but I do not understand why this is not more common.
Using a regularly spaced Latitude presentation distorts things as badly as a Mercator projection does which means that the Poles are considerably over represented.
Bob,
3 days ago, I was out fishing on the Gulf Intercoastal and an osprey made a dive and catch about 4 or 5 feet from where I was standing.
I’ve never seen them come so close to people, the ‘people’ in this case being me. All I can figure is that in this bird’s territory, it learned that people don’t seem to be interested in messing with them, so they are free to go about their business.
This lists bald eagle populations for each state.
Unfortunately, it doesn’t have a map. Have any of you
found a map of recent populations? The latest I could
find was 2007. Thanks.
https://wildlifeinformer.com/bald-eagle-population-by-state/
This lists bald eagle populations for each state.
Unfortunately, it doesn’t have a map. Have any of you
found a map of recent populations? The latest I could
find was 2007. Thanks.
I was a young teen the first time I saw one “in the wild”. Dad took on a camping/fishing/canoe trip north of Ely Minnesota. It was on or near the Canadian border I saw it.
The next time was at work about 15 to 20 years ago at work. I saw at least one or two a year every year since then. Sometimes they’d hang around for up to a month.
Sounds like they simply forgot to buy a license from the federal government. An apparently easily obtainable license, because all that is green is sacred.
Also regarding wind turbines, a report that reiterates how wind turbine blades are not recyclable. Instead, they have to be cut up and buried in landfills. See the image in the link below.
“A wind turbine’s blades can be longer than a Boeing 747 wing, so at the end of their lifespan they can’t just be hauled away. First, you need to saw through the lissome fiberglass using a diamond-encrusted industrial saw to create three pieces small enough to be strapped to a tractor-trailer.
The municipal landfill in Casper, Wyoming, is the final resting place of 870 blades whose days making renewable energy have come to end. The severed fragments look like bleached whale bones nestled against one another.”
Coupled with the report of the wind turbine company that was fined for the 150 bald eagles they killed, the rationale for this contraptions is non-existant. But yet, the persist.
CD: I read about this blade disposal issue recently. What struck me was a comment by the disposal company that most of the blades were 8 to 12 years old. It appears the claim of 20+ year life span of wind turbines is just another green fantasy.
Any fan of the UK hit comedy “Only Fools and Horses” will tell you of Triggers broom; he’s had the same broom for 20 years, with 17 new heads and 14 new handles!
Rick, if the turbines indeed only last for 8-12 years, I find it difficult to believe that they produce more electrical energy in their lifetimes than the energy it took to mine the raw materials, manufacture and install them on site–not to mention the CO2 the cement base puts out as well.
One of the windmills up on the Ledge E of Lake Winebago is on a
relative’s farm & was built in the mid Oughties. This was before
fracking ruled, cutting oil prices a lot. They also had a peak natty
gas meeting in 2003 making it sound like we were running out of
fossil fuels. It turned out John Fredriksen, a Norwegian billionaire
(with NAT) had bought ~4M bbl of WTI which he kept @ Cushing,
OK pushing WTI to >$140 & gas >$4. (2002 gas <$1). Wind was
actually a viable alternative, as was solar, as a society needs
electricity to exist. With fracking, that’s no longer true!
” Also regarding wind turbines, a report that reiterates how wind turbine blades are not recyclable. Instead, they have to be cut up and buried in landfills. See the image in the link below. ”
Sorry, this might have happened in the US.
In Europe, these – indeed not recyclable – blades are since longer time accepted with open arms by the cement industry as a replacement for more expensive heating sources.
*
150 killed bald eagles are 150 too much. That’s evident.
But all the people putting that in front deliberately ignore that e.g. the US lost during the last decades billions of partly very endangered birds due to
glass windows (real estate, cars, trains)
cats
high voltage power lines
pesticides
etc etc.
Are birds worthless just because they’re not the nation’s heraldic animal?
Bindidon appears to be close but not spot on. There have been reports that some of the reinforced concrete in the HS2 build is using bits of cut up turbine blades instead of steel rebar in the construction. There is a single cement factory in Germany that is using ash from burnt turbine blades for cement but it is burning the blades mostly with fossil fuels – no idea how they are handling toxic chemicals that may be emitted though.
In Europe, these – indeed not recyclable – blades are since longer time accepted with open arms by the cement industry as a replacement for more expensive heating sources.
Those blades are fiberglass, are they not? Do they not emit toxic pollutants when they are burned for heat? Does Europe’s cement industry have sufficient pollution controls to prevent the pollutants from entering the atmosphere?
But all the people putting that in front deliberately ignore that e.g. the US lost during the last decades billions of partly very endangered birds due to….
Billions of birds Bindiron? Billions? Please provide the source for that number. Depending on the species you are talking about, it seems to me that if we in the U.S. had killed that many birds we would not have many left (if any).
But I agree with you that all species of birds have value in nature, and we should minimize the threats to all of them. That is why wind turbines should go.
Monte – cement kilns operate at high enough temperatures that everything organic breaks down into CO2 and other non-pollutants. Cement kilns are where PCBs go to be burned.
Smart Rock, thanks for the info. I didn’t know how hot cement kilns could be. Sounds like a good way to dispose of the blades here in the U.S. instead of burying them in landfills.
So are you for or against windmills? Or is it your logic that since cities and vehicles kill, then we should shut those down along with windmills? Or because it happens with “A” we should allow it with “B” too? I’m sure sure stealthy quiet EVs will kill even more birds.
Turning off high rise lights have apparently reduced city bird kills at night, so a little thought plays well. One could fine the building owner for kills, so that he turns high rise lights out. Regarding auto bird kills, a little thought experiment should calm your concern. Think back: how many birds have you killed with your car in the last, say, 30 years. There you go.
In the 1960s, working in Nigeria, my Landover driver hit a large bird on a rural roadway. We had an ugly big roofrack that surprised the bird think. The driver retrieved the bird and threw it in the back. It was Ramadan and this became meat for the table after sunset for him and friends. I suppose if we ate the birds done in by our activities their would less of a moral issue.
Saying that windmills shouldn’t be called out as bird killers because other things kill more birds is like saying the press shouldn’t make a big thing over the Sacramento killers killing 6 people because Jeffery Dahmer killed 17.
High voltage power lines were an issue with large birds out west some years ago. They liked to land on the top of the towers. Then when they spread their wings to take off again the wing tips came close enough to the lines to complete the circuit.
(The “insulation” on high-voltage lines is only to protect the metal conductor from the elements.)
Then someone thought to put a perch on top of the high voltage towers for them to land on. No longer a problem.
Surely, there must be some possible uses a smart person could think of for waste W turbine blades. They look like fence posts in the picture all nicely cut up. They seem suitable for the border wall.
I’ve read of obsolete ships being sunk to make artificial reefs. Why not sink the things for the same purpose?
Maybe they’ll finally serve a useful purpose?
NPR ran their usual “blame DDT” meme on low eagle population in the past.
Steve Milloy’s JunkScience gives information on DDT. A low calcium diet (fish
fillets vs whole fish) was a major contributor not DDT. Every grade school
kid back then knew you always fed oyster shells to the laying hens to
prevent “blowouts” of eggs with no shell. Doh!!!
Anyone who has driving along the highways of the US, especially west of the Mississippi, will have seen eagles and hawks , gliding and riding the wind. That’s just a sliver of ribbon. The amount of windmills you pass are uncountable in places. There must be places hundreds of square miles where it’s against your interests to fly as a bird
joe x
April 7, 2022 4:09 am
reguarding musk and twitter…all the hype from the media about free speach being restored makes me skeptical. the acid test will be when deniers start tweeting science, facts and data against the climate jackals climate catastrophe or battery fires.
joe x
April 7, 2022 4:14 am
sorry about not posting a picture but yesterday i saw the new all electric pickup truck from tesla. mysteriously absent was a class 2 trailer hitch.
But as the article says:
“…the trouble will likely be range and recharging. We can only imagine the range depletion that’ll be brought on by towing 10,000 pounds or more in a Cybertruck.”
Oh, and let’s not forget that the need for the “requisite geology” site means to have a large reservoir of water (e.g., lake) at the top and a large reservoir of water (e.g., lake) at the bottom, plus some hundred meters or more vertical separation between those reservoirs to enable the pumped hydro system to be practical, plus an incoming natural water supply (e.g., stream, river or underground aquifer) to replace the natural evaporation of water occurring from both reservoirs.
Can’t find this rather unique combination of conditions to exist naturally in many places around the planet? . . . DIG, BABY, DIG.
And the water bodies must be able to be permitted for the pumped hydro use. Around here, almost all rivers, creeks, lakes, streams and season dribbles of water are protected from alteration or development.
“Coire Glas is a proposed pumped hydro storage scheme with a potential capacity of up to 1500MW. It is the first large-scale pumped storage scheme to be developed in the UK for more than 30 years and would more than double Great Britain’s existing electricity storage capacity.”
Uuumm . . . I don’t see that RLH made any reference to “energy”.
He did reference a capacity in terms of megawatts (MW), and in commonly-used terminology it is quite acceptable to refer to storage “capacity” in terms of peak power level than can be generated by the pumped hydro system.
Nevertheless, stating a 1500 MWh energy capacity suffers the same issues as stating a 1500 MW power delivery capability.
That is, the energy capacity is relatively meaningless if it can only be metered out over, say, 10 days . . . that would equate to an average continuous power output of 6.3 MW per hour.
Similarly, the power capacity is relatively meaningless if it can only be metered out over, say, one hour . . . that would equate to an average continuous power output of 6.3 MW per ten days.
Bottom line: any practical pumped hydro system will be rated for maximum power demand AND maximum energy reserve projected to be needed by the utility company that it is serving.
Wouldn’t be significant if typical traffic, number of stop lights/signs, number of turns, etc., meant that you had to plan on an average speed between your house and the grocery store of, say, 5 mph as opposed to, say, 30 mph.
There is no need for you to reply to this question.
No it wouldn’t – the amount of suitable land required as well as the needed infrastructure makes in prohibitive for the UK. Pumped hydro might work in some places but isn’t a solution for the UK.
I view this rather as a matter of diversification. At a first glance, a positive intention.
But, as you certainly know, nuclear plants are extremely costly, not only at construction time.
*
The dismantling costs of the French breeder Superphénix were estimated at construction time with laughable 300 Mio FRF ( < 50 Mio €). It was decommissioned in 1997 due to permanent leakage of the primary cooling system (based on liquid sodium, the best 4G cooler). The dismantling started in 2007, with a new estimate of… 1.5 G€ [sic]. Targeted end in 2007: 2027; in the meantime, those responsible are no longer even talking about the 2030s.
*
Moreover, the waste these plants generate (about 95 % of the fuel rods plus contaminated residuals of dismantling: core, primary cooling system) probably never will be processed to a secure, final state far below surfaces.
Germany started the search for a really accurate place for very-long-term, final storage of vitrified nuclear waste in the 1970s; all places had to be given up due to their increasing connection to groundwater.
That was around 2004 the first reason to start the nuclear plant shutdown; second was Fukushima Daiishi of course).
*
Additional long term problem: EPRs use MOX fuel with 8% plutonium, resulting in much longer residence times in the pools (50 years instead of 6-8).
*
This rather mitigated view tells: no wonder that after Angela Merkel’s permanent hovering, the new government has decided last year to restart huge wind/solar projects with appropriate backup storage facilities.
What of course was boosted by the Russian invasion of the Ukraine.
The idea of ‘pumped hydro’ doesn’t look bad at a first glance, but… Germany has currently no more than 40 GWh available in the sum!
And due to the demographic pressure (ten times higher than in the US) there is not much place anymore to continue on this path. Anyway, no info about the total surface used until now was available.
*
Heindl’s idea with a giant rock-based storage of course sounds illusory, due to permanent micro-seismic events at may places in Germany (empty coal mines, usage of geothermal energy). Such micro-earthquakes would of course question the tightness of the space between the rock piston and the surrounding rock.
Maybe Germany finally starts building a prototype with 8 GWh in the most stable region. That would be the same amont of energy stored as in the Goldisthal hydro pump storage.
Sorry, John, you misquote the article – we are planning to build ‘up to’ 8 new reactors. 1 is up to 8 and we are unlikely to cancel the one we are building so job done!
fretslider
April 7, 2022 4:50 am
“Where the UK has more exposure to Russia is through our diesel imports. Russia is our biggest foreign supplier, supplying 18 per cent of diesel in 2020.”
Yeah. Might want to recheck that article using other sites – that ‘Royal Navy Ship’ was a civilian tanker truck, on wheels, that a contractor was using to fuel genny’s while working on a ship and the fuel was siphoned, they didn’t try to steal the entire truck. It was in part of the base that was patrolled and made secure by a civilian security firm. Not to detract from a funny story but I think they got a few facts wrong.
Well, to be fair, in your linked article they imply that the thefts were from the ship, not from the truck so I thought it prudent to point out the discrepancy. Your objections are duly noted… I would imagine.
Pat Smith
April 7, 2022 6:20 am
I’ve had a question for a long time which I cannot find answered anywhere. Can anyone help?
It is often written that melting ice will reduce the earth’s albedo, increase warming, leading to more ice melt and so on. Leave aside how little sunlight there is at the polar regions, has anyone done the maths or is there any experimental work showing the relative reflectivity of ice and water? Ice and snow scatter and look white. Water reflects strongly in one direction and looks dark in all others. How do they compare quantitatively?
There is actually very little difference between water and ice/snow in terms of reflectivity or emissivity. What does make a difference in terms of energy balance is that the emission temperature of liquid water is near 0 C or higher while ice/snow will be close to air temperature around -30 C and lower much of the time. Since radiation is proportional to the 4th power of absolute temperature, water radiates more energy than ice/snow. At -40 to -30 C ice will emit energy at about 70 to 75% the rate of open water.
Answers to all of your questions are rather easily found by searching the Web, but in case you don’t have access to a computer for such, and moreover because I had occasion to assemble this information just a week or so ago for a WUWT article comment, here you go:
Earth has a highly variable visible-spectrum albedo (averaging about 0.30 over a year or more, but variable from 0.06 for open ocean water to about 0.1 over dry land with no cloud coverage to about 0.9 over land covered by ice and snow).
Thanks! I guess cloud must be a critical factor otherwise with 70% of the globe’s albedo being at open water 0.06 and most of the rest at 0.1, it would not be possible for the average to be 0.3. Not much cloud over the poles, I think.
Clouds are the primary factor in controlling the planet’s temperature. Those .9 albedo clouds tend to form over where the .1 albedo ocean was yesterday. They are so effective that the CRE nets out to nearly zero, causing otherwise knowledgeable people to think that clouds have little effect or can be ignored. Fortunately we have Willis Eschenbach to show us Ceres data…..
In my previous response to Pat Smith, I intentionally did want to list the albedo of clouds because that is a very complex, highly variable factor that depends on may subtle factors. (My primary reason for stating the value of Earth’s albedo averaged over a year or more.)
For reference, here is how Wikipedia summarizes it: “Cloud albedo on a planet varies from less than 10% to more than 90% and depends on drop sizes, liquid water or ice content, thickness of the cloud, solar zenith angle, etc.”
(see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_albedo )
Notwithstanding this statement, it is absolutely true that the effects of atmospheric clouds (and their variability) in impacting the spatial and temporal variation in lower troposphere temperatures/energy budgets simply cannot be overlooked.
Vikings used what they called a sunstone for navigation because compasses were unreliable and the skies are cloudy frequently. It has variously been claimed to be either iolite/corderite or iceland spar.
Well, that’s true for incoming solar energy, but not true for outgoing LWIR radiation from Earth’s surface. NASA defines albedo thusly: “Albedo is the fraction of light that a surface reflects.”
(see https://mynasadata.larc.nasa.gov/mini-lessonactivity/what-albedo).
LWIR is light at frequencies below those of the visible spectrum, and there is no specification that “albedo” is to be used only for incoming solar radiation, although that is where one most commonly finds the term being used.
Clouds at night greatly affect Earth surface temperatures, even at the poles. As the attached graph show, there is only a relatively slight shift in the blackbody emission spectrum associated with a surface temperature of 210 K (about -80 °F, corresponding to the coldest temperature ever measured at the South pole) compared to a surface temperature of 310 K (about +100 °F, corresponding approximately to average high temperatures seen in the temperate and tropical zones on Earth. And yes, I am quite aware that Earth does not radiate as a perfect blackbody, but more like a greybody (i.e., having an average emissivity less than 1.0); nevertheless the blackbody assumption for Earth’s radiation spectrum at any given temperature is still useful for comparison, as the attached figure shows.
Ever felt the temperature difference between standing outside at night under a clear sky versus standing outside at night under a clouded-over sky? . . . that’s largely due to the albedo of clouds (in the LWIR spectrum) as “seen” from the ground.
Well, please give me a better definition and associated source . . . one that specifically states that the term “albedo” in applicable only to incoming solar radiation at Earth’s surface during daylight.
Pat – I think the answer is that nobody talks about it, because they can’t measure it, and can’t incorporate it in models.
All that I’ve read about albedo is that it assumes all reflection is diffuse, i.e. reflected sunlight goes off equally in all directions, which is essentially true for clouds and snow. Reflection off smooth water and ice is called specular (“mirror-like”) reflection and it arrives at the surface and leaves the surface at the same low angles. As far as I can tell, all the albedo estimates ignore specular reflection.
I have a hypothesis that says the small amount of sunlight leaving the earth due to specular reflection, leaves at such a low angle that not all of it is detected by down-looking satellites, and that this is a partial explanation of the so-called Top-of-Atmosphere imbalance, where they determine that more radiant energy enters the earth-atmosphere system than leaves it (hence global warming and we’re going to blah blah blah).
Not to mention that the TOA energy imbalance (~ 0.7 W/m²) is less than the measurement error of the instruments used (according to Roy Spencer, who should know). It’s the age-old problem of trying to estimate the very small difference between two very large quantities. The problem is even worse when “energy in” and “reflected energy” are short-wave IR, and “energy out” is long-wave IR, and they are measured by different instruments.
“Reflection off smooth water and ice is called specular (“mirror-like”) reflection and it arrives at the surface and leaves the surface at the same low angles. As far as I can tell, all the albedo estimates ignore specular reflection.”
Well, it’s more complicated than that. The sea state (basically the degree of waviness in the ocean surface that results from winds) can easily destroy specular reflection off the ocean surface, thereby driving the water’s effective albedo lower at all view angles. Similarly, any rippled/cracked/ridged ice surfaces—and especially any ice covered with even a light dusting of snow—will have their albedo driven by the diffuse reflectivity induced by these features.
My understanding is that considering average planetary surface conditions, specular reflections off water and ice are more the exception than the rule and, hence, I concur with Smart Rock’s comment that Earth’s surface albedos are generally modeled as diffuse reflectors overall rather than specular in certain areas at certain times.
Well, it’s more complicated than that. The sea state (basically the degree of waviness in the ocean surface that results from winds) can easily destroy specular reflection off the ocean surface, ..
It certainly is “more complicated than that!” The specular reflection isn’t “destroyed” it is simply scattered more that if the surface is flat. Some light rays will be scattered at higher angles and some lower. I haven’t looked at this in detail, so I’m not prepared to claim to know exactly what this does to the overall reflectance over a sun glint patch. It is challenging because the reflectance curve becomes so steep above an angle of incidence of about 60 deg. The larger the angle of incidence, the smoother the surface appears in terms of the reflectance.\
… considering average planetary surface conditions, specular reflections off water and ice are more the exception than the rule …
The limbs of the Earth — local sunrise/sunset — have an angle of incidence of 90 degs and 100% reflectance, everywhere on Earth everyday. The 71% of the Earth’s surface that is the day lit side experiences specular reflection ALL the time it is not covered by clouds. In other words, specular reflection is common, and dominates over diffuse reflection in the open, deep oceans.
1) “Reflection is generally specular when the ‘roughness’ of the surface is smaller than the wavelength used.”
(http://irina.eas.gatech.edu/ATOC5235_2003/Lec5.pdf )
In the solar spectrum the wavelengths range from about 0.2 µm to 3 µm . . . that would be some pretty tiny surface waves.
2) Snell’s law of reflection across transparent media having different refractive indices states that at incidence angles less than a critical angle (the Brewster angle), even perfectly smooth water will have a portion of incoming, unpolarized solar light transmitted into, and thus absorbed by, water. “Brewster’s angle is also known as the polarization angle, and it is the angle of incidence at which an unpolarized EM wave (containing equal amounts of vertical and horizontal polarization, Fig. 2.9) separates into a vertically polarized EM wave that is transmitted through a surface, leaving the surface reflection with only the horizontal components of the incoming radiation. For an incoming vertically polarized EM wave there is no reflection.”
(https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/brewster-angle )
Therefore, it is extremely rare for 100% of solar radiation incident on “smooth” ocean water to undergo specular reflection.
Therefore, it is extremely rare for 100% of solar radiation incident on “smooth” ocean water to undergo specular reflection.
You know not of what you speak! Direct, incoming sunlight is un-polarized. Talking about Brewster’s Angle is a non sequitur. It seems that your idea of what specular reflection is, is different from what physicists use: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specular_reflection
1) Because of the surface tension of water, smoothing it, the reflection is always specular. When there are waves, the specularly reflected light is scattered outside the narrow sheaf that results from a flat surface. It is only when waves are breaking and creating froth that the specular reflection is replaced by diffuse reflection, more appropriate to the proper definition of albedo.
2a) You are confusing two different optical phenomena. The “critical angle” is the angle with complete (100%) internal reflection when a light ray traveling in a transparent substance, with a higher index of refraction, impinges on a boundary with something with a lower index of refraction. That is, when a light ray traveling upward in water hits the surface.
2b) In all cases a light ray traveling in air that hits water, the fraction that is not specularly reflected will refract into the water. That means, for local noon, about 2% of the light is reflected, and 98% enters the water. At an angle of incidence of 90 deg, no light enters the ocean. The reflected light and refracted light vary inversely.
“You know not of what you speak! Direct, incoming sunlight is un-polarized.”
1) I never stated, nor implied, that direct, incoming sunlight is polarized. In fact, I specifically referenced the statement that included “an unpolarized EM wave (containing equal amounts of vertical and horizontal polarization . . .” that originated from the sciencedirect.com webpage that I linked.
2) Actually, it more scientifically accurate to state that incoming sunlight is randomly polarized in all directions normal to the propagation vector of the photons. To the extent each of the random polarization orientations of the many EM waves comprising sunlight can be decomposed into two mutually orthogonal planes (say, x-plane and y-plane), one can indeed refer that being a valid explanation for Snell’s Law and, in turn, the explanation for Brewster’s angle.
A strong drop in temperatures in the southeastern US tomorrow.
Pat Smith
April 7, 2022 6:37 am
While I’m at it, another question. Does anyone know the engineering facts of how electric car batteries take up energy when on charge? Here in the UK, in a few years, we will have about 40 million electric cars. They will have batteries of about 66 kWhrs and charge in about 8 hours. So 40 million at 8 kW = 320GW peak charging. We have a a current grid capacity of about 45 GW, so this is a bit of an issue. They wont all need to recharge everyday; in fact, on current usage they would run down to zero every 10 days and could perhaps be managed to charge over 12 hours so it could be a manageable 25 GW on average all night every night. However, it is unlikely that people will discharge their cars down to zero before recharging – in fact, most (all?) people will plug in when they get home every evening. So we could have 40 million cars plugged in at 6pm (when all the solar panels are tucked up in bed for the night), maybe only needing 45 mins or an hour and a half charging. Do batteries charge linearly or is there an initial surge? Will the home chargers have to limit the amount of charge and time when it takes place during the night to even the national load? What happens if you want to go out later that evening and assume the car is topped up? Anyone with any experience of this?
40 million EVs in UK is not going to happen, to achieve that we would have to double the world’s current production of cobalt and that’s just for the UK. There are lots of other countries led by nutters who have similar goals.We will reach peak cobalt decades possibly centuries before we reach peak oil. There is no infrastructure for charging all those batteries. There are thousands of people who live in a terraced house where the front door opens onto the pavement, where are they going to charge their car. A petrol station can fill hundreds of cars per day from 5 or 6 pumps because each fill up takes minutes. How much space would it take to charge the same number of EVs when it takes hours. Fast chargers may help but it still takes at least ten times the time it takes to fill up with petrol and fast charging knackers your batteries life expectancy. So in my humble opinion there is no way by 2030 or 2035 we will all have EVs.
Hmm and by ‘act’ Zelensky explicitly means to remove Russia entirely – implying an invasion or destruction of Russia as a political entity. Presumably, like all purveyors of simple ideas, he has no idea how to accomplish this, least of all without triggering a nuclear war?
“. . . because in it’s current form the UN is useless.”
The UN in its form over the last twenty years or so, basically since the end of the Gulf War between Iran and Kuwait, 1991-2003, has been essentially useless.
What did the UN do about Russia invading and seizing annexing the Crimean Peninsula in 2014? . . . zip.
Separately, in 2014 the United Nations voted for a resolution that condemns North Korea for the abuse of humans rights and they also suggested the prosecution against North Korean leaders for crimes against humanity at the International Criminal Court. What resulted? . . . zip.
The UN has been useless for far longer than 20 years. It’s been useless for more like 70 years.
The League of Nations was more useful.
RSA
April 7, 2022 10:40 am
Why are the temperature differences often seemed to be referenced to an 1850 or 1880 temperature? This is referred to as pre-industrial times. But we also know, from many posts on this web site, that the global average temperature based on proxies has varied over the last 2000 and even the last 4000 years. Also, the period around 1750 to 1900 was a relatively low temperature period in the record.So I am wondering what if the reference temperature was based on an average over the last 2000 years or even the last 4000 years. What would the temperature anomaly curves for the current period look like? Does this seem like a reasonable approach to anyone?
Mr. Layman here. (Meaning, feel free to dismiss my opinion. I don’t know much but I’m going to comment anyway.)
The actual temperature records using thermometers don’t go back that far. I think the mercury thermometer was invented in 1714. So we have at best one record which might not have even been taken outdoors. It took awhile for many, controlled outdoor measurements to be taken. Remember that word, measurements. Everything before then are proxies and/or historical records minus measurements. We know there was an ice age. We know (despite a tree ring in Yamal) that there were a Minion, a Roman and a Medieval Warm Period. But we don’t have measurements of the temperatures then. We do have some after 1714. But spotty and not always a continuous record. We have some from “The Little Ice Age”. It’s been warming since then.
Returning to what you asked about, “reference temperature was based on an average over the last 2000 years or even the last 4000 years.”, We have no measurements. The best that could be done is a ” temperature range”.
(You guys and gals who aren’t “layman”, feel free to eviscerate what I said and, so enlighten me.8-)
tom hewitt
April 7, 2022 10:50 am
OK, mathematical types! There’s a relationship being discussed now. It’s 5 nanomoles per liter. What would that be in terms that someone could easily understand? Like a number of humans compared to the entire earth’s population. Or the number kernels of corn compared to all the corn kernels in the world.
I’m surprised that with WUWT’s steady flurry of posts nobody got around to posting about Alex Epstein’s battle and for the most part victory with the Washington post:
Batteries are not cheap, and on competing makes of electric vehicles, their replacement quickly comes to rival the cost of the vehicle itself. The battery pack for the Chevy Bolt — which was introduced to Canada in 2017 — currently retails for US$12,341.88 ($15,427.97).
“I have read that there no way to prove the climate change effect of co2 with an experiment. Is this true?”
At the present time, I think it is true, because any experimental proof would depend on our taking accurate and exhaustive measurements of the precise state of the global climate and all its causal parameters at one time and continuously thereafter for a definite time-period over which both the atmospheric CO2 content and the global climate could be observed to change. The current state-of-art of ‘climate science’ is so crude and primitive that we are utterly incapable of taking these essential measurements and therefore I think it is impossible to prove any climate change effect of CO2 experimentally at the present time.
Is there a place to report issues with the website? In firefox for the last 24 hours when I open the page I see it for a second and then the screen goes blank and a text line shows a I assume javascript error:
function(e,t){return new S.fn.init(e,t)}function(e,t){return new S.fn.init(e,t)}
The page opens fine in Chrome.
niceguy
April 11, 2022 7:52 pm
Gemenne, the mediatic French warmista says the French are hopeless on climate:
Dr. Roy Spencer’s site seems to have disappeared.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/
I noticed that this morning, too, Larry, when I was doing my blog rounds. Hopefully it’s an easy fix.
Regards,
Bob
Sites don’t usually just disappear….
It’s online again, I just tested.
I’ve sent an email to Roy to inform him of this fact.
I’m keeping my fingers crossed that this is a temporary glitch and not the result of censorship.
Dr. Spencer’s work is critically important.
solved
Why is it that most ‘cross sections’ from North to South Poles do not, like Mollweide projections, show an ‘equal area’ outcome.
Parallels.png (508×435) (humboldt.edu)
The area between 0Nand 30N is 25% of the area of the Earth. Likewise for 30N to 90N, 0S to 30S and 30S to 90S.
Some presentations do this i.e.
Imgur: The magic of the Internet
but not all.
e.g. I had to ask Willis to do this
Distribution of decaled trends by Latitude from Berkley Earth. | Climate Data and Summaries of the data (wordpress.com)
but I do not understand why this is not more common.
Using a regularly spaced Latitude presentation distorts things as badly as a Mercator projection does which means that the Poles are considerably over represented.
About a month ago there was the WUWT post “Bald Eagle ‘Takings’: Biden’s Interior Department Protects Big Wind”…https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/03/04/bald-eagle-takings-bidens-interior-department-protects-big-wind/
…but yesterday NPR reported that “A wind energy company has pleaded guilty after killing at least 150 eagles” and that they were fined $8 million (chump change):A wind energy company has pleaded guilty after killing at least 150 eagles : NPR
Regards,
Bob
So basically taxpayers are paying a fine to themselves?
Simple solution, close down this particular windmill..
If it is allowed to continue, what then ?
Michael VK5ELL
It’s not only one location, Michael. The fine is based on multiple sites killing eagles.
Regards,
Bob
PS: Can’t wait for it to warm up a little more so I can go out on the water in my kayak and watch bald eagles fish and steal fish from ospreys.
Bob,
3 days ago, I was out fishing on the Gulf Intercoastal and an osprey made a dive and catch about 4 or 5 feet from where I was standing.
I’ve never seen them come so close to people, the ‘people’ in this case being me. All I can figure is that in this bird’s territory, it learned that people don’t seem to be interested in messing with them, so they are free to go about their business.
That was pretty cool!
This lists bald eagle populations for each state.
Unfortunately, it doesn’t have a map. Have any of you
found a map of recent populations? The latest I could
find was 2007. Thanks.
https://wildlifeinformer.com/bald-eagle-population-by-state/
This lists bald eagle populations for each state.
Unfortunately, it doesn’t have a map. Have any of you
found a map of recent populations? The latest I could
find was 2007. Thanks.
https://wildlifeinformer.com/bald-eagle-population-by-state/
The first time I ever saw one was in the late
80s, nesting on a lake I fished. Awesome!
I was a young teen the first time I saw one “in the wild”. Dad took on a camping/fishing/canoe trip north of Ely Minnesota. It was on or near the Canadian border I saw it.
The next time was at work about 15 to 20 years ago at work. I saw at least one or two a year every year since then. Sometimes they’d hang around for up to a month.
Less 10% to BG.
Sheesh! The BG is getting kickbacks from everything.
Thanks, Scissor, you made me laugh.
Regards,
Bob
Sounds like they simply forgot to buy a license from the federal government. An apparently easily obtainable license, because all that is green is sacred.
Also regarding wind turbines, a report that reiterates how wind turbine blades are not recyclable. Instead, they have to be cut up and buried in landfills. See the image in the link below.
https://getpocket.com/explore/item/wind-turbine-blades-can-t-be-recycled-so-they-re-piling-up-in-landfills?utm_source=pocket-newtab
“A wind turbine’s blades can be longer than a Boeing 747 wing, so at the end of their lifespan they can’t just be hauled away. First, you need to saw through the lissome fiberglass using a diamond-encrusted industrial saw to create three pieces small enough to be strapped to a tractor-trailer.
The municipal landfill in Casper, Wyoming, is the final resting place of 870 blades whose days making renewable energy have come to end. The severed fragments look like bleached whale bones nestled against one another.”
Coupled with the report of the wind turbine company that was fined for the 150 bald eagles they killed, the rationale for this contraptions is non-existant. But yet, the persist.
KILL WIND TURBINES, NOT AVIAN WILDLIFE.
CD: I read about this blade disposal issue recently. What struck me was a comment by the disposal company that most of the blades were 8 to 12 years old. It appears the claim of 20+ year life span of wind turbines is just another green fantasy.
Any fan of the UK hit comedy “Only Fools and Horses” will tell you of Triggers broom; he’s had the same broom for 20 years, with 17 new heads and 14 new handles!
Just like The Search For The Magic Battery, there is also The Search For The Magic Turbine Blade.
Rick, if the turbines indeed only last for 8-12 years, I find it difficult to believe that they produce more electrical energy in their lifetimes than the energy it took to mine the raw materials, manufacture and install them on site–not to mention the CO2 the cement base puts out as well.
Seems like the windmills and solar panels are basically just “perpetual motion” devices. They’ll never generate as much power as it took to make them.
Perpetual $Green$ machines. The energy they produce don’t have to pay for themselves as long as the subsidies do.
One of the windmills up on the Ledge E of Lake Winebago is on a
relative’s farm & was built in the mid Oughties. This was before
fracking ruled, cutting oil prices a lot. They also had a peak natty
gas meeting in 2003 making it sound like we were running out of
fossil fuels. It turned out John Fredriksen, a Norwegian billionaire
(with NAT) had bought ~4M bbl of WTI which he kept @ Cushing,
OK pushing WTI to >$140 & gas >$4. (2002 gas <$1). Wind was
actually a viable alternative, as was solar, as a society needs
electricity to exist. With fracking, that’s no longer true!
” Also regarding wind turbines, a report that reiterates how wind turbine blades are not recyclable. Instead, they have to be cut up and buried in landfills. See the image in the link below. ”
Sorry, this might have happened in the US.
In Europe, these – indeed not recyclable – blades are since longer time accepted with open arms by the cement industry as a replacement for more expensive heating sources.
*
150 killed bald eagles are 150 too much. That’s evident.
But all the people putting that in front deliberately ignore that e.g. the US lost during the last decades billions of partly very endangered birds due to
Are birds worthless just because they’re not the nation’s heraldic animal?
Huh?
Bindidon appears to be close but not spot on. There have been reports that some of the reinforced concrete in the HS2 build is using bits of cut up turbine blades instead of steel rebar in the construction. There is a single cement factory in Germany that is using ash from burnt turbine blades for cement but it is burning the blades mostly with fossil fuels – no idea how they are handling toxic chemicals that may be emitted though.
In Europe, these – indeed not recyclable – blades are since longer time accepted with open arms by the cement industry as a replacement for more expensive heating sources.
Those blades are fiberglass, are they not? Do they not emit toxic pollutants when they are burned for heat? Does Europe’s cement industry have sufficient pollution controls to prevent the pollutants from entering the atmosphere?
But all the people putting that in front deliberately ignore that e.g. the US lost during the last decades billions of partly very endangered birds due to….
Billions of birds Bindiron? Billions? Please provide the source for that number. Depending on the species you are talking about, it seems to me that if we in the U.S. had killed that many birds we would not have many left (if any).
But I agree with you that all species of birds have value in nature, and we should minimize the threats to all of them. That is why wind turbines should go.
Monte – cement kilns operate at high enough temperatures that everything organic breaks down into CO2 and other non-pollutants. Cement kilns are where PCBs go to be burned.
Smart Rock, thanks for the info. I didn’t know how hot cement kilns could be. Sounds like a good way to dispose of the blades here in the U.S. instead of burying them in landfills.
Presumably too hot to be powered by renewables?
Never saw a cat kill an endangered raptor.
Maybe the other way around if two of them get into a scrap.
A couple of years ago, a webcam was set up to watch a bald eagle nest. People were horrified when Mom came back with a cat to feed her chicks.
I was wondering if cats (and probably small dogs) for on a bald eagle’s menu.
….were on a bald eagle’s menu.
Billions? If billions were killed then they weren’t “partly very endangered” were they?
https://www.birds.cornell.edu/home/bring-birds-back/
Of course, you all will tell me it’s fudged alarmism, huh?
So are you for or against windmills? Or is it your logic that since cities and vehicles kill, then we should shut those down along with windmills? Or because it happens with “A” we should allow it with “B” too? I’m sure sure stealthy quiet EVs will kill even more birds.
Turning off high rise lights have apparently reduced city bird kills at night, so a little thought plays well. One could fine the building owner for kills, so that he turns high rise lights out. Regarding auto bird kills, a little thought experiment should calm your concern. Think back: how many birds have you killed with your car in the last, say, 30 years. There you go.
In the 1960s, working in Nigeria, my Landover driver hit a large bird on a rural roadway. We had an ugly big roofrack that surprised the bird think. The driver retrieved the bird and threw it in the back. It was Ramadan and this became meat for the table after sunset for him and friends. I suppose if we ate the birds done in by our activities their would less of a moral issue.
Saying that windmills shouldn’t be called out as bird killers because other things kill more birds is like saying the press shouldn’t make a big thing over the Sacramento killers killing 6 people because Jeffery Dahmer killed 17.
Actually how big a deal when 6 is a typical weekend in Chicago? Both are bad, but for some reason mayor lightweight gets a pass.
Cats eat sparrows and robins. Windmills eat eagles and hawks as bindimbulb is well aware
Plus other birds and bats.
Houses need glass windows.
They don’t need windmills.
High voltage power lines were an issue with large birds out west some years ago. They liked to land on the top of the towers. Then when they spread their wings to take off again the wing tips came close enough to the lines to complete the circuit.
(The “insulation” on high-voltage lines is only to protect the metal conductor from the elements.)
Then someone thought to put a perch on top of the high voltage towers for them to land on. No longer a problem.
“Cat attacks eagle”
would be newsworthy – I think.
Typical American nonsense.
Any bird what’s not an eagle doesn’t seem to be worth mentioned.
Keep it simple and stoopid 🙂
IF we MUST have these monsters make them out of recyclable materials.
Let’s just skip the recycle part and not build them at all.
I’m for that.
Surely, there must be some possible uses a smart person could think of for waste W turbine blades. They look like fence posts in the picture all nicely cut up. They seem suitable for the border wall.
I’ve read of obsolete ships being sunk to make artificial reefs. Why not sink the things for the same purpose?
Maybe they’ll finally serve a useful purpose?
I’m not 100% sure they’ll sink.
They’d add toxic pollutants to the oceans.
France used to sink used tires, now France is paying to have those removed from water…
NPR ran their usual “blame DDT” meme on low eagle population in the past.
Steve Milloy’s JunkScience gives information on DDT. A low calcium diet (fish
fillets vs whole fish) was a major contributor not DDT. Every grade school
kid back then knew you always fed oyster shells to the laying hens to
prevent “blowouts” of eggs with no shell. Doh!!!
https://junkscience.com/1999/07/100-things-you-should-know-about-ddt/#ref6
Anyone who has driving along the highways of the US, especially west of the Mississippi, will have seen eagles and hawks , gliding and riding the wind. That’s just a sliver of ribbon. The amount of windmills you pass are uncountable in places. There must be places hundreds of square miles where it’s against your interests to fly as a bird
reguarding musk and twitter…all the hype from the media about free speach being restored makes me skeptical. the acid test will be when deniers start tweeting science, facts and data against the climate jackals climate catastrophe or battery fires.
sorry about not posting a picture but yesterday i saw the new all electric pickup truck from tesla. mysteriously absent was a class 2 trailer hitch.
That might put a hitch in their plans…
From here: https://www.edmunds.com/tesla/cybertruck/
Towing capacity of 7,500 pounds (single-motor) to 14,000 pounds (tri-motor)
But as the article says:
“…the trouble will likely be range and recharging. We can only imagine the range depletion that’ll be brought on by towing 10,000 pounds or more in a Cybertruck.”
You can order a Cybertruck for $100:
https://www.tesla.com/cybertruck/design#payment
“Put a hundred down and buy a truck” (New lyrics for “Do You Know the Way to San Jose”)
(AP) UK to build 8 nuclear reactors amid new energy strategy
https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-boris-johnson-business-europe-london-375b3e41fbe17306381d070111f252a4
That’ll take a few years to have any effect.
Of course— but it is, at least, a recognition (finally) that pinwheels and sunshine aren’t the “answer.”
It would be cheaper and faster to build more pumped hydro to make renewables more efficient.
To rescue wind and solar
Pumped hydro is cheaper overall than batteries.
es
LOL
Now all you’ve got to do is find enough sites with the requisite geology, overcome local opposition, secure permits and commence construction.
Have at it.
Good luck !!
Oh, and let’s not forget that the need for the “requisite geology” site means to have a large reservoir of water (e.g., lake) at the top and a large reservoir of water (e.g., lake) at the bottom, plus some hundred meters or more vertical separation between those reservoirs to enable the pumped hydro system to be practical, plus an incoming natural water supply (e.g., stream, river or underground aquifer) to replace the natural evaporation of water occurring from both reservoirs.
Can’t find this rather unique combination of conditions to exist naturally in many places around the planet? . . . DIG, BABY, DIG.
And the water bodies must be able to be permitted for the pumped hydro use. Around here, almost all rivers, creeks, lakes, streams and season dribbles of water are protected from alteration or development.
Fish, birds, amphibians, mollusks.
Waters of the state. Waters of the US.
“Coire Glas is a proposed pumped hydro storage scheme with a potential capacity of up to 1500MW. It is the first large-scale pumped storage scheme to be developed in the UK for more than 30 years and would more than double Great Britain’s existing electricity storage capacity.”
Energy is not measured in megawatts.
Uuumm . . . I don’t see that RLH made any reference to “energy”.
He did reference a capacity in terms of megawatts (MW), and in commonly-used terminology it is quite acceptable to refer to storage “capacity” in terms of peak power level than can be generated by the pumped hydro system.
Nevertheless, stating a 1500 MWh energy capacity suffers the same issues as stating a 1500 MW power delivery capability.
That is, the energy capacity is relatively meaningless if it can only be metered out over, say, 10 days . . . that would equate to an average continuous power output of 6.3 MW per hour.
Similarly, the power capacity is relatively meaningless if it can only be metered out over, say, one hour . . . that would equate to an average continuous power output of 6.3 MW per ten days.
Bottom line: any practical pumped hydro system will be rated for maximum power demand AND maximum energy reserve projected to be needed by the utility company that it is serving.
So how many miles per hour do you live from your nearest supermarket?
“It is quite acceptable to refer to storage “capacity” in terms of peak power level than can be generated”
It ain’t. Abusing terminology allows lay-people to go on thinking they understand the issues so they go on supporting foolishness like net zero.
Wouldn’t be significant if typical traffic, number of stop lights/signs, number of turns, etc., meant that you had to plan on an average speed between your house and the grocery store of, say, 5 mph as opposed to, say, 30 mph.
There is no need for you to reply to this question.
No it wouldn’t – the amount of suitable land required as well as the needed infrastructure makes in prohibitive for the UK. Pumped hydro might work in some places but isn’t a solution for the UK.
Coire Glas?
I view this rather as a matter of diversification. At a first glance, a positive intention.
But, as you certainly know, nuclear plants are extremely costly, not only at construction time.
*
The dismantling costs of the French breeder Superphénix were estimated at construction time with laughable 300 Mio FRF ( < 50 Mio €). It was decommissioned in 1997 due to permanent leakage of the primary cooling system (based on liquid sodium, the best 4G cooler). The dismantling started in 2007, with a new estimate of… 1.5 G€ [sic]. Targeted end in 2007: 2027; in the meantime, those responsible are no longer even talking about the 2030s.
*
Moreover, the waste these plants generate (about 95 % of the fuel rods plus contaminated residuals of dismantling: core, primary cooling system) probably never will be processed to a secure, final state far below surfaces.
Germany started the search for a really accurate place for very-long-term, final storage of vitrified nuclear waste in the 1970s; all places had to be given up due to their increasing connection to groundwater.
That was around 2004 the first reason to start the nuclear plant shutdown; second was Fukushima Daiishi of course).
*
Additional long term problem: EPRs use MOX fuel with 8% plutonium, resulting in much longer residence times in the pools (50 years instead of 6-8).
*
This rather mitigated view tells: no wonder that after Angela Merkel’s permanent hovering, the new government has decided last year to restart huge wind/solar projects with appropriate backup storage facilities.
What of course was boosted by the Russian invasion of the Ukraine.
“ restart huge wind/solar projects with appropriate backup storage facilities.”
You mean a really, really big battery?
Get back to us when such a thing as an “appropriate backup storage facility” exist.
I’m no specialist in the question.
But at least I know that projects more or less similar to this one will be started soon:
http://eduard-heindl.de/energy-storage/Energiespeicher-Erneuerbare.html
There is an English translation somewhere.
Google Translator helps:
https://tinyurl.com/2p97cxab
You can trust Germany: when it decides to technically move on, it does.
The idea of ‘pumped hydro’ doesn’t look bad at a first glance, but… Germany has currently no more than 40 GWh available in the sum!
And due to the demographic pressure (ten times higher than in the US) there is not much place anymore to continue on this path. Anyway, no info about the total surface used until now was available.
*
Heindl’s idea with a giant rock-based storage of course sounds illusory, due to permanent micro-seismic events at may places in Germany (empty coal mines, usage of geothermal energy). Such micro-earthquakes would of course question the tightness of the space between the rock piston and the surrounding rock.
Maybe Germany finally starts building a prototype with 8 GWh in the most stable region. That would be the same amont of energy stored as in the Goldisthal hydro pump storage.
a few decades
Cue the planning process and the protests…
Sorry, John, you misquote the article – we are planning to build ‘up to’ 8 new reactors. 1 is up to 8 and we are unlikely to cancel the one we are building so job done!
“Where the UK has more exposure to Russia is through our diesel imports. Russia is our biggest foreign supplier, supplying 18 per cent of diesel in 2020.”
https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/04/07/we-need-energy-security-not-net-zero/
Here’s the Thursday Funny
“Thieves have stolen more than £250,000 worth of diesel from a Royal Navy warship in one of the country’s biggest ever fuel heists.
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/250k-diesel-royal-navy-ship-fuel-heist/
Naval security? They say it exists.
Yeah. Might want to recheck that article using other sites – that ‘Royal Navy Ship’ was a civilian tanker truck, on wheels, that a contractor was using to fuel genny’s while working on a ship and the fuel was siphoned, they didn’t try to steal the entire truck. It was in part of the base that was patrolled and made secure by a civilian security firm. Not to detract from a funny story but I think they got a few facts wrong.
Good to know your “thoughts”.
“they didn’t try to steal the entire truck”
How else could it have gone on for weeks? Further glimpses of the bleedin’ obvious lead us nowhere.
Well, to be fair, in your linked article they imply that the thefts were from the ship, not from the truck so I thought it prudent to point out the discrepancy. Your objections are duly noted… I would imagine.
I’ve had a question for a long time which I cannot find answered anywhere. Can anyone help?
It is often written that melting ice will reduce the earth’s albedo, increase warming, leading to more ice melt and so on. Leave aside how little sunlight there is at the polar regions, has anyone done the maths or is there any experimental work showing the relative reflectivity of ice and water? Ice and snow scatter and look white. Water reflects strongly in one direction and looks dark in all others. How do they compare quantitatively?
There is actually very little difference between water and ice/snow in terms of reflectivity or emissivity. What does make a difference in terms of energy balance is that the emission temperature of liquid water is near 0 C or higher while ice/snow will be close to air temperature around -30 C and lower much of the time. Since radiation is proportional to the 4th power of absolute temperature, water radiates more energy than ice/snow. At -40 to -30 C ice will emit energy at about 70 to 75% the rate of open water.
Thanks, Rick. So, if ice melts to form water, it reflects about the same amount of incoming sunlight and emits more IR as it’s warmer.
Answers to all of your questions are rather easily found by searching the Web, but in case you don’t have access to a computer for such, and moreover because I had occasion to assemble this information just a week or so ago for a WUWT article comment, here you go:
Earth has a highly variable visible-spectrum albedo (averaging about 0.30 over a year or more, but variable from 0.06 for open ocean water to about 0.1 over dry land with no cloud coverage to about 0.9 over land covered by ice and snow).
And there is this additional, rather important, fact to consider:
“Generally, increased cloud cover correlates to a higher albedo and a lower absorption of solar energy. Cloud albedo strongly influences the Earth’s energy budget, accounting for approximately half of Earth’s albedo.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_albedo#:~:text=Generally%2C%20increased%20cloud%20cover%20correlates,approximately%20half%20of%20Earth's%20albedo.
Thanks! I guess cloud must be a critical factor otherwise with 70% of the globe’s albedo being at open water 0.06 and most of the rest at 0.1, it would not be possible for the average to be 0.3. Not much cloud over the poles, I think.
Clouds are the primary factor in controlling the planet’s temperature. Those .9 albedo clouds tend to form over where the .1 albedo ocean was yesterday. They are so effective that the CRE nets out to nearly zero, causing otherwise knowledgeable people to think that clouds have little effect or can be ignored. Fortunately we have Willis Eschenbach to show us Ceres data…..
In my previous response to Pat Smith, I intentionally did want to list the albedo of clouds because that is a very complex, highly variable factor that depends on may subtle factors. (My primary reason for stating the value of Earth’s albedo averaged over a year or more.)
For reference, here is how Wikipedia summarizes it:
“Cloud albedo on a planet varies from less than 10% to more than 90% and depends on drop sizes, liquid water or ice content, thickness of the cloud, solar zenith angle, etc.”
(see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_albedo )
Notwithstanding this statement, it is absolutely true that the effects of atmospheric clouds (and their variability) in impacting the spatial and temporal variation in lower troposphere temperatures/energy budgets simply cannot be overlooked.
Vikings used what they called a sunstone for navigation because compasses were unreliable and the skies are cloudy frequently. It has variously been claimed to be either iolite/corderite or iceland spar.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunstone_(medieval)
See the images below for clouds over the North Pole (on left) and over the South Pole (on right).
More prone to occur in their respective summer seasons than in their respective winter seasons, but they do occur.
Well, of course, the sun doesn’t shine over the poles in the Winter, so the Winter ‘albedo’ is irrelevant.
Well, that’s true for incoming solar energy, but not true for outgoing LWIR radiation from Earth’s surface. NASA defines albedo thusly:
“Albedo is the fraction of light that a surface reflects.”
(see https://mynasadata.larc.nasa.gov/mini-lessonactivity/what-albedo).
LWIR is light at frequencies below those of the visible spectrum, and there is no specification that “albedo” is to be used only for incoming solar radiation, although that is where one most commonly finds the term being used.
Clouds at night greatly affect Earth surface temperatures, even at the poles. As the attached graph show, there is only a relatively slight shift in the blackbody emission spectrum associated with a surface temperature of 210 K (about -80 °F, corresponding to the coldest temperature ever measured at the South pole) compared to a surface temperature of 310 K (about +100 °F, corresponding approximately to average high temperatures seen in the temperate and tropical zones on Earth. And yes, I am quite aware that Earth does not radiate as a perfect blackbody, but more like a greybody (i.e., having an average emissivity less than 1.0); nevertheless the blackbody assumption for Earth’s radiation spectrum at any given temperature is still useful for comparison, as the attached figure shows.
Ever felt the temperature difference between standing outside at night under a clear sky versus standing outside at night under a clouded-over sky? . . . that’s largely due to the albedo of clouds (in the LWIR spectrum) as “seen” from the ground.
You actually trust NASA for a fundamental definition from physics?
Well, please give me a better definition and associated source . . . one that specifically states that the term “albedo” in applicable only to incoming solar radiation at Earth’s surface during daylight.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/12/why-albedo-is-the-wrong-measure-of-reflectivity-for-modeling-climate/
Pat – I think the answer is that nobody talks about it, because they can’t measure it, and can’t incorporate it in models.
All that I’ve read about albedo is that it assumes all reflection is diffuse, i.e. reflected sunlight goes off equally in all directions, which is essentially true for clouds and snow. Reflection off smooth water and ice is called specular (“mirror-like”) reflection and it arrives at the surface and leaves the surface at the same low angles. As far as I can tell, all the albedo estimates ignore specular reflection.
I have a hypothesis that says the small amount of sunlight leaving the earth due to specular reflection, leaves at such a low angle that not all of it is detected by down-looking satellites, and that this is a partial explanation of the so-called Top-of-Atmosphere imbalance, where they determine that more radiant energy enters the earth-atmosphere system than leaves it (hence global warming and we’re going to blah blah blah).
Not to mention that the TOA energy imbalance (~ 0.7 W/m²) is less than the measurement error of the instruments used (according to Roy Spencer, who should know). It’s the age-old problem of trying to estimate the very small difference between two very large quantities. The problem is even worse when “energy in” and “reflected energy” are short-wave IR, and “energy out” is long-wave IR, and they are measured by different instruments.
“Reflection off smooth water and ice is called specular (“mirror-like”) reflection and it arrives at the surface and leaves the surface at the same low angles. As far as I can tell, all the albedo estimates ignore specular reflection.”
Well, it’s more complicated than that. The sea state (basically the degree of waviness in the ocean surface that results from winds) can easily destroy specular reflection off the ocean surface, thereby driving the water’s effective albedo lower at all view angles. Similarly, any rippled/cracked/ridged ice surfaces—and especially any ice covered with even a light dusting of snow—will have their albedo driven by the diffuse reflectivity induced by these features.
My understanding is that considering average planetary surface conditions, specular reflections off water and ice are more the exception than the rule and, hence, I concur with Smart Rock’s comment that Earth’s surface albedos are generally modeled as diffuse reflectors overall rather than specular in certain areas at certain times.
It certainly is “more complicated than that!” The specular reflection isn’t “destroyed” it is simply scattered more that if the surface is flat. Some light rays will be scattered at higher angles and some lower. I haven’t looked at this in detail, so I’m not prepared to claim to know exactly what this does to the overall reflectance over a sun glint patch. It is challenging because the reflectance curve becomes so steep above an angle of incidence of about 60 deg. The larger the angle of incidence, the smoother the surface appears in terms of the reflectance.\
The limbs of the Earth — local sunrise/sunset — have an angle of incidence of 90 degs and 100% reflectance, everywhere on Earth everyday. The 71% of the Earth’s surface that is the day lit side experiences specular reflection ALL the time it is not covered by clouds. In other words, specular reflection is common, and dominates over diffuse reflection in the open, deep oceans.
It seems that you missed my link:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/12/why-albedo-is-the-wrong-measure-of-reflectivity-for-modeling-climate/
1) “Reflection is generally specular when the ‘roughness’ of the surface is smaller than the wavelength used.”
(http://irina.eas.gatech.edu/ATOC5235_2003/Lec5.pdf )
In the solar spectrum the wavelengths range from about 0.2 µm to 3 µm . . . that would be some pretty tiny surface waves.
2) Snell’s law of reflection across transparent media having different refractive indices states that at incidence angles less than a critical angle (the Brewster angle), even perfectly smooth water will have a portion of incoming, unpolarized solar light transmitted into, and thus absorbed by, water.
“Brewster’s angle is also known as the polarization angle, and it is the angle of incidence at which an unpolarized EM wave (containing equal amounts of vertical and horizontal polarization, Fig. 2.9) separates into a vertically polarized EM wave that is transmitted through a surface, leaving the surface reflection with only the horizontal components of the incoming radiation. For an incoming vertically polarized EM wave there is no reflection.”
(https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/brewster-angle )
Therefore, it is extremely rare for 100% of solar radiation incident on “smooth” ocean water to undergo specular reflection.
You know not of what you speak! Direct, incoming sunlight is un-polarized. Talking about Brewster’s Angle is a non sequitur. It seems that your idea of what specular reflection is, is different from what physicists use:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specular_reflection
1) Because of the surface tension of water, smoothing it, the reflection is always specular. When there are waves, the specularly reflected light is scattered outside the narrow sheaf that results from a flat surface. It is only when waves are breaking and creating froth that the specular reflection is replaced by diffuse reflection, more appropriate to the proper definition of albedo.
2a) You are confusing two different optical phenomena. The “critical angle” is the angle with complete (100%) internal reflection when a light ray traveling in a transparent substance, with a higher index of refraction, impinges on a boundary with something with a lower index of refraction. That is, when a light ray traveling upward in water hits the surface.
2b) In all cases a light ray traveling in air that hits water, the fraction that is not specularly reflected will refract into the water. That means, for local noon, about 2% of the light is reflected, and 98% enters the water. At an angle of incidence of 90 deg, no light enters the ocean. The reflected light and refracted light vary inversely.
Also, see Fresnel’s Equation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresnel_equations
“You know not of what you speak! Direct, incoming sunlight is un-polarized.”
1) I never stated, nor implied, that direct, incoming sunlight is polarized. In fact, I specifically referenced the statement that included “an unpolarized EM wave (containing equal amounts of vertical and horizontal polarization . . .” that originated from the sciencedirect.com webpage that I linked.
2) Actually, it more scientifically accurate to state that incoming sunlight is randomly polarized in all directions normal to the propagation vector of the photons. To the extent each of the random polarization orientations of the many EM waves comprising sunlight can be decomposed into two mutually orthogonal planes (say, x-plane and y-plane), one can indeed refer that being a valid explanation for Snell’s Law and, in turn, the explanation for Brewster’s angle.
I thought fines regarding wind powered energy generation bird deaths were eliminated. From this story, looks like you have to get a permit first:
https://coloradosun.com/2022/04/06/eagle-deaths-wind-power-esi-energy-nextera-colorado/
A strong drop in temperatures in the southeastern US tomorrow.
While I’m at it, another question. Does anyone know the engineering facts of how electric car batteries take up energy when on charge? Here in the UK, in a few years, we will have about 40 million electric cars. They will have batteries of about 66 kWhrs and charge in about 8 hours. So 40 million at 8 kW = 320GW peak charging. We have a a current grid capacity of about 45 GW, so this is a bit of an issue. They wont all need to recharge everyday; in fact, on current usage they would run down to zero every 10 days and could perhaps be managed to charge over 12 hours so it could be a manageable 25 GW on average all night every night. However, it is unlikely that people will discharge their cars down to zero before recharging – in fact, most (all?) people will plug in when they get home every evening. So we could have 40 million cars plugged in at 6pm (when all the solar panels are tucked up in bed for the night), maybe only needing 45 mins or an hour and a half charging. Do batteries charge linearly or is there an initial surge? Will the home chargers have to limit the amount of charge and time when it takes place during the night to even the national load? What happens if you want to go out later that evening and assume the car is topped up? Anyone with any experience of this?
40 million EVs in UK is not going to happen, to achieve that we would have to double the world’s current production of cobalt and that’s just for the UK. There are lots of other countries led by nutters who have similar goals.We will reach peak cobalt decades possibly centuries before we reach peak oil. There is no infrastructure for charging all those batteries. There are thousands of people who live in a terraced house where the front door opens onto the pavement, where are they going to charge their car. A petrol station can fill hundreds of cars per day from 5 or 6 pumps because each fill up takes minutes. How much space would it take to charge the same number of EVs when it takes hours. Fast chargers may help but it still takes at least ten times the time it takes to fill up with petrol and fast charging knackers your batteries life expectancy. So in my humble opinion there is no way by 2030 or 2035 we will all have EVs.
President Zelensky has asked the UN security council to act or dissolve itself because in it’s current form the UN is useless.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/act-or-dissolve-zelensky-challenges-un-but-ukraine-atrocities-already-pile-pressure-on-russia/ar-AAVYe2X
Hmm and by ‘act’ Zelensky explicitly means to remove Russia entirely – implying an invasion or destruction of Russia as a political entity. Presumably, like all purveyors of simple ideas, he has no idea how to accomplish this, least of all without triggering a nuclear war?
“. . . because in it’s current form the UN is useless.”
The UN in its form over the last twenty years or so, basically since the end of the Gulf War between Iran and Kuwait, 1991-2003, has been essentially useless.
What did the UN do about Russia invading and
seizingannexing the Crimean Peninsula in 2014? . . . zip.Separately, in 2014 the United Nations voted for a resolution that condemns North Korea for the abuse of humans rights and they also suggested the prosecution against North Korean leaders for crimes against humanity at the International Criminal Court. What resulted? . . . zip.
The UN has been useless for far longer than 20 years. It’s been useless for more like 70 years.
The League of Nations was more useful.
Why are the temperature differences often seemed to be referenced to an 1850 or 1880 temperature? This is referred to as pre-industrial times. But we also know, from many posts on this web site, that the global average temperature based on proxies has varied over the last 2000 and even the last 4000 years. Also, the period around 1750 to 1900 was a relatively low temperature period in the record.So I am wondering what if the reference temperature was based on an average over the last 2000 years or even the last 4000 years. What would the temperature anomaly curves for the current period look like? Does this seem like a reasonable approach to anyone?
Mr. Layman here. (Meaning, feel free to dismiss my opinion. I don’t know much but I’m going to comment anyway.)
The actual temperature records using thermometers don’t go back that far. I think the mercury thermometer was invented in 1714. So we have at best one record which might not have even been taken outdoors. It took awhile for many, controlled outdoor measurements to be taken. Remember that word, measurements.
Everything before then are proxies and/or historical records minus measurements.
We know there was an ice age. We know (despite a tree ring in Yamal) that there were a Minion, a Roman and a Medieval Warm Period. But we don’t have measurements of the temperatures then. We do have some after 1714. But spotty and not always a continuous record. We have some from “The Little Ice Age”. It’s been warming since then.
Returning to what you asked about, “reference temperature was based on an average over the last 2000 years or even the last 4000 years.”, We have no measurements. The best that could be done is a ” temperature range”.
(You guys and gals who aren’t “layman”, feel free to eviscerate what I said and, so enlighten me.8-)
OK, mathematical types! There’s a relationship being discussed now. It’s 5 nanomoles per liter. What would that be in terms that someone could easily understand? Like a number of humans compared to the entire earth’s population. Or the number kernels of corn compared to all the corn kernels in the world.
If you want to hear real greenwash listen to Smoking Guns brought to you by the totalled unbiased BBC Radio 4 on 15th April at 2:15 pm UK time.
https://www.bbc.com/mediacentre/proginfo/2022/15/smoking-guns
It will be interesting to hear what they have to say about young Ben’s manipulation of the Summary for Policymakers and his flawed hotspot hypothesis.
I’m surprised that with WUWT’s steady flurry of posts nobody got around to posting about Alex Epstein’s battle and for the most part victory with the Washington post:
https://twitter.com/AlexEpstein/status/1511771747804069888
It is very expensive to replace EV batteries.
A pandemic of insanity:
https://news.yahoo.com/nasa-scientist-arrested-chaining-himself-015532490.html
I have a question. I have read that there no way to prove the climate change effect of co2 with an experiment. Is this true?
The experiment is ongoing with the windmills solar panels and batteries. How do you think it’s going?
Well, you can’t model the atmosphere in a lab experiment. It is diabolical …the whole CO2 story seems to have been designed by a Demon.
Simon asks:
“I have read that there no way to prove the climate change effect of co2 with an experiment. Is this true?”
At the present time, I think it is true, because any experimental proof would depend on our taking accurate and exhaustive measurements of the precise state of the global climate and all its causal parameters at one time and continuously thereafter for a definite time-period over which both the atmospheric CO2 content and the global climate could be observed to change. The current state-of-art of ‘climate science’ is so crude and primitive that we are utterly incapable of taking these essential measurements and therefore I think it is impossible to prove any climate change effect of CO2 experimentally at the present time.
First the edicts and then comes the fat controllers-
Analysis-As tougher climate disclosures hit, campaigners scour for laggards (msn.com)
Slowing Arctic sea ice melt since late March.
Is there a place to report issues with the website? In firefox for the last 24 hours when I open the page I see it for a second and then the screen goes blank and a text line shows a I assume javascript error:
function(e,t){return new S.fn.init(e,t)}function(e,t){return new S.fn.init(e,t)}
The page opens fine in Chrome.
Gemenne, the mediatic French warmista says the French are hopeless on climate:
https://twitter.com/Gemenne/status/1513548973952446468