissor
Reply to  tonyb
March 13, 2022 6:23 pm

It used to be measured by infrared spectroscopy and wouldn’t you know it, water interfered with CO2 measurement but mainly because water concentration is highly variable, drying the sample improves precision.

Now I understand that they’ve used Cavity Ringdown Spectroscopy.

Bill Everett
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
March 13, 2022 8:03 am

Early OCO-2 satellite mapping showed the highest levels of CO2 to coincide with the locations of the Amazon Rain Forest, the Congo Basin, Southeastern China, Southeast Asia and Indonesia. These are the locations of the World’s heaviest jungle areas. I don’t believe there is evidence that these areas possess a vacuuming capability.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
March 13, 2022 2:16 pm

A high CO2 region might exist because the gas is being drawn towards a sink and piles up in a queue waiting to get into the land sink.

How does CO2 get “drawn towards a sink?” My CO2 magnet quit working years ago, and the CO2 winds have died down. 🙂

My mental model is that CO2 crosses a barrier, such as the interface between water and air, in proportion to the difference in partial pressure between the source and sink. The air masses containing CO2 are moved by pressure differences created in the total air mass by temperature differences. The CO2 attempts to establish a local equilibrium based on the abundance in the source and the capacity of the sink.

whiten
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
March 13, 2022 3:54 pm

Does the sink in your house works that way?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  whiten
March 13, 2022 8:51 pm

Of course not. Do you have anything worthwhile to contribute, or are you just trying to impress yourself. You aren’t impressing anyone else.

whiten
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
March 14, 2022 3:58 pm

Clyde

Thank you for the answer.

By the way, your mentioned mental model there, quite impressive though.

cheers

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
March 13, 2022 5:47 pm

Clyde,
Yes, my words were clumsy.
Yet, much of the tree mass ultimately derives from CO2 that was once in the air. So, the growing tree is my analogue of the vacuum cleaner. As trees capture more CO2, new CO2 moves in to replace the captured. My puzzle is about why the OCO devices show a positive anomaly above some large forest areas. Geoff S

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
March 13, 2022 8:01 pm

Assuming that the air is stagnant, vegetation can draw down the CO2, lowering the partial pressure of CO2, and then surrounding CO2 can diffuse in slowly. It will only be local however, and it is rare that winds will be absent for the period of time that the OCO-2 maps covered.

In the case of the Amazon, I suspect the positive anomaly comes from bacteria working overtime in the warm, humid environment, while the old-growth trees are coasting.

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
March 14, 2022 1:04 am

Clyde,
So you mention a CO2 pathway from decay in soil to capture by leaves, which puts into the air some CO2 that would have low probability of being detected at Mauna Loa? There must be many such pathways unseen by ML, that have consequences for modelling radiative physics. It is all so fraught with poor assumptions. Geoff S

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
March 14, 2022 4:56 pm

The whole point of putting the observatory on Mauna Loa was to sample ‘pristine’ air in the Pacific at high altitude.

However, Keeling seems to have over looked that the winds hitting ML would be lifted and turbulently mixed by orographic uplift and, simultaneously, vegetation would extract CO2 in the daytime and add CO2 at night. Decaying vegetation would add CO2 all the time, probably having a greater flux in the daytime when it is warmer. Then there is the issue of substantially increased urbanization and emissions from cars since 1958, with the winds carrying the anthro’ CO2 to the MLO.

Yes, a lot of assumptions, some of which have always invalid, others that have changed in 64 years.

Ben Vorlich
March 13, 2022 4:29 am

The Medieval Warm Period is often said not to be global Well someone, I don’t know who, but whoever it was he/she has put a lot of effort in creating this resource.

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1akI_yGSUlO_qEvrmrIYv9kHknq4&ll=19.642587407607024%2C55.61631200000009&z=1

Typical entries are

  • RESULTS: Reduction in winter sea ice 1000-1400 AD as evidenced by F. curta group proxy (light blue in attached chart)

and

  • RESULTS: Warm phase 1000 AD (start of data set) until 1250 AD when cooling started. Maximum cold conditions of Little Ice Age centred around 1500 AD. Attached curve: More positive values in oxygen isotopes indicate warming (upwards peaks).

and

  • RESULTS: Possible warm phase 950-1250 AD as indicated by increase in tree rings

Papers are from across the globe, and contradict the MWP was Europe only argument.

Jim Le Maistre
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
March 13, 2022 2:33 pm

The Holocene, 9 periods of warming . . . 9 periods of cooling. 5 Warming periods, warmer than today, None caused by CO2.

(PDF) CO2 Cradle of Life on Planet Earth | Jim Le Maistre – Academia.edu

March 13, 2022 4:33 am

Q drop #3929: Future proves past.

David Dibbell
March 13, 2022 4:38 am

I’m sharing the results of a personal project concerning records of daily Tmax from the United States Historical Climatology Network list of 1,218 stations in the contiguous U.S. In this folder are 365 images of plots of the centered 5-year mean of the average of all reported values for each date of the year, from 1895 through 2021. The plotted values are therefore from 1897 to 2019. The vertical scale is in degrees F, with the range adjusted differently for each month to best show the resulting features of the plot. The daily values are the record of instrument readings. Not all stations report a value for all dates for all years; missing values are ignored. So bear that in mind. Leap year February 29 is ignored.

The source data is the ghcnd_hcn.tar.gz compressed file of all 1,218 *.dly text files for the 1,218 stations. NOAA provides this data here. https://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/

This is not being posted to claim one thing or another about the long-term overall trend of monthly or annual temperature averages for the planet. But as you click through the images, best done on a computer rather than a phone, notice the stark differences in the shape of the plots for different dates. Why is this? It doesn’t look random. There must be some sort of timed influences, which would not be explained by ENSO, solar cycles, or the like. But these are large influences, which must be considered in light of claims of a detectable influence of overall warming when regional weather events occur.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/102pEDMex4dPGqADMkIqiNmPJ-YV1SdMR?usp=sharing

I credit Tony Heller with having pointed out this phenomenon last year for one month’s data. The analysis posted here is independent, providing all dates of the year.

Anon
Reply to  David Dibbell
March 13, 2022 6:32 am

Thanks for this “original” research. It will take me some time to look this over and digest it, so I can’t offer any comments or advice pro & con, but my impression is that if we are ever going to really understand what is going on, it will come from outside the government funded scientific establishment… the same is happening with the origin of Covid19 and the safe vaccine we all took, that may not be as they advertised. From the rumblings I am seeing, I and a lot of other potential “dupes” may not end up being very happy with the decision we made. So, thanks again and keep at it, you may be on to something significant! (?)

David Dibbell
Reply to  Anon
March 13, 2022 11:27 am

Thank you for your reply. I think my next step will be to generate similar images for Tmin. The core analysis of the source data files was accomplished along with Tmax, but I have to do some more script editing in R to generate the plots. I will certainly appreciate any comments after you spend some more time with these findings.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  David Dibbell
March 13, 2022 8:23 am

A quick scan of the graphs shows no warming over the entire period, for the days there is some warming there are other days that show cooling

David Dibbell
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
March 13, 2022 11:21 am

Even though the objective was not to address a claim of overall warming or cooling, it seems important that there is not even one day out of the 365 days of the year analyzed, for which the most recent five-year mean of Tmax is the highest.

Janice Moore
Reply to  David Dibbell
March 13, 2022 12:32 pm

Thank you, Mr. Dibbell, for so generously sharing your many hours of careful data compilation and analysis. If WUWT were what it once was…. your article would be published as a main post…. and it should be.🤨

In the hopes that some of us non-scientists can fully understand your work, would you please clarify this:

the range adjusted differently for each month.

To one whose statistics training is limited to the basics, that appears to be “tinkering around to get the result I want.” I am highly confident (after reading many of your excellent comments on WUWT) that this is not the case. I (and, perhaps others, too) would, nevertheless, like to know why.

Thanks!

🙂

Richard Page
Reply to  Janice Moore
March 13, 2022 12:57 pm

I believe what David Dibbell was saying was that the ranges on the temperature axes of each month were adjusted to best show the data, not that the data was adjusted.

David Dibbell
Reply to  Janice Moore
March 13, 2022 1:58 pm

Yes, as Richard Page has noted, “the range adjusted differently for each month” means simply that the scale of the vertical axis of the plot was set to capture the spread of values seen in the time series for the dates of each month without leaving a lot of white space on the high or low end of the plot. No effect on the data itself. I hope this answers your question. And I appreciate your comments.

David Dibbell
Reply to  Janice Moore
March 13, 2022 2:22 pm

Extending my reply about the vertical axis, I wanted to avoid letting the limits be set automatically by the plot function in R, so that the framing of the plot image remains fixed at least within the dates of each month. It is highly intriguing to then click forward and backward through the dates (like a moving picture with slow frame rates) to watch how the shape of the plot changes.

Janice Moore
Reply to  David Dibbell
March 13, 2022 3:10 pm

Thank you, Mr. Dibbell (and Mr. Page). NOW, I get it.😊

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Janice Moore
March 13, 2022 2:50 pm

If WUWT were what it once was…. your article would be published as a main post….

That may help explain why I’ve been having such difficulty getting my last two submissions past the gate keepers. Over the last 7 years I have had 13 submissions accepted without any change, and now I’ve hit a brick wall without even suggestions on how I would need to change the submissions to be acceptable.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
March 13, 2022 3:37 pm

Thank you for sharing that, Mr. Spencer. That is weird and disappointing (I would like to read what you wrote!).

I have no idea why, except, that, since about 2016, WUWT has VERY much been pushing the “CO2 might be a problem” agenda. There are many evidences of this, e.g., no ” ” around “renewables” or “climate change” usually. And conjecture by the AGWers is now often unchallenged, apparently taken as “given.” Those presenting strong cases against AGW (e.g., Murry Salby) are now “he who shall not be named” and when a commenter mentions them, some of the regularly published WUWT authors quickly jump in to denigrate their work (I couldn’t even get Salby’s videos linked in the WUWT video list). Lukewarmers, e.g., Ferdinand Englebeen, are promoted and given a warm welcome.

Again, it was not like this from 2006 – 2016. I have asked several times, why my 2016, 10th Anniversary (WUWT, The Battle for Science) isn’t mentioned ANYWHERE on WUWT. No link on the front page — not even a link buried in some obscure page. Response: silence. If it makes you feel any better, Mr. Spencer, I spent MONTHS writing that. Yes, it was linked in 2016 on a thread, but, that was it.

Ignoring someone is the HEIGHT of disrespect and unkindness. An angry snarl isn’t kind, but, it at least acknowledges that they are worth taking the time to respond to.

Something has changed.

Money is often at the base of things. Here, I have NO IDEA what is going on.

And, sure, it’s Anthony’s business, but, it sure would be nice to know.

A little candor would go a LONG way to stopping those of us on the “DO NOT PUBLISH” list from spending MANY hours writing articles that never get published. Makes people stop writing them….

What is the POLICY?

Why do some writers publish article after article (and some are not super-great quality, so, that can’t be the issue), as if they have carte blanche, while others have to gamble on whether their hard work will be published?

Well. I have written along these lines several times over the past 5 or 6 years. I have yet to see ANY response from WUWT.

Thus, I must end with this:

1) You have my deep sympathy.

2) Man alive! If YOU can’t get published, something is not right.

Janice

Will
Reply to  Janice Moore
March 14, 2022 9:42 am

Pathetic conduct, given that this platform developed to counter the very draconian practices they are now implementing.
 
I always enjoy reading your discussion, Janice. Please persevere.
 
Hopefully, the new GATEKEEPERS will get the message and return to the standard of open discourse which they sought originally to uphold.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Will
March 14, 2022 9:09 pm

Thank you for that, Will.

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  David Dibbell
March 13, 2022 5:26 pm

David D,
While still digesting your graphs and their meaning, it seemed there could be some overlap with a WUWT comment a few days ago on Western Electric Rules in statistics. Geoff S
What are Western Electric Rules? – SENTIENT.cloud

David Dibbell
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
March 13, 2022 6:07 pm

Thank you for this reply. Interesting. I found the recent reference on WUWT concerning data from Japan. Statistical process control was an active topic especially in my employment in the pharmaceutical industry from 1982 to 2010. There was a strong influence from G. Edwards Deming’s work, much along the lines of the Western Electric Rules. The later “Six Sigma” and similar quality programs widely taught in many industries were along the same lines. So I will think about the relevance to climate data.

RickWill
Reply to  David Dibbell
March 14, 2022 12:37 am

But these are large influences, 

Land surface temperature are influenced by many variables. Rainfall is a significant factor. Then wind that alters evaporation and brings moisture or dry air into regions.

Climatically the orbital precession has had a slight impact since 1900. The solar intensity over the northern land masses has changed as follows from 1900 to 2020.
Jan +0.14W/sq.m
Feb +0.3W/sq.m
Mar +0.48W/sq.m
Apr + 62W/sq.m
May +0.56W/sq.m
June +0.25W/sq.m
Jul -.0.17W/sq.m
Aug -0.47W/sq.m
Sep -0.5W/sq.m
Oct -0.33W/sq.m
Nov -0.12W/sq.m
Dec 0.0W/sq.m

So trends in good records would reflect these changes. April should have an observable warming trend while September should be discernible as cooling.

You would likely need to produce linear trends in the data to tease out these changes.

Getting rainfall data for say the week or month preceding the temperature might provide insight into the large swings. Soil moisture would be more precise but may not be available.

Last edited 3 months ago by RickWill
David Dibbell
Reply to  RickWill
March 14, 2022 3:53 am

Thank you for this reply. “Land surface temperature are influenced by many variables.” Agreed.

But please let me point out a specific instance of what is so intriguing about the data displayed this way. View these plots on a computer and click through January day-by-day. Watch what happens at the year 1900, for example. January 1st and 29th of the year 1900 are at dips in the plot. January 8th-15th-22nd are at peaks. Whatever produces such differences just days or weeks apart is what I see as “large influences.” In concept, constructive and destructive interference of cyclic, and therefore timed, phenomena of different amplitudes and periods would be able produce such effects, I would think.

David Dibbell
Reply to  David Dibbell
March 15, 2022 4:50 am

Here are the Tmin files. The plots exhibit the same concept, as one steps through the dates. The differences in cycles and trends show the natural “timed” influences at work.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1_PhFDKTQ1Wtz-xGKyWNyA0djiBeqAv9H?usp=sharing

Some overall comments:
Obviously, humans are not doing this. Climate is the composite result of daily conditions. The date-based influences are strong enough to make the long-term trends of the 5-year mean of the average of a large sample of station data in a large well-instrumented country differ greatly by date.

Why Tmax and Tmin? Because they are the directly-measured and recorded temperature values for each station. No adjustment.

But what about monthly and annual and planetary averaging and trends? Fine, but realize you lose the ability to infer the causes of the overall effects, which by definition are a composite of localized or regional time-dependent conditions. The atmosphere and ocean do not operate on “average” conditions.

I appreciate all the questions and comments. Additional responses are welcome as long as they are still allowed.

Last edited 3 months ago by David Dibbell
David Dibbell
Reply to  David Dibbell
March 17, 2022 5:37 pm

For an example of what I call “timed” influences, I found this paper by Keeling and Whorf 1997 very informative. (Yes, Charles D. Keeling.)

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.94.16.8321 “Possible forcing of global temperature by the oceanic tides”
While their hypothesis might not explain the differences by date evident in the plots I’ve posted, it shows how important it could be to consider the combination of cycles of different periods, which operate perhaps through different mechanisms.

fretslider
March 13, 2022 5:28 am

What’s real and what’s really important to the progressive tendency? The climate crisis narrative.

The war in Ukraine threatens to stall progress on tackling the climate crisis
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ukraine-russia-climate-change-1.6380414

‘This is a fossil fuel war’: Ukraine’s top climate scientist speaks out
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/mar/09/ukraine-climate-scientist-russia-invasion-fossil-fuels

Observer editorial
The crisis must not become a reason to drop our commitment to net zero target
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/06/observer-view-on-ukraine-and-climate-emergency

John Kerry fears Russia-Ukraine war will distract from climate change
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2022/02/24/john-kerry-fears-russia-ukraine-war-will-distract-from-climate-change/

Not a great deal of empathy there. It’s just a tiresome nuisance getting in the way to Alarmism Inc

Bruce Cobb
March 13, 2022 5:39 am

If you thought that the Gaia Hypothesis was long-dead and buried (I know I did), think again. They were waxing idiotic about it on NPR this morning, comparing it with love. We know that love is real, they intoned, even if we can’t yet measure it exactly. Gaia is the same thing. Riiiight. Furthering their imbecility, they compared our planet to Venus, implying that without Gaia, Earth would be like Venus because of (of course) CO2. Then, when they were asking kiddos leading questions about Earth, whether it feels “pain”, etc., (Yes! The kiddos responded enthusiastically), I switched it off. There is only so much nonsense one can take, and indocrinating kids is as shameful as it is disgusting.

roaddog
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
March 13, 2022 6:12 am

Our tax dollars at work.

John Power
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
March 13, 2022 3:52 pm

So, what’s wrong with the Gaia Hypothesis? Nothing, as far as I can see.
 
On the contrary, since the Gaia Hypothesis proposes that the Earth is self-regulating in such a way as to maintain optimum conditions for life to flourish, it implies that the global mean temperature will never deviate too far from the optimum in either direction – i.e. warm or cold – and will not undergo a runaway excursion that eventuates in the heat-death of the planet as climate change alarmists are claiming may happen if the temperature exceeds a certain (unspecified) critical threshold value, or ‘tipping point’.

Last edited 3 months ago by John Power
griff
March 13, 2022 6:44 am
HotScot
Reply to  griff
March 13, 2022 6:55 am

How long to get a wind farm up and running? I don’t know, but I do know that it will take around a year to get gas flowing from fracking in the UK.

And for every wind farm built we must have that quantity of electricity on tap for when the wind doesn’t blow, for example, the recent relighting of mothballed coal fired power stations.

Maybe we could ask that nice Mr. Putin for his gas to rely on for when the wind fails………

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  HotScot
March 13, 2022 7:20 am

Griff, has convinced himself that the wind we’ve experienced in the UK for the last month or so is a symptom of a climate change tipping point and will now last forever.
Not only that he feels happy that he can use all the electricity he wants because there is now a limitless supply of renewable electricity that costs next to nothing.

Reply to  griff
March 13, 2022 6:55 am

And you believe that will be successfull ?
No wind, no energy. Factor zero always stays zero.

HotScot
Reply to  griff
March 13, 2022 7:00 am

BTW

“The war in Ukraine has brought further huge rises in global fossil fuel prices and exposed countries’ dependence on overseas supplies.”

Utter nonsense, global energy prices were rising from the day Biden was installed and stopped the keystone pipeline, and restricted fracking and oil prospecting.

What Ukraine has done is to reveal to the public the reliance Europe has on Russian gas and oil. Germany in particular conned its public by building renewables, proclaiming them as the saviour of humanity, whilst buying 40% of its gas from Putin and not exploiting it’s own considerable fracking opportunities.

You need to think a bit harder griff……..

Derg
Reply to  HotScot
March 13, 2022 8:30 am

Yep, misinformation wants you to believe Russia is causing inflation. But we know better.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  HotScot
March 13, 2022 2:39 pm

In order to think harder, one has to be thinking in the first place. I’ve seen little evidence to support that assumption.

Reply to  griff
March 13, 2022 7:46 am

Who will pay when this wind farm farce fails? Will griffter have to pay? The answer my friends is blowin’ in the wind….but thanks UK for being the Great Green Experiment.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Anti_griff
March 13, 2022 10:21 am

Hey! The U.S. needs crash test dummies other than the two left coasts.

Editor
Reply to  griff
March 13, 2022 8:21 am

So Griff, instead of relying on hostile Russia for our gas we will need to rely on hostile Russia and Hostile China for the rare earths required, much of which is mined and processed by slave labour and child labour and causes huge environmental damage.

Not to forget that most solar panels come from China, as does much of the metal, carbon fibre magnets etc for turbines as we can’t afford to heat our furnaces.

tonyb

Jim Le Maistre
Reply to  tonyb
March 15, 2022 8:27 pm

                   

Wind Turbines are described as ‘Clean & Green Technology and Renewable’. That is not even remotely true! The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Banned the Radioactive Waste from producing ‘Rare Earth Magnets’ contained in those Turbines. They were invented in the USA by General Dynamics, more than 35 years ago. Neo-Dymium Boron Magnets are also what Drive the Engines in those ‘Emissions free’ Electric Cars. Will Electric Cars End Pollution? NO! Sadly, Pollution is just moved out of site and out of mind to places off in the wilderness, unseen and un-spoken. Again, we need to learn the Science first. Each one weighs about 1,688 tons (equivalent to 23 houses) and they contain 1,300 tons of concrete and 295 tons of steel for the masts (Concrete and Steel = 15% Global CO2). 3.5 tons of copper, 48 tons of iron, 24 tons of fiberglass Then there are the rare earth minerals . . . 800 lbs. of neodymium-boron per turbine, praseodymium, and dysprosium. The leaching into the environment from tailings ponds, the radiation released into the environment and the mining of these minerals are all Embedded Costs. Where are all the calculations for all of these in The Environmental reports? Each blade weighs 81,000 pounds and will last about 15 to 20 years, then, it must be replaced. Oh, we cannot recycle used blades yet either! That is why we see them lying on the ground at wind farms after they have been replaced. What about the coal burned and electricity used at all the production facilities processing these essential components and the CO2 generated during their production? Somehow is this ‘Green Magic’ without pollution, because it will be used to produce Green Energy? Not likely! It all gets brushed under the ‘Big Green Rug’ and seems irrelevant because ‘It’s for a Good Cause’ . . . Absolutely NOT! . . . All Pollution must be Eradicated . . . not just CO2

One Wind Turbine contains 800 lbs. of Neo-Dymium Boron. More Radiation is released making these Rare-Earth Magnets in Mongolia, where 80% of Global demand is produced, than all the Nuclear Reactors in the USA combined, every year. As one environmentalist told the Daily Mail, “There is not one step of the rare earth mining process that is not disastrous for the environment.”

IMAGE . . . Page 9 . . . Electric Cars – Burn 31% More Energy than Gas Cars (Revised) | Jim Le Maistre – Academia.edu

Radioactive Tailings Pond Mongolia, China – Rare Earth Magnets for Cars and Wind Turbines

BBC – Big Wind’s Dirty Little Secret – Toxic Lakes, 2013

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20150402-the-worst-place-on-earth

800 LBS of Neodymium Boron in one (1) wind turbine . . .

 

Solar Panels, the main problem with them is the Heat and the chemicals needed during processing using the ‘Czochralski Method’ turning all that silicate into the silicon used to make these panels. Producing pure Silicon requires the processing of raw silicate. Including the 1,425o C Heat required to melt the quartz crystals, usually by burning coking coal or gas. The Glass covers are made by heating sand, soda ash and limestone to the incredibly high temperature of 1,700o C with gas. What about the CO2 going up the chimneys where that quartz or that glass was melted? Then, Silica, we use hydrochloric acid, Sulfuric Acid, Nitric Acid, Hydrogen Fluoride, Trichloroethane, and Acetone. Do we recycle that waste? What happens to all the ‘left-overs’ from using these highly toxic chemicals? Solar Panels need gallium-arsenide, copper-indium, gallium-diselenide, and cadmium-telluride. All of which are highly toxic even radioactive. Furthermore, Silicon dust is a hazard to workers where silicone is made and where it used. Oh, and last, the Silicone infused Solar Panels cannot, as yet, be recycled. What happens to all the by-products from making and processing all these chemicals? Furthermore, it has been suggested that the energy input to build solar panels exceeds their energy output in their productive lifetime.

See . . . Batteries, Renewable Energy and EV’s – The Ultimate in Environmental Destruction | Jim Le Maistre – Academia.edu

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  griff
March 13, 2022 8:29 am

I took math in school Griff, helps me in my job
1 x 0 = 0
2 x 0 = 0
3 x 0 = 0
Etc

Unreliable energy explained in one easy step

No matter how much they spend on wind they will still have to build out the nuclear, so why waste the money?

As noted, Germany has 2x generation Alberta has already and struggles to keep the lights on

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  griff
March 13, 2022 2:37 pm

Tories plan …

I’m reminded of Mark Twain’s quip about being on the verge of being an angel his whole life.

HotScot
March 13, 2022 6:51 am

Joe Biden is pleading for oil from this regime.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-60722057

Janice Moore
Reply to  HotScot
March 13, 2022 12:55 pm

Dear H. Scot,

Still praying for you and your gravely ill loved one.

Take care.

Janice

JCM
March 13, 2022 7:05 am

K↓ – K↑ + L↓ – L↑ = Qn = H + LE + G

At the earth’s surface the net radiation (Qn), consisting of the budget of shortwave incoming (K↓), shortwave outgoing (K↑), longwave incoming (L↓) and longwave outgoing radiation (L↑), should be balanced by the transport of heat into the surface soil or water (G) and to the atmosphere in the form of sensible (H) and latent heat (LE).

The sum of the three heat fluxes on the right side is called the total heat flux. The radiation components are defined all positive and the heat fluxes are defined positive when directed away from the surface.

What is the role of the L↓ – L↑ in ‘forcing’ the system?

Last edited 3 months ago by JCM
JCM
Reply to  JCM
March 13, 2022 8:25 am

Can one change the value of L↓ or L↑ in isolation yielding a net positive LW forcing at the surface?

Jim Le Maistre
March 13, 2022 8:13 am

Batteries, Renewable Energy and EV’s

The Ultimate in Environmental Destruction

‘Carbon Allowances’ . . . A one Trillion Dollar a Year Scam . . .

What is a battery? Tesla said it best when he called them ‘Energy Storage Systems’. They do not make electricity inside . . . they store electricity produced somewhere else. Primarily by coal, uranium, natural gas, bio-fuel or diesel-fueled Electric Power Plants. Therefore, to say an Electric Vehicle (EV) is a Zero Emission vehicle is not even remotely true! Since about 40%of the electricity generated in the United States comes from coal-fired generating stations . . . you could say that forty percent of the EVs on the road are Coal-Powered . . . Interesting . . . OH, and let’s not forget OHM’s law on resistance . . . at least 28% of the electricity produced is lost as Heat getting the electricity to EV batteries. At least 128-kwh of electricity is produced for every 100-kwh used. Average US CO2 emissions per kwh from ALL sources including line loss and charging EV’s is 1.19 lbs. per kwh. At least 15% MORE CO2 Per mile driven. (PDF) Tesla Versus Toyota Camry | Jim Le Maistre – Academia.edu

Einstein’s formula, E=MC2, tells us it takes the same amount of energy to move a five-thousand-pound gasoline-powered automobile one mile as it does an Electric Car. The only question remaining is what produces that power? Again, it does not come from the battery. The battery is only the storage system, like any gas tank in those gas-powered cars.

There are two types of batteries, rechargeable, and single-use. The most common single-use batteries are household batteries like A, AA, AAA, C, D. 9V, or lantern batteries. These ‘Dry-Cell Batteries’ use zinc or manganese or lithium or silver oxide, or zinc and carbon to store electricity chemically. Please note . . . they all contain highly toxic, heavy metals. ‘Rechargeable’ batteries for Electric Cars are only different internally by way of their contents and they are re-chargeable, usually lithium-ion or nickel-metal oxide or nickel-cadmium.

Americans use three billion of these two types of battery every year. The vast majority do not get recycled. Most end up in landfill sites. California is the only state requiring all batteries be recycled. When we throw our small, used batteries into the trash, this is what happens to them. The battery continues to run down long after it can no longer power a smoke alarm, toy or light . . .  we think of them as dead. Well, that is not true. They continue to leak small amounts of electricity. Then, as the chemicals inside run out of electricity, pressure builds inside the battery’s metal casing, and eventually, they rupture. Then, those ‘toxic heavy metals’ left inside will ooze out. The ooze is environmentally toxic. All that ooze that will leak from every battery into every landfill. The only difference with rechargeable EV batteries or tool batteries . . . they take longer before they end up in the landfill.

For those of us who are getting all excited about Electric Cars and the ‘Green Revolution’, We must ALL take a much closer look at Batteries and Wind Turbines and Solar Panels and EV’s. These technologies all share environmentally destructive ‘Embedded Costs’, that rarely ever get discussed. Everything manufactured has two costs associated with them, ‘Embedded Costs’ and ‘Operating Costs’ . . . both must be examined by their merits . . . and by their failures . . .

One Lithium-Ion battery in one Electric Car weighs about 1,000 lbs. They each contain at least 25 pounds of lithium, 60 pounds of nickel, 44 pounds of manganese, 30 pounds cobalt, 200 pounds of copper, and about 400 pounds of aluminum, steel, and plastic. In those batteries there are about 6,800 individual lithium-ion cells.

This should concern us all ! These toxic components all come from mining. While manufacturing each Electric Car battery, we process about 25,000 pounds of brine to make the lithium. 30,000 pounds of cobalt ore. 5,000 pounds of nickel ore, and 25,000 pounds of copper ore. All told, we dig up 85,000 Lbs of the earth’s crust . . . 42 ½ Tons . . .  for just . . . ONE . . . Electric Car Battery . . . To store 100 kwh of Electricity that required more than 128 kwh of production . . . 28 kwh was lost heating the planet . . . OHM’s Law.

Let that one sink in . . . Oh, did we mention toxicity, disease or child labor. 68% of the world’s Cobalt, a very important part of every EV battery, comes from the Congo. Their mines have no pollution controls. Furthermore, they employ children who often get sick and even die from handling this toxic material. Should we take these diseased children into account as part of the cost of driving an electric car? . . . Dam straight . . . we must! The ‘Embedded Costs’ come from Energy use producing those components as well. Embedded Costs also come from environmental destruction, pollution, radiation, disease, child labor, and the inability to recycle those Used Batteries or Wind Turbine Blades or Solar Panels. No Excuses!

Solar Panels, the main problem with them is the Heat and the chemicals needed during processing using the ‘Czochralski Method’ turning all that silicate into the silicon used to make these panels. Producing pure Silicon requires the processing of raw silicate. Including the 1,425o C Heat required to melt the quartz crystals, usually by burning coking coal or gas. The Glass covers are made by heating sand, soda ash and limestone to the incredibly high temperature of 1,700o C with gas. Then they are Re-Heated to 450o for tempering. What about the CO2 going up the chimneys where that quartz or that glass was melted? Then, silica, we use hydrochloric acid, Sulfuric Acid, Nitric Acid, Hydrogen Fluoride, Trichloroethane, and Acetone. Do we recycle that waste? What happens to all the ‘left-overs’ from using these highly toxic chemicals? Solar Panels need gallium-arsenide, copper-indium, gallium-diselenide, and cadmium-telluride. All of which are highly toxic even radioactive. Furthermore, Silicon dust is a hazard to workers where silicone is made and where it used. Oh, and last, the Silicone infused Solar Panels cannot, as yet, be recycled. What happens to all the by-products from making and processing all these chemicals? Furthermore, it has been suggested that the energy input to build solar panels exceeds their energy output in their productive lifetime . . .

Wind Turbines, these are The Ultimate in Embedded Costs and Environmental Destruction. Each one weighs about 1,688 tons (equivalent to 23 houses) and they contain 1,300 tons of concrete and 295 tons of steel for the masts (Concrete and Steel = 15% Global CO2). 3.5 tons of copper, 48 tons of iron, 24 tons of fiberglass Then there are the rare earth minerals . . . 800 lbs. of neodymium-boron per turbine, praseodymium, and dysprosium. The leaching into the environment from tailings ponds, the radiation released into the environment and the mining of these minerals are all Embedded Costs. Where are all the calculations for all of these in The Environmental reports? Each blade weighs 81,000 pounds and will last about 15 to 20 years, then, it must be replaced. Oh, we cannot recycle used blades yet either! That is why we see them lying on the ground at wind farms after they have been replaced. What about the coal burned and electricity used at all the production facilities processing these essential components and the CO2 generated during their production? Somehow is this ‘Green Magic’ without pollution, because it will be used to produce Green Energy? Not likely! It all gets brushed under the ‘Big Green Rug’ and seems irrelevant because ‘It’s for a Good Cause’ . . . Absolutely NOT !!

There may be a place for these technologies in our economy, but first we must look beyond the myth and The Propaganda of the ‘Zero Emissions’ Lies, long before we declare them ’Emissions Free’. EV’s, Wind Farms and Solar Farms will be abandoned, once the full story of ALL the Embedded Environmental Costs for processing, manufacturing, building infrastructure, replacing components and recycling become part of the up-front analysis. We ALL should take a good hard look at what we are being Told is . . . ‘Green Technology’ . . . What are ‘The Embedded Costs’ of Going Green? . . . Sadly, no one ever seems to ask! . . . Why Not? . . . Where are the governments in all of this? . . .

Where is the Media? . . . Where is the Public Outrage?

OK . . . That said . . . Now . . .  What Is Carbon Emissions Trading?

Emissions trading, sometimes referred to as ‘Cap and Trade’ or ‘Allowance Trading’, is an approach to reducing pollution. This system was designed to protect ‘Human Health’ and ‘The Environment’. Emissions trading programs have two key components. 1 . . .  to limit or put a cap on pollution, and, 2 . . . To provide ‘Tradable Allowances’ equal to the limit that authorized ‘Allowance Holders’ can use so they can emit a specific quantity of a pollutant (one ton of CO2). This limit governs how environmental targets, set by governments, can be met. ‘Tradable Allowances’ provide some flexibility for ‘Emissions Generating Companies’ to set their own ‘Compliance Path’ within government guidelines. These ‘Allowances’ can be bought or sold on ’Carbon Allowance Markets’. These programs are referred to as ‘Market-Based Carbon Emissions Trading Exchanges’. The Kyoto Protocol of 1997 and the Paris Agreement of 2015 were International Accords laying out the international CO2 emissions goals. The Paris agreement was ratified by all except six countries. These ‘agreements’ have given rise to all the international Emissions targets and all the regulations supporting them.

With these new regulations in place, the pressure for businesses to find ways to reduce their ‘Carbon Footprint’ has grown. Most of today’s solutions involve the buying and selling of credits on ‘Carbon Markets’. What the carbon markets do is turn CO2 emissions into a commodity by creating a price for CO2 emissions. Emissions fall into one of two categories. Carbon Credits or Carbon Offsets, and they can both be bought or sold on a ‘Carbon Market Trading Exchange’. These ‘Exchanges’ are seen as a simple idea that provide market-based solutions to a complex problems.

What are Carbon Credits and Carbon Offsets?

  

The terms are frequently used interchangeably, but carbon credits and carbon offsets operate on different mechanisms. Carbon Credits, also known as Carbon Allowances, work like ‘Permission Slips’ for Excess Polluters. When a company buys a carbon credit, usually first from the Government then from ‘Carbon Markets’, they gain permission to generate One Ton of CO2 Emissions. With carbon credits, carbon revenue flows vertically from companies to Regulators. Companies who end up with ‘Excess Credits’ like Electric Car companies and Wind Farms or Solar Farms they can sell them to excess polluters for a profit $$$. In today’s market that is about $5.00 per ton.

How are Carbon Credits and Offsets created?

Organizations with operations that reduce the amount of carbon already in the atmosphere, say by planting more trees or investing in renewable energy like Wind Farms, Solar Farms, Bio Fuel or Electric Cars have the ability to issue ‘Carbon Offsets’ ‘in an ‘Open Market’. . . for profit $$$. 

The Offset advantage: New revenue streams

There is one more big advantage of carbon offsets. If you’re the company selling them, they can be a significant revenue stream! The best example of this is Tesla. Yes, that Tesla we all know and love, the electric car maker, who sold Carbon Credits on the ‘Market-Based Carbon Emissions Trading Exchanges’ to the tune of over 2 Billion dollars worth of credits in 2021, about $2,000 per car, because Environmentalists have declared Electric Cars are ‘Emissions Free’ . . . Emissions Free? . . . With what we learned above? . . . is that so . . .?? Really? EV’s cause at least 15% more CO2 to be burned per mile driven, then the manufacturers can sell Carbon Credits worth $2,000 per car. Equal to . . . 400 tons more of extra CO2 . . . per car . . . at today’s prices . . . Interesting?

Herein lies the rub . . .

‘Carbon Allowances’ are A One Trillion Dollar Scam

Carbon Trade is Already Covering the Equivalent of

One Half of World Energy Emissions of $1 Trillion

Intercontinental Exchange Inc. (ICE) has said that trading in ‘Carbon Allowances’ has reached a record volume in 2021 on its various markets — the volume of Buying and Selling reached the equivalent of about one half of ALL global energy emissions. A total of 18 billion tons of ‘Carbon Allowances’ were traded in 2021. Equivalent to an estimated 1 trillion in US dollars. ICE trades by far the biggest market share in the Global market, although other exchanges including the European Energy Exchange (EEX) also handle sizable volumes, as well.

This is a reflection of how companies are using these markets to manage and price their ‘Climate Risk’, as well as meet their ‘Compliance Obligations’. The traded contracts have included a record 15.2 billion tons of EU carbon allowances and a record 2.4 billion tons of California carbon allowances as well as 346 million tons of Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative allowances. Then also, following its launch in May 2021, there is the new 255-million-ton U.K. carbon allowances.

This year ICE will be expanding their Carbon Credit Markets to value and support the preservation of ‘natural assets’, as well as launching their first carbon futures index on contract to provide access to the global cost of emissions in one trading instrument. This from . . . Gordon Bennett, Managing Director of Utility Markets at ICE.

This whole system is a Self-Fulfilling Prophesy . . .A game of Slight of Hand . . .

A Magician’s Trick . . .

Who will stand against this Injustice? . . . Who will go on the Record? . . .

Where is the Media??

The Truth . . . The Environment as a subject is, Explosive! You speak against its Edicts at your Peril. Accept the truth as prescribed from upon high, or suffer the Scorn and the Ridicule among your peers. Not to mention by society as a whole. When that one stone gets overturned proving Collusion and Willful Deception. The un-scientific foundations supporting the Environmental Movement since its inception will render it . . . Null.

 

Sadly, to date, no self-respecting Media Representative wants to risk the Ire of their Peers or the Mandarins ruling the Environmental Movement or The Purveyors of Globalization in our New Social Construct. For they are ‘Brothers-in-Arms’, so to speak. Who wants to be the ONE to open Pandora’s Box? . . . It would be like pulling Hans Brinker’s finger from the Dyke or Killing the Goose that Lays the Golden Egg . . . The old adage . . .      

 

There are none so blind as those who will not see . . .

 

Adamant Naturalist

Jim Le Maistre

Aldergrove BC

Copyright 2022

For More . . .

(PDF) Electric Cars – Burn 31% More Energy than Gas Cars (Revised) | Jim Le Maistre – Academia.edu

(PDF) Tesla Versus Toyota Camry | Jim Le Maistre – Academia.edu

Rich Davis
Reply to  Jim Le Maistre
March 13, 2022 10:00 am

Einstein’s formula, E=MC2, tells us it takes the same amount of energy to move a five-thousand-pound gasoline-powered automobile one mile as it does an Electric Car.

Way tl;dr, but say what?

Steve Case
March 13, 2022 8:13 am

This editorial appeared in Nature last August

Control methane to slow global warming — fast
and in the first few paragraphs says this:

But CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas. The [IPCC] also highlights the problem — and opportunity — posed by methane, which has contributed as much as 0.5 °C of warming since pre-industrial times…

fossil fuels have helped to boost atmospheric methane concentrations, which have more than doubled since pre-industrial times, from around 700 parts per billion by volume to nearly 1,900 ppb in 2020. [an increase of 1200 ppb]
_________________________________________________________

A quick check of
NOAA’s Global Monitoring Laboratory
Global CH4 Monthly Means

Where you will find a nice table of methane’s annual increases since 1984 that average up to 6.7 ppb annually. Over the next 78 years to 2100 that comes to an increase of a little over 500 ppb.

So if methane increases by 1200 ppb, since pre-industrial times and causes only a 0.5°C rise in temperature, how much will a 500 ppb rise by 2100 cause?

If you get something other than ~0.07° C let me know.

There are other ways to arrive at answering the question about how much methane will run up temperatures by the end of the century, and they all produce answers of no more than 0.1°C. And California wants to regulate their cattle industries over this.

Hans Erren
March 13, 2022 8:24 am

Quiz: what does this graph represent?
A World temperature
B Crude oil price
C Covid patients

21FC3C4D-972E-49AC-9AEA-632765147304.jpeg
Steve Case
Reply to  Hans Erren
March 13, 2022 9:41 am

Don’t know, but I’m sure it’s worse than previously thought

Tom Abbott
March 13, 2022 11:23 am

I found this item interesting.

From: Astronomy magazine, October 2021, page 15:

“With its great golden 6.5-meter primary mirror and its suite of cameras and spectrometers, the Webb [telescope] can sense light ranging from the middle of the visible spectrum to the mid-infrared. If there were a bumblebee hovering in space at the distance of the Moon, the Webb could see both the sunlight it reflects and the heat that it emits.”

end excerpt

William Astley
March 13, 2022 11:32 am

The preprint paper linked to below analyzes the most recent UK data and finds the risk of death from taken the RNA vaccines is greater than or equal to, the risk of dying from covid (Omicron) for those under 80 years of age. For children under the age of 18 there is an 51 times greater chance of dying from the RNA vaccines than from Omicron.

Omicron is roughly 1/10 as deadly as the covid Delta variation because it has 32 mutations on the deadly covid spike. The covid first release vaccines force the body to produce the original covid spike which has the original deadly covid biochemistry on the covid spike.

https://www.vixra.org/pdf/2202.0084v1.pdf
 
COVID-19 and All-Cause Mortality Data by Age Group Reveals Risk of COVID Vaccine-Induced Fatality is Equal to or Greater than the Risk of a COVID death for all Age Groups Under 80 Years Old as of 6 February 2022
 
This preprint paper analyzes the US and other countries, RNA vaccine adverse effects data base and finds that it appears the CDC has been under reporting the incidence of deaths caused by RNA vaccination by a factor of 20.
 
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Spiro-Pantazatos/publication/355581860_COVID_vaccination_and_age-stratified_all-cause_mortality_risk/links/6212dae26c472329dcfa0152/COVID-vaccination-and-age-stratified-all-cause-mortality-risk.pdf
 
 
“In June, 2021 the US FDA added a warning to Fact Sheets for Healthcare Providers Administering Vaccines, noting that “reports of adverse events suggest increased risks of myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly following the second dose and with onset of symptoms within a few days after vaccination (1).”
 
Subclinical myocarditis may be a partial explanation for vaccine-induced deaths in men up to age 50 (2,3).

dmacleo
March 13, 2022 11:48 am

winter weather sucks. cannot wait for actual springtime weather.

when you got to use tools to access vehicle door handles it gets old.

thats it.

Derg
Reply to  dmacleo
March 13, 2022 1:32 pm

I read you.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  dmacleo
March 14, 2022 5:03 pm

The other side of that coin is when one lives in Phoenix, it can be painful trying to do car repair outside in the Summer. Sometimes it is necessary to use a rag or glove to open a car door.

There is a joke that you can tell someone who grew up in Phoenix because they will park their car at the far end of the parking lot to take advantage of the shade from a light pole.

kybill
March 13, 2022 1:57 pm

We have had a couple of posts suggesting that the “climate crisis” was financed and pursued for many years by the Russians/Chinese with the intent of destroying the western economy. I believe this.

I would like to offer that the Chinese may be producing/selling fentanyl for the same reasons. I also suggest that the Democrats open border policy is for the same reason.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  kybill
March 14, 2022 5:31 am

I think you are correct on all counts.

joe x
Reply to  kybill
March 14, 2022 6:34 am

agree 100%

paul courtney
Reply to  kybill
March 14, 2022 10:48 am

Mr. kybill: I agree, and the Brandon Admin. is gonna fix these problems by: blaming republicans.

TRM
March 13, 2022 2:06 pm

great article over on substack

https://www.eugyppius.com/p/did-corona-kill-climate-change?s=r

I guess they don’t need the pretend climate scare anymore as we’ve got WW3 as a possibility.

Reply to  TRM
March 13, 2022 3:12 pm

TRM, No, they still have it. Atlantic is warning of the climate problems of a nuclear war. (Pretty sure there are bigger issues if that were to happen)

https://twitter.com/TheAtlantic/status/1502756345509994498?

H.R.
Reply to  TonyG
March 13, 2022 9:04 pm

You’re tellin’ me! I just hate it when there’s a nuclear strike before I’ve had my first cup of coffee. It kinda ruins the whole day.

joe x
Reply to  TRM
March 14, 2022 6:57 am

regarding the russia invasion of ukrain, where the f!!k is the united nations? is not this the place where nations gather to resolve disputes to prevent war? the damage caused by the un is staggering. I for one want that entire organization removed from us sovereign ground. bull dosed flat and a monument erected with words describing its failure and how it was the gathering place of criminals from around the world.

rant over.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  joe x
March 14, 2022 5:06 pm

There is a reason that Trump panned the UN. It is their charter to prevent wars. However, all they do is suck up a lot of money and produce sound bites and reports.

March 13, 2022 2:44 pm

Michael Shellenberger is running for governor of California again:

https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/1503095579479400448

March 13, 2022 5:18 pm

Senator Rand Paul discovered that the gubment spent $450,000 on developing a video game for kids on climate change. Indoctrinate those kiddies…brain wash those kiddies…use the taxpayer’s own money…and borrow money too…to undermine the country….what a good communist kinda activity. He discovered a lot of other government waste too..of course.

gbaikie
March 13, 2022 5:21 pm

The problem with “global warming” is it’s a cargo cult religion.
It’s all wrong [not to mention dumber than bricks].

Global temperature is 3.5 C.
Global temperature is the average temperature of ocean, which is about
3.5 C
https://climatekids.nasa.gov/ocean/
The top few meters of the ocean store as much heat as Earth’s entire atmosphere. So, as the planet warms, it’s the ocean that gets most of the extra energy. More than 90% of the global warming is going into the ocean.”
Non kids:
More than 90 percent of the warming that has happened on Earth over the past 50 years has occurred in the ocean. Recent studies estimate that warming of the upper oceans accounts for about 63 percent of the total increase in the amount of stored heat in the climate system from 1971 to 2010, and warming from 700 meters down to the ocean floor adds about another 30 percent.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-ocean-heat-content

Now, 100% is more than 90%.
It more like 100% but maybe closer to 97% but let’s round it off and call it 100%.
Does it matter if the ocean were to warm from 3.5 C to 4 C.
Yes or no?
The correct answer is yes, it matters a lot.
The next question is how long does it take to warm the ocean by .5 C?
Short time or long time?
Very long time is correct answer.
Does matter if ocean warms by .1 C?
Yes, .1 C increase or decrease of average temperature is very significant.
A problem is with .1 C increase or decrease is we don’t know how warm the ocean is
and we say it is “about” 3.5 C.
What global warming is doing is measuring the ocean average temperature by measuring
a proxy, and this proxy is called the global average surface air temperature.
But what might better than the global average surface air temperature is the global average ocean surface temperature which “about” 17 C.
But it’s arguable that 17 C ocean surface temperature is not a accurate as the average global surface land surface which about 10 C. Which when averaged gives the average global surface air temperature of about 15 C.

What is know by cargo cult religion of global warming is you have measure global average temperature for period of 30 years [some say 17 years] to measure global temperature.
This because it’s a proxy. If you could measure the ocean temperature of about 3.5 C,
then you don’t need 30 years of time. Whatever it is in an instant of time, is the global average temperature.
So, has Earth’s ocean ever been about 4 C. Yes, like clockwork. It the ocean temperature in every peak interglacial period in the last 2 million years.

We live in an Ice Age, called the Late Cenozoic Ice Age, and also called an icehouse global climate. Icehouse = Ice Age. It’s an Ice Age which in going for about 34 million years, and last couple million years has been the coolest during this icehouse climate.
It’s been the coolest because the ocean only warms up to around 4 C, earlier than 2 million years ago, it warmed up to 5 C.
Or said differently the average global air temperature if averaged over 34 million years of our
icehouse climate has average global surface air temperature of about 15 C or warmer, or ocean average temperature of 3.5 C or warmer.
Or for 34 million years we are at the moment at average or a bit colder.

griff
Reply to  gbaikie
March 14, 2022 1:32 am

Make up your own science time again, I see…

gbaikie
Reply to  griff
March 14, 2022 2:00 am
Ben Vorlich
Reply to  gbaikie
March 14, 2022 4:57 am

Don’t worry, that was Griff’s way of saying he doesn’t understand, and his renewables energy company employer hasn’t been able to help

%d bloggers like this: