Open Thread

Open Thread

5 3 votes
Article Rating
118 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Josh
March 20, 2022 10:12 pm

A question I had: Do the IPCC models work as a function of time and CO2 concentration, or as a function of time and CO2 production (or some other things)?

The real question/curiosity is this: I see lots of things challenging the modelling assumptions between CO2 concentration and temperature (e.g. do the models accurately give various feedback loops etc), but nothing about challenging assumptions avout what CO2 production would do to CO2 levels. Would a doubling of CO2 production lead to a doubling of CO2 levels? I doubt it given increased CO2 levels would produce greater plant life which would limit the increase in CO2 levels, but I haven’t read anything saying something like that.

CO2 production is what the politicians are trying to control. What does the IPCC think is the link between CO2 production and CO2 levels, and are those assumptions accurate?

PCman999
Reply to  Josh
March 21, 2022 12:15 am

Along the same lines, I wondered what happens if the world does indeed warm up a bit, especially in the north, such that the annual co2 cycle balances out.
Every year co2 grows in a sawtooth pattern, rising by say 10ppm from about October to April, and then dropping by 8ppm during the growing season (and the effect is even more pronounced in the far north). If the northern growing season increased by an extra month or the amount of land and sea exposed to increased growing conditions grew proportionately, then eventually the co2 would be drawn down.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  PCman999
March 21, 2022 9:53 am

Your analysis is approximately correct. However, taking a longer view, just as with coal, a lot of vegetative matter in the tundra never was decomposed. Now that it is warming, the bacteria and fungi are working year round, with no compensation from photosynthesis during the Winter. I wouldn’t expect equilibrium to be reached until either all the backlog of vegetative detritus is oxidized, or it again gets cold enough in the Winter and Summer to shut down the decomposition activity.

Mark Pawelek
Reply to  PCman999
March 24, 2022 5:38 am

then eventually the co2 would be drawn down

Henry’s Law states the amount of dissolved gas in a liquid is proportional to its partial pressure above the liquid. Consider the “liquid” to be earth’s oceans and “partial pressure above the liquid” to be atmospheric CO2 concentration.

Current mass of carbon in the:
– atmosphere = 875 Gt carbon
– oceans = 38000 Gt carbon 

Henry’s Law states that, over time, the ratio of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere : ocean is fixed. If it rises in the atmosphere, it must rise in the ocean by an equal proportion.

The tricky bit is:
– most of the ocean’s carbon is bicarbonate.
– most of the actual CO2 is close to the ocean surface
– we aren’t sure how much CO2 is in the ocean.
– oceans are stratified into layers and layers don’t mix as well as you’d expect.

The Earth’s oceans cover over 70% of the Earth’s surface with an average depth of about 3,800 metres; hence, there is no practical physical limit to the amount of anthropogenic CO2 that could be placed in the ocean

– IPCC, 2018

Reply to  Josh
March 21, 2022 3:31 am

It must be emissions since they run different emission scenarios. So each models must have a speculative component that turns emissions into concentration.

Josh
Reply to  David Wojick
March 21, 2022 5:04 am

@David Wojick Thanks, that makes sense.
Does anyone know if the assumptions that attempt to link production and concentration have ever been critically examined?

Reply to  Josh
March 21, 2022 5:55 am

They certainly have been criticized in the sense that some scientists argue that the concentration increase is not due, or only partly due, to our emissions. Salby and Berry for example.

The models assume that the increase is entirely due to our emissions. This is clearly a questionable fundamental assumption.

The high emission scenario 8.5 has also been widely criticized as unrealistic.

whiten
Reply to  David Wojick
March 22, 2022 3:10 am

David Wojick

“The models assume that the increase is entirely due to our emissions. This is clearly a questionable fundamental assumption.”
——

The modelers claim or/and imply, via interpretation of the models results, the assumption;
“that the increase is entirely due to our emissions”.

The accumulation of RF warming in models, increases the amount of thermal circulation of the surface-atmosphere in models… over time.
The CO2 emission circulation increases in lock step with the increase of the amount of thermal circulation.

GCM- General Circulation Model.

The “artificial increase” of CO2 emissions scenarios, simply speeds up the model simulation. It is an “artificial” increase of the CO2 emission flux in models.

cheers

Last edited 6 months ago by whiten
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Josh
March 21, 2022 9:58 am

I have written two articles on the topic, which have been in Charles Rotter’s hands since early-February. It seems that a couple of reviewers have recommended against publication — despite a track record of having 13 submissions accepted without change over the last 7 years.

Steve Case
Reply to  Josh
March 21, 2022 4:18 am

Dunno how this fits into your question but, from my file of factoids etc. I ran into this:

Photosynthisis uses about a 1 W/m² on a global global average. It is probably normal for the earth to emit less energy than it receives.

Which reminds me that in 2009 Dr. Trenberth redid his famous heat budget to include [Net absorbed 0.9 W/m²]. I had always assumed he did that because he realized that if the chart balanced, and his original chart did balance, the system wouldn’t warm up.

Also from my file, someone pointed out a while back that: “Greens are keen to restore wetlands. Bogs and marshes are active emitters of methane.”

But they want to regulate the world’s cattle herd to satisfy their lust for power.

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Steve Case
March 21, 2022 6:09 am

Marsh gas, also known as swamp gas or bog gas, is a mixture primarily of Methane and smaller amounts of Hydrogen Sulfide, Carbon Dioxide, and trace phosphine that is produced naturally within some geographical marshes, swamps, and bogs. The Hydro Sulphide a colorless gas known for its pungent “rotten egg” odour at low concentrations.

The Will-O’-The-Wisp is a flame-like phosphorescence caused by gases from decaying plants in marshy areas. Self igniting gas.

Editor
Reply to  Josh
March 21, 2022 5:59 am

On a variety of cheap CO2 meters and measuring in Southern England, Australia and southern France, the readings vary considerably, ranging from 510 to 580ppm. (540ppm today at noon with the garden just beginning to green)

When they are taken at official sites such as Mauna loa the air samples are thoroughly dried to achieve the 418ppm or so.

So in other words water vapour is excluded. In extremely dry areas it may be that the Co2 readings might get towards the official figure. In the real ‘water’ world that is Earth, with humidity/ water vapour, the readings are very much higher.

So are official readings very artificial and we in fact exceeded 418ppm years ago? Beck with his historic chemical methods (much derided) are typically near those of the co2 meters and much higher in forests and crops. Over urban areas-even without industry -co2 readings can vary by 40ppm in hours.

The cheap co2 devices used should not be taken as scientific readings but are approximately accurate.

tonyb

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  tonyb
March 21, 2022 10:04 am

tonyb,
I’m having difficulty understanding why removing WV molecules would reduce CO2 concentration. Could you explain it to me?

Rick C
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
March 21, 2022 10:17 am

CO2 is measured mostly by Non-Dispersive Infrared analyzers. Since water vapor and CO2 have a substantial overlap in the infrared wave lengths, water must be removed from the sample stream to get an accurate reading. Other gases can also produce interference which is usually compensated for in calibration.

joex
Reply to  Rick C
March 21, 2022 1:38 pm

my past experience working for a company that designed and manufactured infra red gas analyzers agrees with your post 100%

bdgwx
Reply to  Rick C
March 21, 2022 2:02 pm

It is my understanding that most NDIR sensors targeting CO2 use the asymmetric stretch vibration at 2349 cm-1 (4.3 um) since H2O has very little interaction in that band. I think that at least mitigates the H2O contamination.

Last edited 6 months ago by bdgwx
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Rick C
March 23, 2022 4:00 pm

Rick,
Thank you for the information. However, it doesn’t answer my basic question of why dehydrating the air would reduce the measured CO2 concentration. Intuitively it seems that without the WV the CO2 would be a larger percentage of all the molecules.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
March 21, 2022 1:43 pm

Being a born and raised Mountaineer, I wondered for a moment what “West Virginia molecules” were, before realizing the poster meant water vapor.

A good lol for a Monday!

Mactoul
Reply to  tonyb
March 21, 2022 10:38 pm

How does that imply that official readings are artificial and cheap CO2 meters that don’t employ the necessary correction are correct?

bdgwx
Reply to  Josh
March 21, 2022 8:29 am

Josh said: “ Do the IPCC models work as a function of time and CO2 concentration, or as a function of time and CO2 production (or some other things)?”

It depends. Different models do different things. There are different kinds of models ranging from radiative transfer, energy budget, paleoclimate, global circulation, etc. I think when you say “models” you are actually referring to the CMIP suite which are carbon, ocean, and atmosphere coupled global circulation models. These use emission based scenarios and let the carbon model component modulate the concentration of CO2, CH4, CFCs, etc.

Josh said: “Would a doubling of CO2 production lead to a doubling of CO2 levels?”

Not necessarily. Production is in units of GtCO2/yr whereas levels are in units of GtCO2. You can double GtCO2/yr for a couple of years and then dramatically reduce it and never reach 2xCO2 levels.

Josh said: “I doubt it given increased CO2 levels would produce greater plant life which would limit the increase in CO2 levels, but I haven’t read anything saying something like that.”

You have the right idea here, but its really complicated. Right now humans pump the equivalent of about 5 ppm/yr into the atmosphere, but the level only increases by 2.5 ppm/yr. What is happening is that some of the excess over pressure gets taken up by the hydrosphere and biosphere. But these uptake processes have constraints both in terms of the rate of the uptake of carbon and the total amount of carbon that can be sequestered. Carbon models current suggest that as the ocean gets warmer and the planet gets greener the sequestration rate will slow down such that the instead having ~50% of our emissions buffered it will decline to 49% then 48% and so on which means the rate of increase in the atmosphere will itself increase. In addition the warming feedback will lead to permafrost melting which will cause an increase in the carbon emission rate further increasing carbon mass in the atmosphere.

Josh said: “What does the IPCC think is the link between CO2 production and CO2 levels, and are those assumptions accurate?”

The link is 1-to-1. If the net flux to the atmosphere is 40 GtCO2 then the mass increases by 40 GtCO2. That is the law of conservation of mass. Yeah, that assumption is pretty solid. It hasn’t failed science yet. The difficulty is figuring out the exact movement of the mass after it makes it into the atmosphere. Some of the human produced mass stays in the atmosphere while some transfers into the biosphere and hydrosphere. About 0.5 GtCO2 of human mass stays in the atmosphere for every 1.0 GtCO2 emitted. Refer to the Global Carbon Project for details.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  bdgwx
March 21, 2022 10:37 am

That is the law of conservation of mass. Yeah, that assumption is pretty solid. It hasn’t failed science yet.

Except that, as usual, the nominal values are presented as being exact and well-characterizing the system. The uncertainties in the measurements are ignored. I did an analysis of that for publication here, but apparently Charles has been brow beaten into not publishing it.

Roy Spencer has remarked, “Global energy balance diagrams you have seen have the numbers massaged based upon the assumption all of the imbalance is due to humans.” [ https://www.drroyspencer.com/ ]
I’m of the opinion that the Carbon Cycle diagrams have similarly been adjusted to ‘confirm’ that human influence is what is controlling the atmospheric CO2 increase. I have diagrams of annual and monthly CO2 flux that demonstrate the anthro’ flux is negligible.

whiten
Reply to  Josh
March 21, 2022 9:51 am

Simply put, as for my understanding;

GCMs do a function of accumulation of radiative “warming”… versus time.

Technically, as far as I can tell,
CO2 production, simply speeds up the model simulation.
In the end of the day, all simulations do 200-220 ppm up from the starting point, regardless of the amount of production CO2 knob… or the CO2 concentration value at the starting point.

cheers

Laws of Nature
Reply to  Josh
March 21, 2022 11:05 am

Well, it seems quite clear that the IPCC “Bern Model” is not the correct answer. So “we don´t know”

F. Engelbeen, W. Eschenbach, A. Olilla and others pointed out that most of any surplus CO2 should “decay” out of the atmosphere within a few decades (an exponential decay with a single time constant somewhere around 60years is one simple model for that)

So with that you end up quickly that not the amount of CO2, but the rate determines the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere.
And of course there is the question if the temporary higher amount changes the equilibrium significantly to cause a permanent different level. As long as the biosphere stays roughly hte same or higher (the world is greening after all) and the sea water temperature stay roughly at current level this seems unlikely.

patrick healy
March 20, 2022 11:01 pm

As today is world poetry day, and as Anthony is a Literature publisher with his recent assay of essays, why not a bit of doggerel?

MODELS
Can we respect the modelers
Who cant recreate the past
Are they just childish toddlers
With out knowledge to forecast
Or are they more malevolent
Out to destroy the world we know
With marxists now more prevalent
Who trade their souls for quid pro quo.

We have seen the global warmists
Whose every forecast has been wrong
Based on computer modeling
The club of Rome and Maurice Strong
Not any forecast has been right
It was never based on science
Just follow where the money goes
Corrupt government alliance.

Now here’s another modeler
Whose advice is to shut us down
We’re going to die from Wuhan Flu
In every city and each town
But who are the ones WHO will prosper
When we recover from this doom
Will it be the West who will revest
No – there will be an Oriental boom.

Patrick Healy

Scissor
Reply to  patrick healy
March 21, 2022 4:51 am

Nice!

The answer, I think most of us know, is that quid pro quo is the way to go.

March 20, 2022 11:15 pm

As a hobby, and as a scientist, but not active in business science for some time now, I have been looking at the ‘climate change’ problem for just over ten years now. I have recently summarized my own findings in this essay:

Who or what turned up the heat? | Bread on the water

I’d like to draw your attention to the fig. 5 in my essay. Everywhere I measured, I find temperatures increasing where it got greener and I actually find a decrease in temperature where they chopped the trees.
I had a brief e-mail exchange with John Christy but it seems to me he is not interested anymore in supporting his own 2006 research…it appears he does not want to talk about it. Maybe he has to toe to another line at the university? I would not know.
 
It seems plausible to me that (more) greenery traps (more) heat on earth. Do you agree with this and could this be a major contributor to global warming, as noted in my report? It would also explain why the NH is warming faster than the SH.
I would be very much interested to know from WUWT your opinions on this question.
I look forward to hearing from you.

Best wishes,

Henry

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  HenryP
March 21, 2022 2:01 am

Is there any change in anything else, albedo for example?

Reply to  Ben Vorlich
March 21, 2022 2:47 am

Ben,
John Christy et al 2006 have it in the explanation of their results that they suspect that it is albedo that changes due to more greenery.. I agree. But their results also suggest thatthere is an exothermic reaction during the night when the CO2 reacts to provide sugars and growth.

Rich Davis
Reply to  HenryP
March 21, 2022 6:03 pm

CO2 does not react at night to provide sugars. Sugars are produced by photosynthesis during the day. At night some of the sugars are consumed and CO2 is emitted. And “burning” sugar as in the human body, is exothermic.

Christina Widmann
Reply to  HenryP
March 21, 2022 2:53 am

Hello! Just shooting from the hip, but – do we know what’s the cause and what’s the effect? Is the greenery trapping more heat or is warmer weather (and with it, a longer growing season) benefitting the plants? Or even both?

Reply to  Christina Widmann
March 21, 2022 8:55 am

Christina
I had also thought of that. But then I would have to find another explanation for the results in Tandil, ARG, where they chopped the trees and it really got cooler.

Rick C
Reply to  Christina Widmann
March 21, 2022 10:29 am

Increasing plant growth (biomass) not only sequesters CO2, at least for a time, it also converts a lot of energy into hydrocarbons that would otherwise result in warming. This may well be much more significant in the oceans than on land. It’s another factor that has a large uncertainty when calculating energy balance.

Scissor
Reply to  HenryP
March 21, 2022 5:16 am

Nice write up!

Water makes all things possible and incredibly complex. Just the energy content air alone can differ by a couple of percent depending on humidity, but clouds and precipitation are really complex as far as predicting climate is concerned. Contrails are part of this certainly.

Art Slartibartfast
March 21, 2022 2:13 am

Climate models are said to fail because they work with too low resolution. The volumes that the earth is divided into cannot resolve local weather patterns. We currently do not have the computational power to model in more detail.

One thing I have been wondering about is testing the skill of the climate models. What if we generated a realistic climate pattern for a limited, but representative geographical area with sea and land at various elevations over a period of say, two centuries, including trace gas concentrations and radiation from the sun. This would be our reference data.

Next, carve this limited area up into small enough blocks that removes the resolution limitation from the models. Run the models in this limited area where the reference data provides the boundary conditions. Then see how well they fare.

I am very curious how well the models would perform in such circumstances. Of course, to evaluate the models properly, you would need to run multiple reference scenarios, covering at least the thirty types of climate identified in literature.

Does anyone know of this type of research having been done before?

tygrus
Reply to  Art Slartibartfast
March 21, 2022 5:16 am

Could we find enough historical data or new collection for a few years as real data? Use all but a grid cube from the data as input, the model has to give the hourly forecast for the grid cube being tested & compared with real data. Can we quantify the accuracy & likely long term error range? Try more locations/cubes, greater volume of unknowns being calculated & compared with real data. If it’s not reliable for a small cube, how could we trust it for modelling whole climate & longer time periods? It’s interesting how much the averaging over time & averaging multiple runs, using floor/ceiling constraints hides the modelling errors.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Art Slartibartfast
March 21, 2022 7:16 am

Yes. It is generically called regional downscaling, and there are two ways to do it. On scales of decades, neither works very well. Google regional downscaling and you will find a number of papers concerning it and it’s problems.

March 21, 2022 3:17 am

This is what happens when you elect the village idiot to be Prime Minister…
… and he becomes a servant of Klaus Schwab and the WEF.

OECD PREDICTS CANADA WILL BE THE WORST PERFORMING ADVANCED ECONOMY OVER THE NEXT DECADE…AND THE THREE DECADES AFTER THAT
David Williams December 14, 2021 – Posted in: Competitive Economy
 
Business Council of British Columbia | OECD predicts Canada will be… (bcbc.com)
 
QUICK SHARE
The OECD predicts Canada can at best achieve real per capita GDP growth of only 0.7 percent per annum over 2020-2030. This places us dead last among advanced countries. via @BizCouncilBC. 
Ottawa’s economic growth strategy rests on four shaky pillars: accommodative monetary policy to support interest-sensitive sectors of the economy like credit, housing investment, and durable goods consumption; expansive fiscal policy guided by short-term “guardrails” and lacking a long-term fiscal anchor; record immigration levels to expand the labour supply; and a national childcare policy to marginally raise GDP through slightly higher labour force participation (page 54 of the federal budget concedes the policy will yield a meagre five hundredths of a percent (0.05%) of extra GDP growth per annum over the next 20 years).
The political class appears to have lost interest in efforts to raise workers’ productivity and real wage growth through higher business investment per worker, faster innovation adoption, and getting the average company to operate at scale.
Was Canada able to grow real incomes over 2007-2020?
A recent OECD report shows the extent to which Canada’s efforts to stimulate demand for interest-sensitive sectors of the economy and boost labour supply growth helped to raise real per capita GDP growth over 2007-2020. As discussed in our previous blog, the short answer is: Ottawa’s policies did not help a whole lot.
Canada’s real GDP per capita grew by 0.8% per annum over 2007-2020, ranking us in the third quartile among advanced countries. In other words, we were towards the back of the pack but not at the very bottom. That’s about to change – and not for the better. Other countries are predicted to move ahead of us in making their economies more productive while Canada’s economy stagnates.
Canada will be the worst performing advanced economy over 2020-2030

Last edited 6 months ago by Allan MacRae
Reply to  Allan MacRae
March 21, 2022 4:48 am

The USA is projected by the OECD to be in the middle of the pack of economic performance – better than Canada but not that good. This is because both our governments are led by incompetents (at best), or more likely traitors who are loyal to foreign interests such as the World Economic Forum – their support of the proven frauds of Climate and Covid have been similar and destructive.
 
The proven facts are that both Climate and Covid are false crises, concocted by wolves to stampede the sheep:
Global warming alarmism is a decades-old scam, exposed as CO2 continues to increase in a currently-cooling world.
The Covid-19 lockdowns and vaccines were never justified – both were proved ineffective and harmful long ago.
 
There is a powerful logic that says no rational person or group could be this stupid for this long. Our governments were advised two decades ago that they were doing wrong on Climate and two years ago that they were doing wrong on Covid, and they proceeded anyway. There is a point, long since past, when willful stupidity and colossal incompetence no longer provide a credible defense.
 
Given our natural resources, our people and our fortunate location in the world, the USA and Canada should lead the world in economic success and standard-of-living. We have been dragged down by leftist elites at home and abroad, traitors who have done us enormous harm and will continue to do so unless we respond in a rational and positive manner to end their sabotage of our society..

Scissor
Reply to  Allan MacRae
March 21, 2022 5:20 am

Unfortunately, electing a village idiot would be a step up for many of us.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Scissor
March 21, 2022 5:48 am

It looks like the village Dictator was elected.

March 21, 2022 3:23 am

Tsunamis may sink West Coast offshore wind

By David Wojick

https://www.cfact.org/2022/03/18/tsunamis-may-sink-west-coast-offshore-wind/

The beginning: “In my last article I raised the concern that East Coast offshore wind machines might not withstand destruction by the hurricanes that frequently run up the coast. Offshore wind design has been developed in Europe, where hurricanes do not occur. This makes their proposed use in places like Virginia very much an untested experiment. See my https://www.cfact.org/2022/03/11/dominions-deception-hits-new-high-with-offshore-wind/.

In the comments someone mentioned tsunamis versus hurricanes. For those not familiar with the term, a tsunami is a big tidal wave caused by an undersea earthquake. I have never heard of tsunamis as a threat to offshore wind installations, so I did a bit of digging. Below is what I found.

Tsunamis are a serious threat to offshore wind machines along the West Coast. This is due to a combination of features. First, there is relatively little continental shelf, so a lot of offshore wind machines will be floating, not standing on the bottom. Second, the threat of tsunamis is very high because the entire West Coast is earthquake country.”

Lots more in the article; please share it.
Show us the engineering!

DonK
Reply to  David Wojick
March 21, 2022 7:01 am

David, I’m in no way shape or form an expert on this, but I seem to recall that the amplitude of tsunami waves in the open ocean is usually surprisingly small — a meter or so. It’s only when they get to shallow water that they build up to great heights. They have very long wavelengths, so there’s a lot of time — many minutes — between the arrival of the low point and the following peak. With the water piling up all that time.

So. Probably not a threat to offshore wind. At least not to the towers in deep water.

But don’t take my word for it. Check on it.

Smart Rock
Reply to  DonK
March 21, 2022 10:06 am

You are correct DonK. There are a lot of videos of the 2011 Japan tsunami out there, and you can see ships out at sea not being affected, while the shoreline is devastated, most particularly in deep bays and estuaries. You can see boats trying to get out to open water where they would presumably be safe, and sometimes they seem to make it. So offshore wind turbines, floating or fixed, would most likely be safe from tsunamis.

Still doesn’t make them a good idea from a business, or environmental perspective. Subsidies and “must take” agreements are the main drivers of these projects. And that includes passing on the costs of backup generation to the end users instead of putting them on the wind farmers where they rightly belong.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  DonK
March 21, 2022 10:21 am

I don’t think the problem is the height of the waves (although that can be a problem too) as much as the power contained in them. As that fast moving water moves by, they had better be anchored well.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  DonK
March 21, 2022 10:43 am

DonK,
Your recollection is correct. All water waves slow down and increase their amplitude as they ‘shallow.’

Reply to  DonK
March 21, 2022 2:33 pm

Thanks to all for enlightening comments. I am just asking for engineering analysis, not taking a position. Show us the engineering!

The long wavelength is interesting. If it exceeds the width of the barge carrying an 800 foot tall machine, that could present a tipping problem that ordinary much bigger but short wavelength waves do not. These monster towers have very heavy generators (each a big spinning magnet) maybe 500 feet up. It would not take much tipping to destabilize them.

It has occurred to me as well that the earthquakes might be a threat to the closer in towers that stand on the ocean floor.

Much to consider.

March 21, 2022 3:26 am

The Covid-19 “vaccines” were proved dangerous and ineffective more than one year ago – more proof that Biden and company are traitors.

US ARMY ANNOUNCES FIRST SEPARATIONS OVER COVID-19 VACCINE REFUSALS
By Jack Phillips  March 20, 2022 

The U.S. Army last week announced the separations of three soldiers who refused to take the COVID-19 vaccine, the first time the military branch has discharged troops over the mandate.

Last edited 6 months ago by Allan MacRae
Thanks WUWT
March 21, 2022 3:46 am

As a huge fan of WUWT and a natural skeptic, I would like to respond to the alarmists and extremists in various publications that I read. Could some of you please recommend what are the best and most important arguments to use for the non-scientists? I understand most of the main facts, but I would like to develop a more cohesive presentation.
Thanks in advance.

John Garrett
Reply to  Thanks WUWT
March 21, 2022 4:33 am

I find these to be rather stark evidence of the near-total lack of warming since the era of satellite-based measurement of global temperatures commenced forty-three (43) years ago in 1979:

comment image
and
http://www.climate4you.com/images/MSU%20UAH%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979%20AndCO2%20NEW.gif

Dr. Ole Humlum’s website contains a trove of climate data:
http://www.climate4you.com/

Scissor
Reply to  John Garrett
March 21, 2022 5:22 am

Other people look at that and see doom.

Josh
Reply to  Thanks WUWT
March 21, 2022 4:59 am

Greenland. That’s what convinced me. Once upon a time, but not so long ago that language didn’t exist, Greenland was green and it didn’t seem to bother anyone. I might then go on to ‘Do you believe the models are accurate, and that the situation is worse than the models predicted and that we need more money for more accurate models?’

Reply to  Thanks WUWT
March 21, 2022 5:17 am
TonyL
Reply to  Thanks WUWT
March 21, 2022 5:30 am

Jo Nova has a fantastic resource *especially* for the skeptical non-scientist.
If you get into an argument, Jo Nova shows you how to Win.

The Skeptics Handbook I and Skeptics Handbook II.
Get them both, you can not go wrong.
Link here:
https://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/

paul courtney
Reply to  TonyL
March 21, 2022 5:46 pm

Mr. L: Thanks, that is WAY better (and shorter) than the answer I was conjuring.

John Garrett
Reply to  Thanks WUWT
March 21, 2022 5:59 am

Do you really believe that Russian temperature records from, say, 1915-1950 are reliable?

You don’t really expect a rational person to believe that people were making accurate daily observations all over Russia during the Revolution or during the Sieges of Stalingrad and Leningrad or in Ukraine during the famine or all over Siberia?

Do you honestly believe that Chinese temperature records from, say, 1913-1980 are reliable?    

Do you really expect anybody to believe that accurate daily temperatures were recorded in China during the Revolution or “The Great Leap Forward?”

Do you seriously believe that Sub-Saharan African temperatures from, say 1850-1975 are accurate?

Please don’t tell us you think accurate daily temperature recordings were made in Sub-Saharan Africa during any part of the 19th century and most of the 20th.

Do you really believe that oceanic temperatures from, say 1800-1970 are accurate? ( as we know, the oceans cover 70% of the earth’s surface).

Do you really believe there were accurate daily temperature observations made in the Bering Sea or the Weddell Sea or in the middle of the Pacific at any time before the advent of satellite observations in 1979?

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  John Garrett
March 21, 2022 7:31 am

“Do you really believe that Russian temperature records from, say, 1915-1950 are reliable?”

Have wondered about this myself. Along with the huge number of prisoners sent east to the gulags by Lenin and Stalin, there would necessarily have been a large number of guards and their families. Given the harsh weather conditions, and the general shortages of food and fuel under communism, I wouldn’t be surprised if the ‘official’ temperature recordings from the camps weren’t biased downwards to support requests for more supplies.

Mr.
Reply to  John Garrett
March 21, 2022 7:47 am

No.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Thanks WUWT
March 21, 2022 10:27 am

Part of the problem is all the averaging. What ends up happening is that the “mean” must occur everywhere. In other words if you multiply the mean by the number of stations, you end up with the sum you started with. You never see the standard distribution associated with the mean so you can have an idea how much spread there is with the data.

Jerry Harben
Reply to  Thanks WUWT
March 21, 2022 5:19 pm

“Humans do not control the climate” is a good opening sentence that should resonate with people’s daily observations and common sense.

Ireneusz Palmowski
March 21, 2022 4:06 am

“Validity 221200Z – 231200Z

  …THERE IS A MODERATE RISK OF SEVERE THUNDERSTORMS FROM PARTS OF
  SOUTH AND EAST LOUISIANA TO SOUTH AND CENTRAL
  MISSISSIPPI…

  …SUMMARY…
  Regional outbreak of severe thunderstorms – including the potential for
  significant/destructive tornadoes – is still evident over the Valley
  Mississippi Valley / central Gulf Coast on Tuesday.”
Below, the circulation in the upper troposphere.comment image
https://www.spc.noaa.gov/products/outlook/day2otlk.html

Last edited 6 months ago by Ireneusz Palmowski
Ireneusz Palmowski
Reply to  Ireneusz Palmowski
March 21, 2022 11:21 am

Severe frontal thunderstorms in Oklahoma.comment image

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Ireneusz Palmowski
March 22, 2022 3:56 am

We got a good rain out of this front. Not much severe weather. The severe weather is east of Oklahoma.

John Garrett
March 21, 2022 4:49 am

To: David Folkenflik, NPR Management and NPR news editors
Subject: Associated Press acceptance of bribes

NPR has steadfastly ignored the Associated Press’ admission that it has accepted bribes in exchange for producing climate propaganda.

Not only has NPR ignored this bald-faced admission of corruption by the AP, NPR continues to use the Associated Press as a source of reports on climate. That behavior is, of course, tantamount to an admission by NPR of its own corruption, deceit and dishonesty.

https://apnews.com/article/science-business-arts-and-entertainment-journalism-united-states-087d1d5dd7189c529fe5d7a21a1ffb5f

kybill
March 21, 2022 5:20 am

Some of our more vocal television hosts have said that our countries leadership hates America and the common Americans. I have reached the conclusion that I agree with them. Climate change is an excellent example – the people in Congress are not dumb, they know that climate change is not an existential threat. Why do they continue – they hate America! Why do our leaders open our borders thus reducing our standard of living? I believe they hate us. Why do our leaders continue to let the tech monopolies strangle free speech and thought? They hate us – we are a danger to the elite and powerful.

It is 7:30 am here and they have already got my blood boiling.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  kybill
March 21, 2022 5:57 am

“Climate change is an excellent example – the people in Congress are not dumb, they know that climate change is not an existential threat. Why do they continue”

It’s all about getting political power. The Left/Alarmists are creating a CO2 crisis in order to take advantage of the power it gives them over others.

They don’t necessarily hate you, they just want to control you.

leowaj
Reply to  kybill
March 21, 2022 6:38 am

Like Tom said, it’s all about power. When a person gets to a position of power, what do they want more than anything else? More power. Politicians get their power from the people. Take Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U.S. House, as a recent example. When the whole debacle about insider trading caught the (brief) attention of the media, she retreated for a moment and, when pressed, tiredly admitted that it’s wrong. Why did she behave that way? Because she (and/or her husband) have made fortunes from insider trading and have gotten away with it because of their power.

The same is true of climate change. It is a weapon to keep crooked scientists and bureaucrats in positions of power and privilege.

In one sense, the pedophile philosopher Michel Foucault was right: power is everything.

Last edited 6 months ago by leowaj
Frank from NoVA
Reply to  leowaj
March 21, 2022 7:35 am

“Take Nancy Pelosi…”

Please!!! (ba da boom)

Richard Page
Reply to  kybill
March 21, 2022 9:24 am

They don’t hate all Americans. Just the ones that voted the wrong guy into office a few years ago – those are the ones they have identified as dangerous subversives!

Willem Post
Reply to  Richard Page
March 21, 2022 12:44 pm

The despicables, all 80 million of them?

H.R.
March 21, 2022 5:59 am

In general, EVs are powered by the mix of coal, hydro, wind, solar, etc. that we’ve all seen posted here as pie charts of the various sources. Solar and wind are a small part of the mix. Coal is a major player. We make jokes about coal powered cars (EVs).

Sooooo… since EVs don’t stop at the fuel pump, perhaps it would be informative to work up a figure of miles/ton of coal or miles/ton of fossil fuel (FF) to compare to the gas or diesel miles/gallon figure that’s used for ICEs.**

Right off, one might think that miles/tonFF for EVs would be better because you get to subtract 5% or so for wind and solar and a bit for nuclear and hydro. But then there are the transmission and other losses getting the electricity to the charging station.

It’s hard to say what the number would be. I’m thinking that it’s like the EPA estimated milage stickers on the new car windows on the dealers’ lot, which always include the caveat ‘YMMV’.

I know I’ve seen examples here on WUWT comparing the energy in a tank of gas to the energy in a battery, but the number I’m thinking of is a bit different.


All that said, IMO, it’s actually a waste of time to figure out such a number because someone is probably tinkering in their garage right now with a Mr. Fusion sort of power source, and the EV vs ICE argument will all go away at some point. Or in a couple of years, we’ll all be walking around barefoot. In either case, the argument will go away.

But it would be a fun number to have handy to point to for the EV owners who think their cars are not powered by fossil fuels. “You’re getting X miles per ton of coal.”



**I’m U.S. and fuel efficiency is always talked about in terms of miles per gallon. So I used that. Of course the number could easily be converted to its metric equivalent.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  H.R.
March 21, 2022 12:05 pm

On the rear of every Nissan Lean it says “ZERO EMISSION”…oh yeah…

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
March 22, 2022 7:28 am

Volvo recently said that building an EV produces 70% more CO2 emissions than building an ICEV. Batteries are the main reason but they took everything into account back to when the raw materials were extracted and processed.

Some reports said it would take 4 years of driving before the EV became ‘cleaner’ than an ICEV but others saying the break even point using the average electric grid was after 109,918kms whereas using only unreliables electricity it would be 48,280kms.

One report said if you saw yourself only using the EV for mostly city driving then a good ICEV might still be the wiser choice until they figure out how to make the battery manufacture less CO2 intensive.

Janice Moore
March 21, 2022 6:11 am

About 2 weeks ago, Anthony told us that he would be publishing the winning essays (1st and 2nd place
in both categories and, then, all the entries in the weeks to come).

I have only seen the 2 professional scientist essays.

Did I miss the 2 non-scientist essays? Would someone please link to them, if so.

Also, have any of the non-winning essays been published? Phil Salmon and I each wrote one…..

Looking forward to reading them all.

Last edited 6 months ago by Janice Moore
H.R.
Reply to  Janice Moore
March 21, 2022 6:36 am

Minutes before you posted this, Janice, another winning essay appeared; 14 minutes difference. How spooky is that?

(The appearance of posts and comments to readers here all depend on how often the pages are refreshed. You were reading while the essay was being posted.)

Full service blog, eh?😁

Janice Moore
Reply to  H.R.
March 21, 2022 4:00 pm

Thank you, H.R., for letting me know. 14… “spooky,” indeed…

Well. Have lots of fun hiring and firing (your name always makes me think, “Human Resources”).

🙂

Marcus
Reply to  Janice Moore
March 21, 2022 9:45 am

Janice, if you sign up to recieve WUWT emails you will see the next post at least 15 minutes faster than from WUWT home page..You missed it by that much !! : )

Last edited 6 months ago by Marcus
peter schell
March 21, 2022 7:05 am

Just read over on Breitbart that Belgium has backtracked on mothballing their nuclear plants by 2025. They now intend to extend the life of their two plants by at least a decade, and they are said to be examining small modular reactors with the intention of possibly expanding their supply of Nuclear.

Nothing like having the tap turned off to get people to rethink their virtue signalling

Bruce Cobb
March 21, 2022 7:10 am

The Senate in their “wisdom” has now passed the “Sunshine Protection Act”, and kicked it to the House, where it will most likely die, as it should. They apparently forgot that having DST permanent was tried in ’74, and it failed. When days are longer, having an extra hour of daylight at the end of the day is great, and mornings are getting lighter anyway, so less daylight in the morning is easier to take. But that all changes in the winter months.
People generally hate the twice-yearly ritual of clock-changing, and studies show that it can have negative effects on health. Since DST, no matter what “clever” new name they give it doesn’t do what it was originally intended to, which is save energy, the default, and the logical thing to do is to simply go back to Standard Time permanently. But I guess it would be better waiting for pigs to sprout wings than for that to happen.

skiman
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
March 21, 2022 9:56 am

Why they want to keep DST is troubling. Standard time is standard for a reason — the planet! Going to work in the winter AM is problematic most days, doing it in the dark even more so. I believe the data says more accidents. Folks have to get to work on time, not so much going home, many even stay late to avoid the rush hours.

Dave Fair
Reply to  skiman
March 21, 2022 3:39 pm

What if people, no matter the clock, organized their time collectively as benefited the majority? Why should centralized politics and bureaucracy determine that? The fact that both 1% of the population (farmers) or parents of school-aged children (as determined by the media) are “concerned” about any particular time scheme means nothing in the real world. Socialist politics is killing us.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
March 21, 2022 10:49 am

I think one of the more emotional issues is having kids waiting in the dark for the school bus. One solution would be to just have school start an hour later.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
March 21, 2022 3:42 pm

Clyde, I initially up-voted your comment. Upon reflection, varying the time of school opening and closing has the same pernicious impacts as changing the clocks twice per year. What are individual parents to do in the face of changing school hours?

John Dilks
Reply to  Dave Fair
March 21, 2022 7:04 pm

Don’t change the school hours twice a year, just change them once and leave it alone.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Dave Fair
March 23, 2022 4:06 pm

Most children don’t go to school in the Summer. So, the solution is to just have kids go to school an hour later than office workers. Today, most employers are more flexible in their hours and where the employee works, so probably arrangements could be made for parents with young children to come into work later.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
March 21, 2022 3:30 pm

Jesus, people! Changing your time twice per year is insanity. It doesn’t matter if it is Standard or Daylight Savings, pick one and get over it. Mental masturbation is the official game of the internet.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Dave Fair
March 21, 2022 6:23 pm

Pick one. I hate time changes.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 21, 2022 7:00 pm

My pick would be about as valid as yours. Hey, pick the half-hour and split the difference. It is about as important as the latest picture of Paris Hilton’s crotch.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Dave Fair
March 23, 2022 4:08 pm

Are you aware that the sun rises an hour earlier on the east side of a time zone than it does on the west side?

leitmotif
March 21, 2022 7:49 am

Ukraine war threatens global heating goals, warns UN chief
António Guterres says countries seeking alternatives to Russian energy may increase use of fossil fuels

The war in Ukraine risks putting global targets on the climate out of reach, the UN secretary general has warned, if countries respond to Russia’s aggression by increasing their use of fossil fuels.

Guterres warned: “If we continue with more of the same, we can kiss 1.5C goodbye. Even 2C may be out of reach. That would be catastrophe.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/mar/21/ukraine-war-threatens-global-heating-goals-warns-un-chief

Climate Alarmist’s Handbook, ch 2, para 3.4

“Never let a real crisis go to waste.”

willem post
Reply to  leitmotif
March 21, 2022 10:33 am

The Ukraine war threaten a lot of a things and people

SHOCKING Reports Ukrainian Nazi Azov Battalion Setting Up Offensive Positions in Civilian Areas and Using Women and Children as “Human Shields” (VIDEOS)

By Julian Conradson 
Published March 20, 2022 at 6:10pm
1476 Comments

THIS ARTICLE HAS SEVERAL VIDEOS, WHICH I COULD NOT DISPLAY HERE
IF YOU CLICK ON THE URL YOU CAN VIEW THEM 
THEY RELATE AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT STORY, THAN THE MEDIA

The AZOV lovelies were forced people into their basements while fighting went on above them. If they tried to escape, they were shot.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/03/shocking-citizens-claim-ukrainian-nazi-azov-battalion-setting-offensive-positions-civilian-areas-using-women-children-human-shields-videos/

Dave Fair
Reply to  willem post
March 21, 2022 3:45 pm

Willem, WTF! Propaganda has no place at WUWT. “Nazi Azov Battalion?!?”

Tom Abbott
Reply to  leitmotif
March 21, 2022 6:28 pm

“The war in Ukraine risks putting global targets on the climate out of reach”

The targets are already out of reach. China and India are increasing their output of CO2. If Europeans and the U.S. and Australia decrease their CO2 output, it will make no difference.

This train has left the station.

The good news is CO2 may be increasing, but temperatures are cooling. How does Guterres explain that?

Richard M
March 21, 2022 7:57 am

I’ve been posting occasional comments related to some investigational work I have done. Thought I would repeat it here hoping I could get more comments. The net effect of what I found is that warming from increased CO2 is extremely limited.

CO2 has two ways of warming according to climate science,
1) Absorbing surface IR energy in the atmosphere and
2) raising the effective emission height to a colder part of the atmosphere which would reduce outgoing energy.

In the early 1990s Dr. Heinz Hug demonstrated that all the CO2 relevant surface IR energy is already being absorbed. There’s no more available to produce any warming. Called the saturation effect, it was pooh-poohed by the climate field as true but irrelevant due to point 2) which they claimed was the important way CO2 emissions warmed the planet.

In 2010 Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi completed a set of papers based on 60 years of NOAA data demonstrating that CO2 emissions cannot raise the emission height because the the optical thickness is a constant. The basis of the paper is a 200+ year old finding called Radiation Exchange Equilibrium (REE).

https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/E&E_21_4_2010_08-miskolczi.pdf

The paper itself was never refuted but was ignored because the data used was not considered to be of high quality. However, what has never come to light is that REE all by itself locks the atmosphere into constant CO2 emission height. The overall optical thickness, though interesting, is irrelevant. The discussion starts on Page 6 and the data examined agrees with REE.

Once this is known then all the papers which compute climate sensitivity based on downwelling IR are wrong. That includes the W/H paper many skeptics like to quote.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/09/21/the-greenhouse-effect-a-summary-of-wijngaarden-and-happer/

You cannot look at downwelling IR by itself because REE tells us the increases in downwelling IR must be met with identical increases in upwelling IR.

Unfortunately, many skeptics still believe the changing “emission height” fallacy. It seems to me we need to educate everyone as to why REE is valid and how it completely falsifies any warming from changes to the emission height. The message needs to get wide exposure.

JCM
Reply to  Richard M
March 21, 2022 9:15 am

You cannot look at downwelling IR by itself because REE tells us the increases in downwelling IR must be met with identical increases in upwelling IR

Yes, but you can increase the IR budget at the surface despite no apparent change in atmospheric opacity. Do this by changing surface temperature.

Net surface LW flux = 0 = L↑ – L

L is proportional to surface temperature. L is surface IR budget; where net flux = zero.

Perhaps OLR is 2/3 surface budget L, and invariable. The opacity is a scaling factor of surface radiated energy.

So we must return to a variable widely ignored, or misunderstood, called surface temperature.

The value of L (the IR surface budget; surface radiated energy), is higher at higher temperature by some factor of T^4, despite net LW surface radiation flux = 0.

Change surface temperature (the surface IR budget L) by changing Net Solar input, and/or total surface heat flux (sensible and latent heat loss).

Both net solar and surface heat flux are, for the most part, controlled by the hydrological water cycle, including phase changes, cloud, and latent/sensible heat ratio (Bowen ratio), surface moisture, precipitable water, and most importantly, precipitation nuclei.

Infinitely complex, and most certainly influenced by surface biogeochemical properties. Some might be surprised by humanity’s ability to change total surface flux properties, or the surface energy budget, or the surface temperature.

It has not yet occurred to many that the greenhouse scaling factor, opacity, can be stable and stationary, despite a changing surface temperature.

It may also surprise people that human activity can influence the enormous power of the water cycle, or the ability of the surface to cool, and thus the apparent surface IR budget. The water cycle is the primary control of pressure dynamics, and we can quickly see that clearing the land, draining the soil, and creating massive high pressure cells over continents might impact surface temperature.

Richard M
Reply to  JCM
March 21, 2022 9:28 am

Agreed. My focus has been on the CO2 driven part of the surface flux. As Dr. Heinz Hug found out, all the CO2 IR flux from the surface is absorbed within 10 meters. This means the CO2 band upward IR is not from the surface, but rather from CO2 molecules in the boundary layer being energized via kinetic collisions.

From there all it takes is applying REE to every atmospheric layer as you rise through the atmosphere to see that the CO2 portion of OLR emissions is proportionally constant and the emission height is a fixed value.

JCM
Reply to  Richard M
March 21, 2022 9:31 am

Yes, most evidence suggests the average optical IR properties of the atmosphere can be negated. Yet, regional climates can change, and humanity can certainly have a large influence.

Until the mechanisms are adequately described we will continue to toss $trillions at an illusionary solution.

Repeatedly pointing out that greenhouse gas concentration has no impact will convince no-one until the true mechanisms of change are identified. The change is most certainly a combination of natural factors of net solar radiation and oceanic circulation, + human factors of surface heat flux (or the ability of the land to cool).

Last edited 6 months ago by JCM
JCM
Reply to  Richard M
March 21, 2022 10:00 am

By my calculations, a mere 2 C increase of average land surface temperature, by stefan boltzmann, results in 4Wm-2 extra surface LW budget to the system globally.

Build some cities there, clear forests over there, desertify the soil here, it’s easy to get to this value. You reduce soil moisture, you reduce latent heat flux aloft, you eliminate hygroscopic precipitation nuclei, you create a humid haze of stagnant microdrops. The surface gets warmer, you see, when you change surface properties.

Everyone looking up at the sky and playing around with radiation calculations will never describe the Earth system. They will only discover what is NOT happening.

We live on the BLUE planet, a biosphere. It is water, biota, and earth. Back to basics, I suggest, for us all.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Richard M
March 21, 2022 3:52 pm

God, I love novel maths!

Dave Fair
Reply to  Richard M
March 21, 2022 3:48 pm

“Optical thickness is constant.” Oh, Christ; a 200 year old finding.

Richard M
Reply to  Dave Fair
March 21, 2022 5:59 pm

No, the REE.

Prevost, P., Mémoire sur l’équilibre du feu, Journal de Physique, 1791, 30, 314–323.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Richard M
March 21, 2022 6:55 pm

And a translation of a 16th Century paper?

Donna K. Becker
March 21, 2022 10:36 am

Michael Mann is scheduled to speak in Bend, Oregon on March 31. I’m hoping to find something in print (perhaps 1 – 2 pages) that’s simple to understand and that doesn’t amount to mere ad hominem arguments to oppose his stance on AGW.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Donna K. Becker
March 21, 2022 3:55 pm

Look for quotes from:

“The Hockey Stick Illusion” by Andrew Montford
“Blowing Smoke” by Rud Istvan
“A Disgrace to the Profession” by Mark Stein

Laws of Nature
March 21, 2022 10:55 am

I wonder if there is any published peer reviewed scientific response to R. McKitrick´s find of last year:
https://judithcurry.com/2021/08/18/the-ipccs-attribution-methodology-is-fundamentally-flawed/
(he links to the scientific publication in this text and there is also a youtube video by him with a simplified explanation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjxFeh5SUt0)

Almost a year later his result astonishes me almost as much as the absence of any rebuttal I can find.
His paper called climate attribution in general in question and there is not much left in climate science without it. (Tehre is still the 1°C direct effect for a CO2 doubling, but as any lukewarmer will tell you that should not be a problem and we already have seen most of that)

Dave Fair
Reply to  Laws of Nature
March 21, 2022 6:57 pm

CliSciFi ignores contrary science. Therefore, attribution is verified by science.

Laws of Nature
Reply to  Dave Fair
March 22, 2022 8:37 am

>> CliSciFi ignores contrary science.

Only if we let them . .

I believe a similar thing happened to McShane and Wyner in 2010 (their work, the discussion around it and their rejoinder is a very worthwhile read IMHO)
https://www.jstor.org/stable/i23024199?refreqid=excelsior%3Acf5459e200bab83bfbb5000ff0e8e859

One of their points (beside pointing out numerous errors from the opposers) is that the proxy selection produces unknown and unconsidered uncertainty for the following temperature reconstruction.

I consider both of these papers fundamental to the climate discussion if there ever is one.
How can proxies be used if the reconstruction does not account for all uncertainty?
How can models be used if the attribution is potentially flawed on a fundamental level?

Timothy R Robinson
March 21, 2022 11:19 am

If we heat up the atmosphere, will not that expand it, and the soil and water on earth? If the atmosphere expands will the molecules be farther apart allowing more rays to pass out of it?

larry brown
March 21, 2022 2:26 pm

Just wanted to thank wattsupwiththat – Anthony and Rotter et.al. – for sticking to your guns. It is terribly tiresome to continuously read about the global warming crisis – which does not exist – but if you say something enough times it becomes true. Hang in there – please. We badly need you to stay with the real science – and keep staying with it. They are wearing me down – I just hope they are not wearing you down too.

Ireneusz Palmowski
March 22, 2022 12:12 am

Severe thunderstorms on the cold front in Texas and Arkansas.
https://www.blitzortung.org/en/historical_maps.php?map=30

Ireneusz Palmowski
March 22, 2022 2:08 am
tom hewitt
March 22, 2022 9:01 am

Maybe I missed something but isn’t it a fact that the molecules that make up the now-banned refrigerants, CFCs and HCFCs, are much heavier than almost any other gaseous molecules. If this is true, and it is, how do they migrate to the stratosphere where they perform their evil work of decomposing and eating ozone molecules? If this occurs why hasn’t the use of chlorine itself, an element used to sanitize swimming pools all over the world, food production and packaging equipment and general cleaning, been subjected to the same restrictions?

Mark Pawelek
Reply to  tom hewitt
March 24, 2022 6:04 am

Checkout the book: The Holes in the Ozone Scare: The Scientific Evidence That the Sky Isn’t Falling, by Rogelio A. Maduro, 1992.

Mark Pawelek
Reply to  tom hewitt
March 24, 2022 6:14 am

In their 1992 book Maduro and Schauerhammer comprehensively debunk the ozone scare. Man-made emissions of CFCs are tiny in comparison with emissions of ozone destroying chemicals from volcanoes and oceans. There’s a 1000 : 1 ratio in natural ocean-emitted chlorine : man-made CFC, and about a 50 : 1 ration of natural volcano-emitted chlorine : man-made CHC Chlorine. It was never the man.

Neo
March 22, 2022 5:44 pm

Maher blasted the “Orwellian,” “Kafkaeque,” and “very strange” regulation strangling his solar power installation. The whole project took him 1,131 days to get installed and ready to power his home.

“The hoops you had to jump through to do something that the state was advising you to do. Solar power was something I thought I was being a good citizen trying to hook up,” Maher said.

Ireneusz Palmowski
March 23, 2022 12:31 am

The polar vortex in the lower stratosphere is completely broken up (another SSW), which will release Arctic air masses.comment image

Ireneusz Palmowski
March 23, 2022 12:33 am

Galactic radiation is increasing again, indicating a weak solar wind.comment image

%d bloggers like this: